Sentences with phrase «not as a sword»

In short, the local control argument functioned as a shield to sustain state policy, not as a sword to alter policy in the direction of more local control.

And there's a saying among lawyers, is used as something as a shield, not as a sword.

Not exact matches

Sessions himself has said a «properly exercised» Civil Rights Division «provides tremendous benefit to American citizens» but should not be used as «a sword to assert inappropriate claims that have the effect of promoting political agendas.»

Sapp says he's loath to use his veto power «as a sword,» and Ncom employees confirm that management meddling hasn't been a problem so far.

As a result, some top Chinese leaders have urged party officials «not to hesitate to show their sword» — a phrase that, in Chinese, means using violence against one's opponent.

While British Columbia's reference of the jurisdictional issue was a smart move, it might not have maximized the impact of other legal tools, specifically using B.C.'s constitutionally imposed obligations to consult and accommodate First Nations as both a sword and a shield.

The general working theory for Christian missionaries was first formalized in St. Augustine's doctrine of «cognite intrare», or «compel them to enter», but was perhaps best summed up by J. C. Warner some 1500 years later: ``... the sword must first — not exterminate them, but — break them up as tribes, and destroy their political existence; after which, when thus set free from the shackles by which they are bound, civilisation and Christianity will no doubt make rapid progress among them.»

In fact, they would have» beaten their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning shears» and as a result, «they will not lift up sword, nation against nation, neither will they learn war anymore.»

If you were a real Christian you would know Christs words speak for themselves and the fact that he didn't take the sword away and turn it into a pruning shear right then and there does not mean he was saying «I mean all this stuff is for later after I come back and kill all the evil people and those who haven't accepted me as their savior so you won't have to fear anyone so you can finally give up your guns and weapons of war...» You disgust me chad.

Not sure if you were referring in your second post to my reference of the sword as an incongruent weapon.

It is thus seen that Islam has not allowed divorce in order that a man may use the threat of divorce as a sword which he waves in the woman's face.

Or, I wonder how many non-believers were killed by the Christian sword because they didn't share the same ideology as they?

Well it was not Islam only spread by the sword unless you want to claim that crusaders were Muslims as well?

Though we do not see how our actions might affect the future, though we may not receive our inheritance right now, though we might go through persecution and trials and nakedness and danger and sword, if we just put our faith in God, as we keep our eyes on Jesus, «Keep the Son in our eyes,» as we, like Peter, keep our eyes on Jesus rather than on the rolling waves around us, we will walk by faith.

To Bonhoeffer, the Bible was meant «to be expounded as a witness, not as a book of wisdom, a teaching book, a book of eternal truth» (No Rusty Swords, p. 118).

He did not wear a crown, or carry a sword as most royal persons would have done.

However they were not mentioned as the Military version or the civilian version, and there was no mention that military style swords were more deadly than other styles of swords or spears!

And far from taking up the sword and calling angels to defend Him against His enemies, Jesus told His followers to put away their sword (Matt 26:51), and did not call legions of angels as protection (Matt 26:53).

In the list of spiritual armor, we read about the sword, but as we will see when we study that item, it was a short sword used primarily for defense, not offense.

1 Corinthians 11:14 (Men should not have long hair) 1 Corinthians 14:34 - 35 (Women should remain silent in church) Deuteronomy 13:6 - 16 (Death penalty for Apostasy) Deuteronomy 20:10 - 14 (Attack city, kill all men, keep women, children as spoils of war) Deuteronomy 21:18 - 21 (Death penalty for a rebellious son) Deuteronomy 22:19 - 25 (Kill non - virgin / kill adulterers / rapists) Ecclesiastes 1:18 (Knowledge is bad) Exodus 21:1 - 7 (Rules for buying slaves) Exodus 35:2 (Death for working on the Sabbath) Ezekiel 9:5 - 6 (Murder women / children) Genesis 1:3,4,5,11,12,16 (God creates light, night and day, plants grow, before creating sun) Genesis 3:16 (Man shall rule over woman) Jeremiah 19:9 (Cannibalism) John 3:18 (He who believes in Jesus is saved, he that doesn't is condemned) John 5:46 - 47 (Jesus references Old Testament) Leviticus 3:1 - 17 (Procedure for animal sacrifice) Leviticus 19:19 (No mixed fabrics in clothing) Leviticus 19:27 (Don't trim hair or beard) Leviticus 19:28 (No tattoos) Leviticus 20:9 (Death for cursing father or mother) Leviticus 20:10 (Death for adultery) Leviticus 20:13 (Death for gay men) Leviticus 21:17 - 23 (Ugly people, lame, dwarfs, not welcome on altar) Leviticus 25:45 (Strangers can be bought as slaves) Luke 12:33 (Sell your possessions, and give to the poor) Luke 14:26 (You must hate your family and yourself to follow Jesus) Mark 10:11 - 12 (Leaving your spouse for another is adultery) Mark 10:21 - 22 (Sell your possessions and give to the poor) Mark 10:24 - 25 (Next to impossible for rich to get into heaven) Mark 16:15 - 16 (Those who hear the gospel and don't believe go to hell) Matthew 5:17 - 19 (Jesus says he has come to enforce the laws of the Old Testament) Matthew 6:5 - 6 (Pray in secret) Matthew 6:18 (Fast for Lent in secret) Matthew 9:12 (The healthy don't need a doctor, the sick do) Matthew 10:34 - 37 (Jesus comes with sword, turns families against each other, those that love family more than him are not worthy) Matthew 12:30 (If you're not with Jesus, you're against him) Matthew 15:4 (Death for not honouring your father and mother) Matthew 22:29 (Jesus references Old Testament) Matthew 24:37 (Jesus references Old Testament) Numbers 14:18 (Following generations blamed for the sins of previous ones) Psalms 137:9 (Violence against children) Revelation 6:13 (The stars fell to earth like figs) Revelation 21:8 (Unbelievers, among others, go to hell) 1 Timothy 2:11 - 12 (Women subordinate and must remain silent) 1 Timothy 5:8 (If you don't provide for your family, you are an infidel)

The government, as Paul said, does not bear the sword in vain.

See, that is the case here, at least for me, how do Christians practice their faith, is it as a true belief in a Christ, or as a sword to condemn and chop away at those who do not believe as they do?

We know that «Science as the only begetter of truth» falls on its own sword, for science can not beget the truth that science is the only begetter of truth.

Insofar as the need for defense provides just cause for public use of the sword, it comes from the responsibility of government to protect order, justice, and peace, not simply from the right to respond to an attacker in kind.

If, as I think orthodox Christianity ultimately teaches, and as Solzhenitsyn's «Father Severyan» plainly teaches in November 1916 (excerpted here), that humans are inherently prone to violence (and that the lesser evil of state - derived war is the price we pay for living not in anarchy but in «sword - bearing» states), then not only is 1) contrary to the New Testament's real teaching, but 2) is impossible and 3) requires a coercion that will bring with it very deleterious consequences.

When Yeshua, Jesus Christ comes again, He will not come as a suffering saviour, but as a MIGHTY Warrior, who will slay the wicked by the sword of His mouth.

With the knowledge of Enlightenment thought as a double - edged sword, the FF realized that the ONLY way we could have universal rights that were not subject to debate was to establish them as Divine in origin.

Wahabists slogan is this» We can not fight as we fought to spread Islam before by sword, we'll fight with diplomatic sword to take over the west».

They are the fundamentalists or purists of the faith, and believe in their mohammad's mandate to spread Islamic rule by the sword, putting to death those who will not «submit nor surrender», as per the definition of the word «muslim».

The State bears the sword, and at the best, as seen in Romans XIII, it does not wield it in vain.

So, again, intervention of some sort strikes me as a no - brainer, but the manner by which we intervene must be faithful to the way of the cross, not the way of the sword.

Muslims can not be counted as worshiping «the only true God», for they fail to use his personal name, Jehovah, but use the Aramaic word Allah, meaning «the God» and are as mixed with the «world» and violence as are the churches of Christendom and Jews, not having» beaten their swords into plowshares and spears into pruning shears» whereby «nation will not lift sword against nation, neither will they learn war anymore».

But unfortunately, as her philosophy dictates, she was very short sighted and did not see the other end of the double edged sword.

But he has left something out: namely, he does not believe that the will in itself is, or indeed should be, the most solid of all, that it should be as hard as the sword that could hew stone, and yet be so soft that it could be wrapped around the body.

It is depressing that humankind has not yet learned to beat swords into plowshares, but while the world remains in this fallen condition, it is just as well that our soldiers are not taught to love those against whom they must fight.

So with that in mind, it is as Harry Ironside has said: «The Bible is not the sword of the Spirit, it is the armory.

Since the Word of God is described as a double - edged sword which man can not control, Bonhoeffer's view seems out of character with his overall position.

Dante, weep not for Vergil's going — keep As yet from weeping, weep not yet, for soon Another sword shall give thee cause to weep...

At the beginning, Yahweh is pictured, not only as indignant at man's eating of the «tree of the knowledge of good and evil» (Genesis 2:9) and so becoming conscious of sin, but as being anxious lest man should «take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever,» and, in order to guard against this event, man is driven from Eden and its gates are guarded by «the flame of a sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.»

No lesser a Christian than Martin Luther understood our predicament: Anyone, he wrote in ìOn Temporal Authority, î who tried ìto rule the world by the gospel and to abolish all temporal law and the sword on the plea that all are baptized and Christian, and that, according to the gospel, there shall be among them no law or sword» or the need for either»... would be loosing the ropes and chains of the savage wild beasts and letting them bite and mangle everyone, meanwhile insisting that they were harmless, tame, and gentle creatures; but I would have the proof in my wounds.î I do not believe that Hauerwas sees America's enemies as harmless, tame, and gentle creatures.

the context of the whole narrative suggests to me that Jesus is saying in effect...» get a sword, becuz without one, what is about to happen will not be fulfilled»... these details seem to be important to the gospel writers... as well.compare Matthew's version of the story where the response suggests more non-violence...»» Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

What is remarkable in these theological constructions is that they do not retain the biblical perspective which sees the state as ordained by God, in harmony with the divine order, and at the same time as the Beast of the Abyss, the Great Babylon; as wielder of the sword to chastise the wicked and protect the good, but also as the source of persecution and injustice.

There are a couple things to note about this instruction from Jesus which shows us that the instructions of Jesus to His disciples to buy a sword can not in any way be viewed as an endorsement from Jesus of gun ownership.

I am not trying to sweep the violence of Scripture under the rug and ignore it, but when God's angels start pulling out their swords to hack people to pieces (as in the scene with Sodom and Gomorrah), it's a little too much.

Jesus told His disciples to buy swords, not so that they would use them, but as a fulfillment of prophecy so that they would have the appearance of being transgressors.

As it says: «Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore.»

The rest support unnecessary mass - murder and torture for profit based on lies as in the War of Choice in Iraq in direct contradiction to the spirit and literal teachings of Jesus (turn the other cheek, blessed are the peacemakers, love your enemies, repay evil with good, he who lives by the sword will die by the sword, forgive seventy times seven, thou shalt not kill, etc.).

I often puzzled over Jesus command here to go and buy a sword, and am not entirely convinced by your explanation, Jeremy, though it is certainly more plausible than the acceptance of His instruction as a right to own weapons.

Only not armed with automatic weapons as the Muslims are, but rather with the Word of God which is sharper than any two edged sword, or any weapon known to man.

If there was any other book claiming to be the authority on everything that you kept having to make excuses for like «Well, that part is ment as an allegory» or «God years are different than man years» or «Well, its says to not eat shelfish or pork in the hebrew scriptures, but apparently God changed his mind later, but that part about ga y's stays» I don't think anyone would have given it a second look had it not been at the point of a sword.