Should Christians take up arms?

[Seth]

"do not be conformed to this age"

[Shev]

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor[g] and hate your enemy.'  44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,[h]  45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.  46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?  47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors[j] do so?  48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect. (Matthew 5:43-48)

I can't see how this passage could possibly be figurative, and it comes on the heels of 'turn the other cheek' too. To me, Jesus is clearly teaching a new way, a way previously concealed, by which we love and do good to ALL men, not just those who treat us well. It is radical, and it requires a lot of trust, but there it is.  :dsunny:

[Seth]

 :iagree:

[sheila]

 the judaizers of the circumcision group were lusting after the church/bride of Christ........another man's wife. Paul simply stated

  he wished they would take it the rest of the way..and totally pluck their lusting member eyes out.[if thy right eye offend thee..pluck it

out.

[bushy]

Jesus phrases it in a defensive mode: If someone slaps you first, turn the other cheek. If the apostles were facing death every day, why weren't they taking up arms against their attackers? Why were they turning the other cheek?

Simple. They weren't being attacked by criminals trying to rape his wife and kill his children. They were there because they wanted to be there and share good news. If they didn't want to take the abuse and danger any more all they had to do was shut up and start living a regular life making a living. It doesn't compare at all with defending yourself against a mad criminal high on drugs or whatever. Just my opinion.  :URWelcome:

In the early 50's some missionaries went into the jungle in Ecuador to try to contact stone age indians. They counted the cost before going and knew what the dangers were. Their protection didn't include any guns or other weapons because they were willing to take the chance and ended up giving up their lives. Just a more modern day example of what Paul and others were up against. Different from self defence against criminals.

[Seth]

Hi Bushy, I've addressed that concern. The topic "Christians taking up arms" is broad. I'm not saying anyone should stand by while their children are being attacked. But my comments are addressing protection of SELF against enemy and letting God judge the outside world in terms of war, death penalty etc.  :HeartThrob:

[bushy]

I agree with that. Personally I am not going to fight in any of the worlds wars. But also not argue with anyone else that does. I think that maybe you're pushing your point too hard and nobody is really disagreeing with you. But I thought the topic here was mainly self defense. :gimmefive:

By the way, off topic but I'm reading your article on the judgement of the world by the cross and loving it.

[micah7:9]

At this time in my walk, confronted with such a situation where my armed weapons would be of  use, I find that I am not mature enough in my growth in Christ to decide. I, as a protector of my family and myself, question just how much strength I have in my faith and in my Savior. I would hope, that as one poster Shev, mentioned, that I would look up and see (2 Kings 6:14-23). As much as I profess my faith and love for Jesus Christ, I find that there is still a lot of Marine in me. :HeartThrob:

[Seth]

I agree with that. Personally I am not going to fight in any of the worlds wars. But also not argue with anyone else that does. I think that maybe you're pushing your point too hard and nobody is really disagreeing with you. But I thought the topic here was mainly self defense. :gimmefive:

By the way, off topic but I'm reading your article on the judgement of the world by the cross and loving it.

Hi Bushy, sorry if I am coming across hard. I try to use emoticons to communicate my feelings  :gimmefive:

Talking it out is a way to find where we agree and disagree. Concerning protection of one's family, I take about the same stance as James (Jabcat), take it as it comes, each situation is unique. I definitely would not stand by and wait for a kid to be attacked. My first impulse would be to run to the child and cover him and get him out of the situation but I know that all situations are unique so there is no cookie cutter arrangement. 

My issue is more about war and death penalty stuff.

I'm glad you are enjoying the judgment paper. :HeartThrob:

At this time in my walk, confronted with such a situation where my armed weapons would be of  use, I find that I am not mature enough in my growth in Christ to decide. I, as a protector of my family and myself, question just how much strength I have in my faith and in my Savior. I would hope, that as one poster Shev, mentioned, that I would look up and see (2 Kings 6:14-23). As much as I profess my faith and love for Jesus Christ, I find that there is still a lot of Marine in me. :HeartThrob:

I know exactly what you mean. I used to be very patriotic, very pro-war and pro death penalty. I was in big support of the Iraq war. To be honest my own sense of anger rises to the top sometimes and I just want to wipe out ISIS with giant bomb. I'm human. So I have been enjoying your posts here because they capture that struggle that I am also very familiar with.

[eaglesway]

The thing about the literal-first approach, especially how it has been used in this conversation, is that  literal-first is a presupposition, whatever is assumed before reading the text. We all pre-suppose things, some of which the Bible says (i.e. God exists). The problem for me with literal-first is that the scripture never says that. It never says "assume a literal reading first."

To me, that makes it a personal presupposition, and so being, could be wrong. I could be wrong about things too, so not saying people have to be perfect. But in this conversation, evidence based on personal presuppositions, not specifically endorsed by scripture, are not convincing proofs to me that Christ condones violence for the ekklesia. YOU choose to take things literally first? That's fine. I don't. My method is to take every scripture as it comes without assuming anything, look at the context, compare against other scriptures and see if any ideas form from there. Right or wrong, that is my approach, and since the presupposition of literal-first is personal, I don't see why I should incorporate your methodology to accept Revelation and Gehenna examples as proofs for Christ-condoned violence.

Actually, this is what I've been trying to say. Nobody should use ANYBODY elses approach. This a matter within which there is some room for disagreement. No one is trying to convince anyone of anything other than to represent what they believe- what their conscience dictates. I see that Shev and Seth are taking a very literal and comprehensive approach also, but from a different hub of belief. A different core understanding- but that is what they see, and I think it is admirable and totally righteous.

What I have been saying is that at the very least, police(and I like Palinak's "use of force" concept) are sanctioned to use force and a Christian policeman is also admirable and totally righteous.

I feel that way also, but with more reservation and limitation(defense forces and rescue forces) regarding solders who enlist to serve in the armed forces.

I agree that it gets way more fuzzy when it comes to all the possible situational permutations of home and family defense- but for that very reason I will continue to insist that it is a matter of conscience and context.

I think Shev and Seth are nearly literalizing so much as to create law out of a single text with disregard to other text- and they feel the same, I gues, about what I am saying LOLOL

[eaglesway]

BTW, JOCK- you started a GREAT thread  :banana:

[Seth]

I think Shev and Seth are nearly literalizing so much as to create law out of a single text with disregard to other text- and they feel the same, I gues, about what I am saying LOLOL

I don't feel that you are making a law about anything.  :friendstu:

I am simply taking the concept of making a calculated decision of going off to fight in a war, where even children and women are caught in the crossfire and slaughtered, to fight against one's own enemies. and I am ASKING how well does that compare against the scripture? I PERSONALLY feel that it doesn't compare very well. Shev asked for any evidence whatsoever of Christ or the apostles recommending violence or using it. So far, I haven't seen anything of substance to demonstrate that they did. In fact, pretty much everything I have seen in the NT provides instruction to the opposite. That's just me. I'm just saying what I personally see.

The only NT justification I have seen in response to Shev's question is that Gehenna is literal and therefore it's OK not to do good to our enemies sometimes but to kill them. I don't get that and I just personally think it is a major stretch because it relies so much on personal presuppositions of prophetic text rather than relying on simple instructions and concrete examples.

There are things in the Bible that are literal and some that are not. I think it would be interesting for a professed Biblical literalist to take the "turn the other cheek" passages and other passages as anything but literal, but then turn around and take Gehenna as literal. I am only presenting it as a law if I am saying that "it's my way or the highway."  :HeartThrob:

I think I have been very fair in this discussion to phrase my opinions as just that opinions ("I believe," "in my opinion" "from what I see") and I do that genuinely because it IS my opinion. But, I just don't think that defending one's own personal SELF with violence or fighting in a war compares very well from the NT instructions of Christ and the Apostles. I will concede that it compares very well against the actions of Israel in the OT.

BTW, JOCK- you started a GREAT thread  :banana:

:iagree:

[dajomaco]

Let's say you knew of a horrific situation where someone was abusing children.
You go to God in prayer.
You hear on the inside a voice that says don't just keep praying do something.
Take your gun and go over and kill the abuser.
Is this the voice of the Holy Spirit?
Is this the voice of the enemy?

[jabcat]

I would think in that situation i would call the police and/or family services and report it.  then perhaps follow up on it to make sure action was taken to protect the kids.  I'd think going over and killing the person would be a bad option in that scenario, when there were other options available.

on the other hand, if i was walking down the street and saw a man with a huge knife about to slash a child's throat, i'd hope to have the courage to yell at him to stop.  if he did stop, we'd go from there.  if he drew back again to smite her, I'd hope God would guide my nerves, hand, and aim so i could stop him.

maybe i'm responding not quite on your point, if so, plz forgive and clarify.  thanks.

[Seth]

My answer would be about the same. I've done plenty of pre-prayer asking God to use me as he will in a situation like that. Prepare with pre-prayer.  :HeartThrob:

[jabcat]

Thanks Seth.  Complicated topic.   :HeartThrob:

[Tom]

I think that would be murder even though it seems you would be doing some folks a favor. I simply think reading scripture should basically be like reading any other literature in the sense that the language is literal unless it is obviously figurative. Obviously the sword coming out of Christ's mouth is figurative for "the sword of the spirit, which is a declaration of God" (Ephesians 6:19). I think Revelation has both literal and figurative language in it. You could say the whole book is figurative because it's just a guy's vision, but I think prophetic visions can contain both literal and figurative imagery just like our dreams. I also think literal language can have spiritual implications. Everybody has their own interpretation of scripture. Mine has changed over the years, and I try to keep an open mind to change when it seems like a good idea. I enjoy coming to a new understanding of something that I may not have considered before. I think it's foolish to think you have all the answers, and it's wise to listen to other people's interpretations. That's why this forum exists. Scripture is like a gold mine where you can find a new nugget every once in awhile even while looking in a place that you've been many times before. Gehenna is a real geographical location though just outside the wall of Jerusalem that was used to burn the corpses of criminals in the past, and I think it will be used for the same purpose in the future even though some people prefer to interpret it as hell where dead people who are somehow alive will be tortured in fire forever. If you want to believe that, it's your choice, but I don't. I think that's a lie propagated by the Roman Empire to control people with fear. I think Gehenna is a real place expressed in literal language in scripture as a warning to the Jews that they risk being killed for disobeying the law and then having their corpses burned as a spectacle in the city garbage dump to completely dishonor them just as happened in the past. I understand about turning the other cheek and overcoming evil with good, but I wonder just exactly what your plan is in case some armed thugs invade your home with the intention of robbing you and raping your wife and daughters before they kill you so there won't be any witnesses. I prefer to be prepared, and I don't think it's a lack of faith to do so.

[eaglesway]

Let's say you knew of a horrific situation where someone was abusing children.
You go to God in prayer.
You hear on the inside a voice that says don't just keep praying do something.
Take your gun and go over and kill the abuser.
Is this the voice of the Holy Spirit?
Is this the voice of the enemy?

I would say the enemy. Their are many ways to stop soomething besides killing the offender. I would expect the Spirit of God to be more creative, like "confront the situation to stop it, call the police, call child protective services- etc.

[jabcat]

Agree Tom and John.

It occurs to me this could another aspect of said situation;  if he stopped preparing to kill the child (or potentially/likely kill her) and turned and came at me with the knife to kill me, maybe i should just let him do it.  but I personally don't think so.  i'd try to avoid him, yell at him to stop etc., but honestly and bottom line, if i PERSONALLY saw no other means of escape, I'd probably shoot him, and feel it was justified.  I'd hate it and regret it, but I think it would be lawful and justified. 

  This may be total non-sequitur, does it/should it make a difference one way or another?   But another thing I consider is, and is just another layer to this whole thing perhaps  :dontknow:;  what if I was in a situation where I was specifically discussing with someone to share or stand for the Good News and they attacked me for my faith.  I honestly believe I would take abuse and keep trying to reason and witness with them.  At SOME POINT though, if they just kept coming at me and were about to kill me?  I'm just being honest here - I don't know if I'd submit to the death even in that situation, or if as a last resort I would protect myself.  But i think I probably would protect myself as a last resort.  I think this just shows how complicated this is and each must answer to his own conscience about what his limits and possibilities are.  Someone else may do it totally different than that, and that's OK, as long as I'd hope they stayed within the law of the land and within God's Law, which says "do not murder [unjust killing]". 

:happy3:

[Psalm91:4]

For home/family protection, I think having a loyal & loving dog would be the way to go:

http://www.cesarsway.com/dogbehavior/top-10-dog-breeds-for-protection


:dsunny:

Library's closing and that's all I have time for!  But so enjoying this thread.   :HeartThrob:

[joeteekay]

My reply

I am sorry but it seems like this topic has been beaten to death (without pistols, shotguns, bazookas, and what ever).
When it gets to personal opinions and " what I would do if" it is of some interest, but of  little value to me. Sorry bout that.
IMO Just me   :bdh:

[eaglesway]

In your scenario James, I could see God asking me to die with the child. I could also see God asking me to save the child by resisting and overcoming the predator. Only God knows the reasons He saves one, and allows another to die. Happens all the time.

[Tom]

James, I was referring to the former situation being murder. I think, in the situation you described, you would be justified in shooting the guy to protect the child. I just hope you have a good lawyer because his family will try to bankrupt you in civil court even if you get off in criminal court. That's the only thing I'm really concerned with involving self-defense or the defense of other innocents that you have the power to protect.

[Tom]

I used to raise pit bulls, and they're good dogs for protection and very loyal. But the problem is that one bullet can kill a dog, and a magazine full of bullets can take out several thugs.

[jabcat]

My reply

I am sorry but it seems like this topic has been beaten to death (without pistols, shotguns, bazookas, and what ever).
When it gets to personal opinions and " what I would do if" it is of some interest, but of  little value to me. Sorry bout that.
IMO Just me   :bdh:

i usually tire of minutiae, and had backed out of the thread for awhile.  I guess I just allowed myself to get caught up in what you describe above.  However, there actually are many variations and possibilities of this, and I guess it's part of a discussion forum for folks to express their feelings and personal opinions.  But I had actually typed myself and then erased it, that maybe we were making this whole thing too complicated;  as it seems to boil down to what's already been stated - each one's conscience before God, taking into account any clear scripture. 

Like most things - one can find numerous points of view on this other topics, all saying we're getting our opinion from scripture.  Discernment and each seeking God's will.   :2c: