I live in the UK and guns are very much black market here. However, I lived in the States (Oregon) for 14 years and I have many friends in Michigan who are all Christians and who have a whole arsenal of weapons. Personally, I have some air guns which have a limited effect. However, I see no harm in a man having a shot gun to protect his family.
What say you?
Regards
Jock.
I look to the example of Abraham, who was a peaceful man, but when a family member was at risk, he roused up all the men of his household, and they spilled buckets of blood.
I believe in taking up arms for the purpose of self defense
CCW :)
Protection of the innocent.
Quote from: jabcat on March 07, 2015, 07:40:38 PM
CCW :)
Protection of the innocent.
"CCW"? Counterclockwise?
concealed carry weapon......
But Jesus said to him, "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? (Matthew 26:52-53)
Jesus is not only forbidding physical violence here, but putting the emphasis onto the reality of God's strength. On other words, if we trust God is able to protect us, why do we need to protect ourselves?
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'[f]- 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. (Matthew 5:38-39)
Jesus clearly says here "I tell you not to resist an evil person." I am not sure what can be added to that!
Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here." (John 18:36)
Jesus shows that His kingdom is not of this world, so then neither do His servants fight.
For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, 5 casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, 6 and being ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled. (2 Corinthians 10:4-6)
Paul above asserts that our weapons are NOT carnal, but spiritual.
I don't believe in any armament other than God Himself, and this is part of walking by faith. I find that the physical violence question is a lot like tithing, inasmuch as any scriptures used as justification are from the OT. I also find that people rationalize the need for violence, usually saying something along the lines of "well, what if someone was going to hurt your wife?" To me this very thought is a lack of faith, as it is envisioning something that is not a reality, in order to justify something that is not scriptural.
Ultimately, we are ministers of Life, not Death. There comes a time when God may release His mighty hand of protection, and we may indeed be martyred. But far be it from me to even entertain the thought of doing harm to another man, wicked or not.
I truly believe that if Jesus sanctioned violence, He would have left us an example in His life to follow, or even in the life of the apostles after they were filled with the Spirit. But did Jesus resist the violence of the Jews or Roman guards? Did Paul punch and kick on any of the multiple times he was arrested, or did any of his friends jump in with sword in hand? Did Stephen rise up and throw stones back at his accusers, or did he rather echo the words of His blessed Lord?
"Do not hold this sin against them!"
You make a lot of interesting points. Generally, I certainly believe we should walk by faith, trusting God to protect. I also believe He may provide various means for that to occur.
I don't believe we should live by the sword, as in, go around looking for trouble, illegally and immorally attempting to hurt people. Remember the words of Jesus also, when He said "if you don't have a sword, buy one". As far as Jesus not fighting back; Jesus' mission was specific. He was GOING to die, GIVING UP His life. That was the plan.
I personally am not "an authority" as spoken of by Paul. However, I believe there's a bigger discussion to be had about being in a position to protect oneself and even more importantly, others in their care. Paul said "for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil." Also, yes it is OT, but there is a scripture along the lines of entering someone's house illegally, and that one is bringing danger upon himself. (Little "random" thought; is it a lack of faith to lock ones' doors?)
If anyone doesn't believe they should carry or own a weapon, especially if it bothers their conscience, I don't believe they should be badgered about it. However, I do believe it is a matter of conscience; involving one's desires (do I just want to hurt or "get" someone), their intentions, attitudes, behavior, etc. I can see the objection. I can also see the side of trusting God in all things, but also realizing He may provide a reasonable means (varying by individual) to accomplish certain things. (similar to carrying money but knowing God meets our needs. Or praying for healing but still going to a doctor or hospital). Is going to the doctor a lack of faith? It might be. But it also might be a person trusting God, but also knowing He may send the right doctor, right medicine etc.; or, just miraculously intervene without man lifting a finger. ("every good and perfect gift is from God").
I know there are others who don't believe in physically protecting self, family, or other innocents'. But I've had the thought re: if a person doesn't believe in carrying protection and I was with them and their family. If they were attacked, God might just show up with a big old angel and remedy the situation right off, which would of course be tremendous. Otherwise, I would hope God would provide the means for me to be able to take action to help protect them in their innocence Then we could argue about the moralities of it later if they wished. :)
Again, I think everyone should take it before the Lord, in their own conscience; taking into account ALL relevant scriptures, and each do as they need to do. God bless.
For it does not bear the sword for nothing. A minister of God to bring wrath on the one who practices evil.
That sounds like an apt description of Babylon to me. God used them for the same purpose on Israel. But I wouldnt want to be a Babylonian soldier. They themselves were judged too. I don't think Paul said that as a way to encourage participation in that wrath, but to be bearers of love and peace. I do believe it was Christs plan and his mission to not fight back. But I think it was also his mission to conform us to his image in this life. I think Paul many times told the church not to fight against evil in the way of the world.
I'm not sure about shotguns to protect the home. I choose not to have one personally. But as far as joining the army to fight a war, I'm totally against it for myself, and I don't think it coincides with what the ekklesia is meant to be and do as a contrasting entity to the rest of the world. :HeartThrob:
Quote from: jabcat on March 08, 2015, 03:52:46 AM
You make a lot of interesting points. Generally, I certainly believe we should walk by faith, trusting God to protect. I also believe He may provide various means for that to occur.
I don't believe we should live by the sword, as in, go around looking for trouble, illegally and immorally attempting to hurt people. Remember the words of Jesus also, when He said "if you don't have a sword, buy one". As far as Jesus not fighting back; Jesus' mission was specific. He was GOING to die, GIVING UP His life. That was the plan.
I personally am not "an authority" as spoken of by Paul. However, I believe there's a bigger discussion to be had about being in a position to protect oneself and even more importantly, others in their care. Paul said "for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil." Also, yes it is OT, but there is a scripture along the lines of entering someone's house illegally, and that one is bringing danger upon himself. (Little "random" thought; is it a lack of faith to lock ones' doors?)
If anyone doesn't believe they should carry or own a weapon, especially if it bothers their conscience, I don't believe they should be badgered about it. However, I do believe it is a matter of conscience; involving one's desires (do I just want to hurt or "get" someone), their intentions, attitudes, behavior, etc. I can see the objection. I can also see the side of trusting God in all things, but also realizing He may provide a reasonable means (varying by individual) to accomplish certain things. (similar to carrying money but knowing God meets our needs. Or praying for healing but still going to a doctor or hospital). Is going to the doctor a lack of faith? It might be. But it also might be a person trusting God, but also knowing He may send the right doctor, right medicine etc.; or, just miraculously intervene without man lifting a finger. ("every good and perfect gift is from God").
I know there are others who don't believe in physically protecting self, family, or other innocents'. But I've had the thought re: if a person doesn't believe in carrying protection and I was with them and their family. If they were attacked, God might just show up with a big old angel and remedy the situation right off, which would of course be tremendous. Otherwise, I would hope God would provide the means for me to be able to take action to help protect them in their innocence Then we could argue about the moralities of it later if they wished. :)
Again, I think everyone should take it before the Lord, in their own conscience; taking into account ALL relevant scriptures, and each do as they need to do. God bless.
Wise words James. Often when thinking about this topic and when discussing it with others I always think of:
Mat_5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Luk_6:27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
I believe this but the challenge of how to respond to someone who says if Your wife or children are about to be shot in front of you, what do you do? Shoot them first? Pray? Do both? I pray that none of us are put into that position. Sometimes I say I will take the bullet. But so what. Bottom line : all is of God
A few related, scattered thoughts on Seth's post;
I wouldn't go to war if it was strictly a war of aggression. I wonder (and have changed a little on this lately) if there might be a war with a "righteous" cause, strictly protecting a people who were "innocent" and could not protect themselves..maybe. :Chinscratch: I WOULD fight to protect our own country from invasion, and especially my own household. My preference would be to flee/hide if I could, live in an isolated/protected area out of harm's way, but that may not always be reasonable/feasible. Especially with family and extended family (children, grandchildren). I honestly am sure I couldn't stand, pray and passively watch while my family (or other innocent) was being molested, even though I believe in prayer. With God's help, I'd more likely be trying to end the threat to my loved ones (perhaps while whispering a prayer for help).
Thanks Joe, I appreciate it. I've had to look at my own attitudes and motives, and have been led to pray that God would let me never have to shoot anyone. Do I have the means? Yes. I may someday be in a position where shooting someone might protect an innocent person. If so, then the prayer might have been so I would have the right attitude and motive; i.e., not desiring to hurt others, take vengeance, live by the sword.
Also, I believe in turning the other cheek. However, I personally see this as being willing to take insult, ridicule, be done wrong etc. without [literally or] figuratively "taking a brother to court". Be willing to be wronged. Even in a non-life-threatening situation, literally taking a slap without fighting back. However - at some point (and judgment and discernment is a must) - I would likely protect myself. But especially, others. I think I'd find it easier to even be physically harmed or killed if it was just me. But again, those within my trust and care? I'm afraid I'd have to wield the sword in an attempt to protect them. Not avenge them, but protect them if possible.
Anyway, each to his conscience and leading. :2c:
Each to his own conscience and leading, yes. I think it is a very difficult question to generalize. I think police bear arms for good reason in a civilized country. I think defense forces are sanctioned by God. I think it gets real dicey when it gets broken down beyond that point and highly individual to the situation and ones convictions. I personally would defend my family, or an innocent victim of violence or an endangered child if I had the means, but I also have a lot of respect for someone who says they will not use violence for any reason.
I would not respond to persecution with violence, by God's grace, I hope.
Quote from: eaglesway on March 08, 2015, 05:46:51 AM
Each to his own conscience and leading, yes. I think it is a very difficult question to generalize. I think police bear arms for good reason in a civilized country. I think defense forces are sanctioned by God. I think it gets real dicey when it gets broken down beyond that point and highly individual to the situation and ones convictions. I personally would defend my family, or an innocent victim of violence or an endangered child if I had the means, but I also have a lot of respect for someone who says they will not use violence for any reason.
I would not respond to persecution with violence, by God's grace, I hope.
:thumbsup:
The source of my reasoning concerning war and why I wouldn't even fight invasion, is because I don't think of myself in terms of being American. Technically I am an American citizen and I intellectually appreciate the wisdom in the Constitution, but if I am ever faced with a choice between my weapons of war being carnal or not carnal, I choose the latter. Redefining my citizenship has allowed me to do that while reconciling the fact that if America wanted to survive it would have to fight. But I don't have to be involved. I can be a totally unabashed passfist without irony.
This has been a long journey for me because I used to be staunchly patriotic. And some people would be angry and sarcastically ask what about the men who died to give me the freedom to even say that. My answer is that James says that all good things are from God. As much as he chose to form me in the womb of my American mother, he also formed people in despotic regimes.
God is involved and all good things come from him, so I can honestly say that while I don't have any cruel thing to say to a soldier who fought in American wars, I also don't credit them as the source for my freedom. That came from God and again he is involved in the political schema of this world.
Since I believe I am a stranger in a strange land, I have no need to fight in the army of any foreign nation. But just as Eaglesway said, these are my beliefs, and I don't know if I have the guts to back them up and stand on them when the time came. I depend wholly on grace for that because I am a weak human being in my own self.
Quote from: Seth on March 08, 2015, 04:10:25 AM
For it does not bear the sword for nothing. A minister of God to bring wrath on the one who practices evil.
That sounds like Babylon to me. God used them for the same purpose on Israel. But I wouldnt want to be a Babylonian soldier. They themselves were judged too. I don't think Paul said that as a way to encourage participation in that wrath, but to be bearers of love and peace. I do believe it was Christs plan and his mission to not fight back. But I think it was also his mission to conform us to his image in this life. I think Paul many times told the church not to fight against evil in the way of the world.
I'm not sure about shotguns to protect the home. I choose not to have one personally. But as far as joining the army to fight a war, I'm totally against it for myself, and I don't think it coincides with what the ekklesia is meant to be and do as a contrasting entity to the rest of the world. :HeartThrob:
I never kept a gun because I had three sons and the possibilities were just too worrisome. I think more people are killed when the wrong person in the house at the wrong time(drunk, angry, etc) grabs the gun that was meant for protection and shoots someone in the house, than get killed trying to break into a house, so I consider keeping a gun a dubious protection. Good locks, alarms, a baseball bat are probably more effective. Not to many people get shot by burglars. Lots of people get shot by angry family members or children playing etc.
I do not think Paul's words could be considered "Babylon" tho. All scripture is God-breathed and profitable for edification and instruction. But Paul was only talking about the established forms of law enforcement- not keeping a gun in the house :o)
I have always prayed for the protection of the Lord over my home and my family and friends homes. Thank God He has been faithful. But I always kept a billy club or a bat around, just in case. ;o)
About Paul's words. I meant that his description sounded like something Babylon would be, a method for God to execute judgement by the sword. But that doesn't mean I would want to be holding that sword. I didn't mean that Paul's words sounded like Babylon. Hope that clarifies. I also edited the post to reflect. :HeartThrob:
Loving to hear all the perspectives. It's a very difficult issue.
Quote from: Shev on March 08, 2015, 03:25:06 AM
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'[f]- 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. (Matthew 5:38-39)
Jesus clearly says here "I tell you not to resist an evil person." I am not sure what can be added to that!
I think a lot can be added. Mentioning left and right has a special meaning beyond getting hit. Far more than pacifism. More like challenging. A cultural meaning.
I also think the "evil person" isn't a real criminal but that annoying neighbor who dumps his trash on your lawn.
While Jesus said not to use the sword, we must not overlook the fact that they
did carry a sword. Jesus even orders to buy a sword.
Luke 22:36 He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
Exodus 22:2-3, "If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."
The exact meaning of the verse can be discussed but lethal force is allowed in some cases.
I can't locate the verse atm, but there is a OT verse passage that orders to help/defend a neighbor that's under attack. And that includes lethal force.
Imo, it's clear that the Bible/Jesus does not forbid weapons and killing. BUT killing is only allowed under certain (extreme) conditions. So there is nothing wrong to defend your family from serious crime with lethal force. The keyword is 'serious'; that doesn't include someone taking your parking spot....
And because you can never really know when lethal force is needed you 'must' carry a gun at all times.
Thanks WhiteWings.
The thing about Luke 22, is that it is a strange order when taken together with Christ commanding Peter to put the sword away later and admonishing him about living by the sword. In the context of Luke 22 he is talking about it with regards to travel, as seen by the preceding verses. It is also a μαχαιρα, which is a very general description of a blade, and does not preclude it from being something that could have been used for non-violent travel purposes such as chopping wood, etc. Indeed, the word has come to just mean "knife" in modern Greek. I am not saying it is impossible Christ was intending it for violence, but it has to be read into the text, I am sure anyone would acknowledge.
I guess going back to my post, with something so serious in question, I would really like to see some kind of example from someone - anyone, among Jesus and his disciples, anywhere in the narrative, where they used violence to protect themselves or anyone else. There are so many opportunities in the NT narrative for disciples to have defended Christ and/or each other with deadly force, considering all the various tumults and persecutions, and yet I confess I cannot find a single example, save in the case of Peter, who was subsequently rebuked.
Without that example - or explicit command - we are left to assume that when he told them to buy the blades, He definitely meant "...and use them to kill when necessary", and besides that we are left to use Old Testament, Old Covenant justifications for violence. I personally hate using the Law to govern my actions under the New Covenant!
The only time I can think of a follower of Christ using violence is when Peter struck the man with his sword for the noblest purpose, protecting the Son of Man, who was innocent and defenseless. For this he was quickly rebuked, and Christ healed that man in spite of Peter rather than through him.
Quote from: Seth on March 08, 2015, 09:04:40 AM
The only time I can think of a follower of Christ using violence is when Peter struck the man with his sword for the noblest purpose, protecting the Son of Man, who was innocent and defenseless. For this he was quickly rebuked, and Christ healed that man in spite of Peter rather than through him.
Amen Seth!
I also think this passage is a very deep parable. We are given the word of God (the two-edged sword) to bring good things to the ears of the world, but instead the word is so often misused, and cuts off ears instead, turning people away and wounding them with false report about God. And Christ demonstrates here that His ministry is good tidings to the ears of all men!
That may sound a bit garbled, but I am sure everyone will see what I am driving at... :dsunny:
Quote from: Shev on March 08, 2015, 09:00:48 AM
Thanks WhiteWings.
The thing about Luke 22, is that it is a strange order when taken together with Christ commanding Peter to put the sword away later and admonishing him about living by the sword. In the context of Luke 22 he is talking about it with regards to travel, as seen by the preceding verses. It is also a μαχαιρα, which is a very general description of a blade, and does not preclude it from being something that could have been used for non-violent travel purposes such as chopping wood, etc.
And likely that was what it was used for most.
If that blade was a (big) knife or a real sword is likely an endless discussion like wine vs grape juice.
QuoteIndeed, the word has come to just mean "knife" in modern Greek. I am not saying it is impossible Christ was intending it for violence, but it has to be read into the text, I am sure anyone would acknowledge.
When reading the next verse it (almost) sounds Jesus wanted to have a sword in His group so He could be among the wicked. That would sorta declare the sword as something bad. Likely not a tool to cut wood.
Luke 22:37 For I say to you that this that has been written must yet be fulfilled in Me: "And He was numbered with the wicked." For the things concerning Me will be fulfilled.
QuoteI guess going back to my post, with something so serious in question, I would really like to see some kind of example from someone - anyone, among Jesus and his disciples, anywhere in the narrative, where they used violence to protect themselves or anyone else. There are so many opportunities in the NT narrative for disciples to have defended Christ and/or each other with deadly force, considering all the various tumults and persecutions, and yet I confess I cannot find a single example, save in the case of Peter, who was subsequently rebuked.
I think there isn't such an example besides the one already mentioned.
That can have two (or more reasons):
a] They never used violence.
b] The focus of the NT is about the Spiritual Wisdom of Jesus. Not about His tactical skills in battle.
All I'm saying is that absence of something certainly is a hint but never absolute proof. The NT writes about Jesus' life, but only a small part of it. Personally I'm sure not even all His teachings are written down. Let alone things that have nothing to do with His ministry.
I think one of the reasons He didn't want the use of sword/knife was that He knew His time was come and that He in no way wanted to escape what was coming the next day.
QuoteWithout that example - or explicit command - we are left to assume that when he told them to buy the blades, He definitely meant "...and use them to kill when necessary", and besides that we are left to use Old Testament, Old Covenant justifications for violence. I personally hate using the Law to govern my actions under the New Covenant!
I understand many like things the peaceful way; but 'you' can't just sweep aside the OT because you missing peace in that Book inspired by theFather Himself. Who are we to say theSon/NT got it right and the OT was/is just an obsolete mistake?
Blimey! I switched my computer on this morning and there was a whole slew of TM posts about Christians taking up arms or not. I expected that I was going to get battered on this one. lol. However, it gave me a chance to see into my brother's and sister's hearts. I do believe that bearing a billy club or a baseball bat can be lethal force. You could crack somebody's skull open with those.
I don't live "by the sword" but I do own a sword. If a scenario arises then I hope that the Lord will make the way forward clear to me. Otherwise I would probably act according to the scared coward that I am. If my family were under threat of harm or even death, I can tell you right now, I would act. In this present world of violence and threats, I think it's a good idea to prepare for civil unrest, martial law or an Islamic invasion. I think that the people God gives to us within our sphere, we have a responsibility to love them, provide and protect them. James, I don't think it's a lack of faith to lock your doors, it's just smart, lest you end up in a worse situation.
Israel are a good example of armed protection. Their enemies surround them and they make no bones about wanting to annihilate them. Israel has been at war since 1948, yet they still exist which in my eyes, has to be of God.
When ISIS came rolling into Mosul, raping, beheading and killing in all manner of ways, the Christians and Yazidis fled up into the mountains. Now, those very same Christians have formed a Christian Militia to try to drive ISIS out.
I say on this subject, let it be between a brother and his God what to do in a given situation. If I am to be beheaded, Oh Lord, please give me grace and courage that I can honor you in my death when it arrives.
Bless you all, I have enjoyed your posts and have absorbed the wisdom therein.
Shalom
Jock :Peace2:
Quote from: Jock on March 08, 2015, 12:50:56 PM
I think that the people God gives to us within our sphere, we have a responsibility to love them, provide and protect them. James, I don't think it's a lack of faith to lock your doors, it's just smart, lest you end up in a worse situation.
I say on this subject, let it be between a brother and his God what to do in a given situation.
Amen.
A lot of good points made by you and others.
--
When using it as an example, I consider that Jesus' ultimate MISSION was to die. Why would He be defended from it? Otherwise, I'm still where I was when making the other posts, so I won't say anything further (right now). :icon_jokercolor:
Except; thinking about Jesus' mission - coming to die that we may live - makes me appreciate Him just a little more, how 'bout you?
When one is truly in spirit, imo, the thought of taking up any weapon would not enter ones mind. :2c:
Isa 54:17 No weapon formed against thee prospereth, And every tongue rising against thee, In judgment thou condemnest. This is the inheritance of the servants of Jehovah, And their righteousness from me, an affirmation of Jehovah!
1Co 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
I agree Micah :iagree:
So first it was lack of faith. Now it's if one is in the spirit or not.
Am I to gather that to have faith or be in the spirit, one would stand and watch their children and wife raped and murdered?
James, I absolutely agree with you in both posts. Jesus' mission WAS to die but not to be arrested as a brigand. The Jews were looking for the least little thing to bring accusation against Him and when He was taken, His disciples took off running. They were after all, human.
Micah, I know that place you speak of. Perhaps that was the place that Stephen was in when they were going to stone him. We can only hope for that. However, me being human, I would protect my family.
Shalom :Peace2:
Jock.
:)
Truly, with a smile on my face and in a laughing, friendly sort of way, I'm going to make some suggestions so we can have more faith and be more spiritual;
let's stop carrying money with us, because God will provide.
let's stop working for a living, because God has all the riches in the world and it's ours.
let's don't shop for food anymore, because God will drop it into our lap.
let's don't read the Bible anymore, because God will put whatever information we need into our head.
let's don't lock the doors at night because God will protect us.
let anyone and everyone into our houses, rapists and murderers on the run from the law. maybe even let them sleep in the same room with our children, because God won't let anything bad happen.
stop any and all medications, including any herbal remedies.... (no really, please don't unless you know for sure God is saying that)
So a serious question is (and I do truly personally wrestle with this, so I'm not just being facetious now) at what point faith and being spiritual, while attending to daily needs, in a real life, with real problems, and real wicked people? Is it taking absolutely no precautions or making absolutely no preparations and trusting God? Or is it DOING those things (if one is provided the means by God to do so) but still trusting God as the "final answer", and as the Provider of all good things? Is there a balance somewhere? Blessings.
Quote from: jabcat on March 08, 2015, 06:00:30 PM
So first it was lack of faith. Now it's if one is in the spirit or not.
Am I to gather that to have faith or be in the spirit, one would stand and watch their children and wife raped and murdered?
I understand your point and I don't know, as of right now I would probably do what I could to stop the killing. We do not as far as I know have an example of that situation in the Word. What would the disciples have accomplished if they took up arms to try and save their Savior? I just ask where do I stand in all of what I believe, is the Lord my fortress? Am I in the cleft of the Rock? It's a hard question, but am I yet carnal, when I consider such a thing? :2c: :HeartThrob:
:thumbsup: micah and Joe. These are tough things to wrestle with.
Quote from: jabcat on March 08, 2015, 06:24:16 PM
:thumbsup: micah and Joe. These are tough things to wrestle with.
They sure are. It a question that has plagued a believer for decades if not centuries. No clear cut answer. All post have a perspective worth thinking about. As they say, you will know what to do when the rubber hits the road. Pray that these horrible situations do not happen to those who strive to have Christ live in them. :2c:
James, you forgot one
If you are going on a long journey, don't take your cell phone, God will provide a mechanic.
If an old lady is being attacked on the street, do you help her or do you watch and shout "Jesus loves you"?
QuoteWithout that example - or explicit command - we are left to assume that when he told them to buy the blades, He definitely meant "...and use them to kill when necessary", and besides that we are left to use Old Testament, Old Covenant justifications for violence. I personally hate using the Law to govern my actions under the New Covenant!
QuoteI understand many like things the peaceful way; but 'you' can't just sweep aside the OT because you missing peace in that Book inspired by theFather Himself. Who are we to say theSon/NT got it right and the OT was/is just an obsolete mistake?
WhiteWings, I do hope you see the difference between what I said and your response. I did not say anything about missing peace in the Old Testament. Nor did I say it I obsolete. Nor did I say it is a mistake. What I did say is that I don't believe we can use the Law to govern our actions under the New Covenant. I honestly believe that is a fair point. To me, the point of the Old Testament is Jesus Christ, whether in foreshadowing, preparation of a nation to produce Him from, prophecy, and type. I also believe He fulfilled the Law, and that the Old Covenant was with earthly Israel. So if someone quotes a commandment from the Old Covenant, I am not going to automatically assume I am bound to it, as I am under a New Covenant in Christ.
Quote from: jabcat on March 08, 2015, 06:21:43 PM
:)
Truly, with a smile on my face and in a laughing, friendly sort of way, I'm going to make some suggestions so we can have more faith and be more spiritual;
let's stop carrying money with us, because God will provide.
let's stop working for a living, because God has all the riches in the world and it's ours.
let's don't shop for food anymore, because God will drop it into our lap.
let's don't read the Bible anymore, because God will put whatever information we need into our head.
let's don't lock the doors at night because God will protect us.
let anyone and everyone into our houses, rapists and murderers on the run from the law. maybe even let them sleep in the same room with our children, because God won't let anything bad happen.
stop any and all medications, including any herbal remedies.... (no really, please don't unless you know for sure God is saying that)
So a serious question is (and I do truly personally wrestle with this, so I'm not just being facetious now) at what point faith and being spiritual, while attending to daily needs, in a real life, with real problems, and real wicked people? Is it taking absolutely no precautions or making absolutely no preparations and trusting God? Or is it DOING those things (if one is provided the means by God to do so) but still trusting God as the "final answer", and as the Provider of all good things? Is there a balance somewhere? Blessings.
This is an amusing list, jabcat, but I would like to make the point that none of these things would involve harming or killing someone. Even locking a door does not hurt a thief physically, shopping for food hurts no-one at all, etc etc. So doing or not doing them would not present the danger of doing harm to a neighbor, as the subject matter of the OP would.
When I spoke of faith, I was not speaking of putting God to the test, but rather trusting to Him for protection. I honestly see God as a more capable protector than I do any physical weapon. I also believe the Spirit of God would be powerful even in a situation where physical violence was occurring - I have physically seen an unarmed believer attacked by two men, and rebuke them in the name of Christ to the point that they fled from him.
It is definitely a hard subject, because we are all dealing in hypotheticals, but I really do believe that owning a gun would be a very profound statement of where my trust is. Should anything actually arise, I would have to trust God for wisdom in that situation too.
I bought my first ever firearm weapon in 2012 a shot gun for protection, 2013 I bought a handgun for my daughter for protection, 2013 I also bought a Henry Big Boy for deer hunting and protection.
I pray that I will never have to use any of these for protection, I also pray that my faith in Jesus Christ the Lord will protect me and my family.
I like to believe that I am born again, I like to believe I have been filled with the Holy Spirit, I like to believe I am saved, but as I walk and pray in this age I know that I am "being" born from above and that I am "being" filled with the Holy Spirit, and that I am "being" saved and with that knowledge...I am yet carnal....so my faith is still "being" established. And I always seem to forget that it is HIS FAITH.
Quote from: micah7:9 on March 08, 2015, 05:51:48 PM
When one is truly in spirit, imo, the thought of taking up any weapon would not enter ones mind. :2c:
Isa 54:17 No weapon formed against thee prospereth, And every tongue rising against thee, In judgment thou condemnest. This is the inheritance of the servants of Jehovah, And their righteousness from me, an affirmation of Jehovah!
1Co 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
:thumbsup: :dsunny:
I truly see and understand most, if not all, "sides" to this discussion. If anyone has enough faith, if they feel God has truly led them to that point - OR, if they have no other recourse or resources - then I believe they should do whatever it is they need to do. I too believe in trusting god, and I know sometimes He appear in the burning bush or blinding light. I also know I need to believe and trust Him more.
(It's an old story, and I know, it's just a limited 2D representation [doesn't cover all areas of the topic]) but still may be cause for further thought and discussion. That said, I don't want to be this guy;
"A fellow was stuck on his rooftop in a flood. He was praying to God for help.
Soon a man in a rowboat came by and the fellow shouted to the man on the roof, "Jump in, I can save you."
The stranded fellow shouted back, "No, it's OK, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me."
So the rowboat went on.
Then a motorboat came by. "The fellow in the motorboat shouted, "Jump in, I can save you."
To this the stranded man said, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith."
So the motorboat went on.
Then a helicopter came by and the pilot shouted down, "Grab this rope and I will lift you to safety."
To this the stranded man again replied, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith."
So the helicopter reluctantly flew away.
Soon the water rose above the rooftop and the man drowned. He went to Heaven. He finally got his chance to discuss this whole situation with God, at which point he exclaimed, "I had faith in you but you didn't save me, you let me drown. I don't understand why!"
To this God replied, "I sent you a rowboat and a motorboat and a helicopter, what more did you expect?"
:winkgrin:
:laugh: Ain't that a real truth :dsunny: :laughing7:
Quote from: Jock on March 07, 2015, 07:05:28 PM
However, I see no harm in a man having a shot gun to protect his family.
What say you?
Regards
Jock.
I prefer the 1911.
Even if I have a gun for protection I would need some level of courage to kill someone.
The Holy Spirit could give courage to not use gun.
The Holy Spirit can give courage to use gun.
According to the bible there where early believers filled with the Holy Spirit
they did everything on Jabcats list.
I think that we should all do as our conscience allows and leave,
room for the Holy Spirit to amaze us.
Like we do most everything else, let's look at this in terms of our basic theology. Say, someone is banging around in your house in the middle of the night. You grab your gun, get his attention, chamber a shell for emphasis, and tell him to leave. He does not. If you follow the ET theology, you blast him to Hell where he belongs. If you're ED, you blast him into oblivion as he deserves. If you believe in UR, you know that you will spend eternity with this person. You therefore shoot him in the leg, so he can face the consequences of his actions and perhaps be corrected. Police brutality, usually shooting to kill and not to incapacitate, may just be one of the consequences of ET theology.
Shooting to kill by police, is actually due to the policy that an officer should not shoot unless he believes there is a loss of life threat from the combatant. Wounding is not an option because it frequently does not work, and the officer is to protect his own life- not risk it by taking a difficult shot.
A Christian with a gun would not be trained in that way, but there is good reason for that kind of training, although obviously the police do not always follow their training.
James, your story about the guy on the roof made me think of H Katrina because those kinds of scenarios did happen. Your analogy was very good. God is our provider, at some point He will provide our death but in the meantime He may send 12 legions of angels or maybe a Chopper, or He may provide a 9mm. I think everybody should go before God, hopefully to know His will, which may be different for each of us?
Otherwise, we are just whistling in the wind. It shouldn't divide the brethren though.
Enough from me on this.
Regards
Jock.
ED, What is meant by: I prefer the 1911. ?
Quote from: Jock on March 09, 2015, 12:25:41 PM
ED, What is meant by: I prefer the 1911. ?
The M1911 is a single-action, semi-automatic, magazine-fed, recoil-operated pistol chambered for the .45 ACP cartridge. It served as the standard-issue sidearm for the United States Armed Forces from 1911 to 1986.
I joined the Army in 1986 and they were just phasing the 1911 out. We trained with it and then switched to the Beretta 9mm.
Shot guns are actually the recommended weapon for home defense. I have never owned one.
Thanks Ed, for the clarification. LOL, I was sitting here racking my brains about what took place in 1911.
Shalom :Peace2:
Jock
I've always found it interesting that Jesus told the disciples (Lk 22:35,36) "when I sent you out w/o money, or packed bag" (paraphrased!) "did you lack anything? but now I tell you take money and a packed bag, and whoever hasn't a sword let him sell his garment and buy one.."
I'm thinking that's why Peter had a sword in Gethsemane.. but of course Jesus healed the guards ear Peter cut off.. but nevertheless.. I've wondered about that verse (36) to take a sword.. referring I guess(?) to perilous times?
:Peace2:
Yes Marie
In the garden of Gethsemane the Lord didn't want a small skirmish going on, He was going to die for the world. He didn't want to be arrested and accused of being a Zealot or something. Wouldn't the Sanhedrin just have loved that!
Before all this, the disciples lacked for nothing. But now, this is Jesus saying "I am going to my Father, you will need those things now because there are dangers and I won't be here" My paraphrase.
Shalom Jock :Peace2:
Makes me wonder why Paul was constantly being beaten down and never used a sword, and why none of the apostles recommended a good blade to defend themselves against persecution. Yet Peter said that this suffering was all part of the trial of their faith, more precious than gold. I think Jesus was speaking about a different kind of cloak and a different kind of sword, personally.
Re: 1911
I thought ed meant he preferred calling the first responders. ( dial 911 here for police etc ) and wondered why he would dial a 1 first. :laugh:
Interesting thread, btw.
Quote from: Seth on March 09, 2015, 06:16:41 PM
Makes me wonder why Paul was constantly being beaten down and never used a sword, and why none of the apostles recommended a good blade to defend themselves against persecution. Yet Peter said that this suffering was all part of the trial of their faith, more precious than gold. I think Jesus was speaking about a different kind of cloak and a different kind of sword, personally.
I agree Seth. Jesus often spoke in parables. Did He when He said sell your garments and buy one (a sword).
Quote from: marie glen on March 09, 2015, 05:49:22 PM
I've always found it interesting that Jesus told the disciples (Lk 22:35,36) "when I sent you out w/o money, or packed bag" (paraphrased!) "did you lack anything? but now I tell you take money and a packed bag, and whoever hasn't a sword let him sell his garment and buy one.."
Did Jesus mean this?
Eph_6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
:2c: :dontknow:
Quote from: Jock on March 09, 2015, 06:02:33 PM
Yes Marie
In the garden of Gethsemane the Lord didn't want a small skirmish going on, He was going to die for the world. He didn't want to be arrested and accused of being a Zealot or something. Wouldn't the Sanhedrin just have loved that!
Before all this, the disciples lacked for nothing. But now, this is Jesus saying "I am going to my Father, you will need those things now because there are dangers and I won't be here" My paraphrase.
Shalom Jock :Peace2:
:2thumbs:
I believe it's both things. Filled with the Spirit and having the sword of the Lord. But also, being prepared as living in a physical, tangible world. Again though, we do nothing "good" without His empowerment, so whatever the means, He provides and all good gifts come from above.
Quote from: joeteekay on March 09, 2015, 07:32:54 PM
Quote from: Seth on March 09, 2015, 06:16:41 PM
Makes me wonder why Paul was constantly being beaten down and never used a sword, and why none of the apostles recommended a good blade to defend themselves against persecution. Yet Peter said that this suffering was all part of the trial of their faith, more precious than gold. I think Jesus was speaking about a different kind of cloak and a different kind of sword, personally.
I agree Seth. Jesus often spoke in parables. Did He when He said sell your garments and buy one (a sword).
Quote from: marie glen on March 09, 2015, 05:49:22 PM
I've always found it interesting that Jesus told the disciples (Lk 22:35,36) "when I sent you out w/o money, or packed bag" (paraphrased!) "did you lack anything? but now I tell you take money and a packed bag, and whoever hasn't a sword let him sell his garment and buy one.."
Did Jesus mean this?
Eph_6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
:2c: :dontknow:
:thumbsup:
If not, the apostles were doing a lousy job of keeping Christ's advice and rather doing harm to nobody that attacked them.
Quote from: marie glen on March 09, 2015, 05:49:22 PM
I've always found it interesting that Jesus told the disciples (Lk 22:35,36) "when I sent you out w/o money, or packed bag" (paraphrased!) "did you lack anything? but now I tell you take money and a packed bag, and whoever hasn't a sword let him sell his garment and buy one.."
I'm thinking that's why Peter had a sword in Gethsemane.. but of course Jesus healed the guards ear Peter cut off.. but nevertheless.. I've wondered about that verse (36) to take a sword.. referring I guess(?) to perilous times?
:Peace2:
Agree.
Quote from: Jock on March 09, 2015, 10:19:03 AM
James, your story about the guy on the roof made me think of H Katrina because those kinds of scenarios did happen. Your analogy was very good. God is our provider, at some point He will provide our death but in the meantime He may send 12 legions of angels or maybe a Chopper, or He may provide a 9mm. I think everybody should go before God, hopefully to know His will, which may be different for each of us?
Otherwise, we are just whistling in the wind. It shouldn't divide the brethren though.
Enough from me on this.
Regards
Jock.
:)
Again, I believe as with many things, some of us are just going to see things differently, come at it from different perspectives. We all have our own personalities, conscience, even perhaps different points of service, responsibilities, and places within the kingdom ("let not one say I'm a foot, I'm a hand, etc., so not part of the same body").
One person may be called to stay on their knees, and thus in that way bring protection from the Lord for those walking around with a sword. On the other hand, there may be a time when the Lord may use the one walking around with a sword to protect the one on their knees praying. Personally, I'm OK doing both. Others may not be, and that's OK. :Peace2: Blessings.
Quote from: jabcat on March 09, 2015, 08:11:03 PM
Again, I believe as with many things, some of us are just going to see things differently, come at it from different perspectives. We all have our own personalities, conscience, even perhaps different points of service, responsibilities, and places within the kingdom ("let not one say I'm a foot, I'm a hand, etc., so not part of the same body").
One person may be called to stay on their knees, and thus in that way bring protection from the Lord for those walking around with a sword. On the other hand, there may be a time when the Lord may use the one walking around with a sword to protect the one on their knees praying. Personally, I'm OK doing both. Others may not be, and that's OK. :Peace2: Blessings.
:smile: :smile: very nice!
Even Jesus said, that if his kingdom were of this age his servants would fight. They would fight to protect him and his rulership.
(1Tim. 5:8) But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house {or kindred} he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
I would think this is speaking about taking care of them in any way possible.
I have a magnum pistol and I pray I never have to use it but there may come a time, who knows. I would use it to protect myself if I am forced to.
CHB
I understand why some believers are hesitant to use weapons to protect themselves, but I think it's due to taking some verses out of context. I agree that Christ told Peter to put away his sword in the garden simply because it wasn't the right time to use it due to the fact that it was God's will for Christ to die for all mankind. Yes, we are to love our associates, but I don't think that means we're supposed to let somebody unjustly attack and possibly kill somebody else when we have the power to stop it. If we see a ferocious animal like a dog, a mountain lion, or a bear attacking a loved one, shouldn't we try to stop it? I live in South Florida where it's possible to be attacked by alligators and pythons which can kill you and eat you, and I wouldn't hesitate to use my gun if I or somebody else was attacked. Why should I hesitate to shoot a ferocious human being if I or a loved one was being attacked? I think self-defense is a natural instinct and just common sense, and I don't think it contradicts scripture.
"For everything there is a stated time, And a season for every event under the heavens: A season to give birth and a season to die; A season to plant and a season to chop down what is planted, A season to kill and a season to heal; A season to breach and a season to build; A season to weep and a season to make merry; A season of wailing and a season of dancing; A season to fling away stones and a season to collect stones together; A season to embrace and a season to stay far from embracing; A season to seek and a season to count as lost; A season to keep and a season to fling away; A season to tear and a season to sew; A season to hush and a season to speak; A season to love and a season to hate; A season of war and a season of peace." (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8)
That scripture does not contradict the Ten Commandments. When I was brought up in the Roman Catholic Church, I was taught to believe it is a sin to kill, but I now know that was due to mistranslation of the ancient language. There is a difference between "kill" and "murder." I think a person is justified in not only using force against force for self-defense but even killing if necessary in doing so. When we shoot in self-defense, our intention is not to kill but to stop the attack with as much force as is necessary. Sometimes that results in the death of the attacker and sometimes it doesn't, but sometimes lethal force is necessary to stop a violent attack. To those who say they trust in God to protect them, I say I agree, but God provides the tools for us to do so to save our lives and those of our loved ones just as God provides medical tools for doctors to save lives. I think it's just as foolish to refuse to use the tools of self-defense to save lives as it is to refuse to use the the tools of medicine to save lives. I think folks who let their kids die because they've been convinced by a legalistic theology to trust God to heal, while ignoring the tools which God has provided for healing, are just as crazy as folks who let themselves and their loved ones be victims of violent attacks by criminals or terrorists while ignoring the tools which God has provided for them to defend themselves. The mass shootings sensationalized in the media before gun control is demanded are always done in gun free zones because the predators know there's easy prey there. Guns are not the problem. Disregard for the sanctity of life is the problem, and that's because the philosophy of materialism has so corrupted our culture that life seems to have no purpose or value and there seems to be no hope for those who don't believe in God. I think every living soul has the right of self-defense that comes from God not the second amendment, and that doesn't negate loving our associates as ourselves. I think believers need to wake up and understand that you don't have to be a pacifist when confronted by violence in this wicked eon. Yes, I know scripture says our true enemies are not blood and flesh but evil spirits, and I agree. But, like I said before, I think it's a mistake to take verses like that out of context and assume that means we're supposed to be passive during an attack against us or our friends and family. You may think you have nothing to lose because, if you're killed, you know you'll eventually get to be with God when you're resurrected, but your quick and violent death while you're passive may result in the torture, rape, and murder of your family who you're supposed to protect. I believe it's the responsibility of every person able to do so to do whatever is possible to protect those less able to defend themselves. I may die in the process of doing so, but at least I will have tried. Yes, God provides and protects, but God usually operates through believers. All comes from God; all is being operated according to God's will; and all is for God. But we believers are chosen to be the instruments of God's will, and God has given us tools to do so. I think it's God's will that we use any tools we can to do God's will, and, if that means using a gun to stop a violent attack by a predator against the innocent, I say it's our responsibility to do so. And I think it doesn't matter if that predator is swimming, slithering, crawling, or walking on four legs or two legs.
I agree that verses can be taken out of context. But Paul told the church to model themselves after him as an example. He never said to defend ourselves with violence, certainly not joining an army to go kill an enemy. The way he lived his life was to not fight violence with violence. So he preached as much with his life as he did with his words. He did as he instructed them to do. In fact he even said not to judge those on the outside of the church, that God will be their judge and that they should focus on the ekklesia (1 cor 5:2)
If I join an army to fight a war, how am I not judging those on the outside?
:2c: Jas 1:8 a doubleminded man, unstable in all his ways.
I must say I agree with all the responses they make logical[carnal] sense. Yet in my mind I cannot fathom the Apostles and the believers carrying weapons... perhaps a staff.
Should what has been said (and I have admitted owning guns for protection) be true, then in my mind just where is my faith? Just how strong is my faith?
Do I maybe kill someone protecting my family or myself and go against Thou Shalt Not Kill?
Is there evidence in the Word of God that when a person is found by the Lord and becomes a believer that he bear arms for protection? It's a heck of a situation.
I know I must reconsider. I am an American and believe in the 2nd amendment, Yes I am an American[one mind] I am also being saved through Christ Jesus[one mind] who do I serve?
I am an American and father and will protect my family, yet I am being born from above and a son, can I depend on my heavenly Father to do the same for me?
Is it death I fear from enemies or is it just death I fear? Yeah it's a heck of a mind muddler.
Luk 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Joh 15:13 Greater love than this has no one, that anyone may be laying down his soul for his friends."
Rom 8:35 What shall be separating us from the love of God in Christ Jesus? Affliction, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword?
Rom 8:36 According as it is written that "On Thy account we are being put to death the whole day, We are reckoned as sheep for slaughter."
Rom 8:37 Nay! in all these we are more than conquering through Him Who loves us.
Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor messengers, nor sovereignties, nor the present, nor what is impending, nor powers,
Rom 8:39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus, our Lord." :2c: :HeartThrob:
Quote from: Seth on March 09, 2015, 08:58:05 PM
I agree that verses can be taken out of context. But Paul told the church to model themselves after him as an example. He never said to defend ourselves with violence, certainly not joining an army to go kill an enemy. The way he lived his life was to not fight violence with violence. So he preached as much with his life as he did with his words. He did as he instructed them to do. In fact he even said not to judge those on the outside of the church, that God will be their judge and that they should focus on the ekklesia (1 cor 5:2)
If I join an army to fight a war, how am I not judging those on the outside?
Amen Seth. As I said in my prior posts, you think we would be left at least one example in the NT of an obedient believer using violence. Not having that, it is all OT examples.
Quote from: Shev on March 09, 2015, 09:43:45 PM
Quote from: Seth on March 09, 2015, 08:58:05 PM
I agree that verses can be taken out of context. But Paul told the church to model themselves after him as an example. He never said to defend ourselves with violence, certainly not joining an army to go kill an enemy. The way he lived his life was to not fight violence with violence. So he preached as much with his life as he did with his words. He did as he instructed them to do. In fact he even said not to judge those on the outside of the church, that God will be their judge and that they should focus on the ekklesia (1 cor 5:2)
If I join an army to fight a war, how am I not judging those on the outside?
Amen Seth. As I said in my prior posts, you think we would be left at least one example in the NT of an obedient believer using violence. Not having that, it is all OT examples.
:iagree: :HeartThrob:
(Lk 22:35,36) "when I sent you out w/o money, or packed bag" (paraphrased!) "did you lack anything? but now I tell you take money and a packed bag, and whoever hasn't a sword let him sell his garment and buy one.."
..if I saw someone grabbing a child to abduct I would not hesitate to pick up a two by four (or whatever) and slam them side the head.. and would feel no regret..
If the christian nations had fought no wars it would have all been over a while ago, what with hitler, mao, stalin, and on and on.. it's one thing to turn one's own other cheek, but something else to let predators/terrorists keep slapping the weaker.. not that I am a fan of war.. :sigh: but perhaps that is what Jesus meant by Lk 22:36
If ISIS came to my house I likely would not defend myself but I would do every thing, every thing in my power to prevent the taking of my grand children by them.. or the taking of any others..
Quote from: marie glen on March 09, 2015, 10:30:06 PM
(Lk 22:35,36) "when I sent you out w/o money, or packed bag" (paraphrased!) "did you lack anything? but now I tell you take money and a packed bag, and whoever hasn't a sword let him sell his garment and buy one.."
Are there anymore verses? I just ask.... there should be for a witness or two. I agree with Seth on the thoughts of the sword. :HeartThrob:
As for "Christian nations" fighting wars," God already has a label for me: "stranger in a strange land." I don't go by ifs. I know that's God is in control even on a national level, so I don't have to be involved judging the outside world. God is their judge and his method is nation vs nation, as it always was in the OT. I just don't have to be the one who swings those swords. I feel I can focus on the gospel of faith and love better that way and fulfill Paul's instruction not to judge those outside, and let God be their judge.
I'm sure none think we should convert by sword, or live by the sword.. but i would never let ISIS for instance carry anyone away if it was in my hand and power to prevent it.. not my grand kids, and not any other's grand kids..
"I did not come to bring peace but a sword".. but I don't know if that fits, as it is about conflict about Him, and truth.. not the same as someone being in mortal danger..
And how far do we carry it.. let a rapist rape w/o using fist and claws to prevent..?
And Jesus did use a corded rope as a whip and overturned the sellers tables in the temple.. He didn't use a sword or club, but knotted rope.. but it wasn't exactly a passive act.. and He likely didn't hit anybody, but the tables and money, etc..
"If you knew the hour a thief was coming you would not let your house be broken into.."
In an ideal world none of this would be an issue.. But we live in a world and day of great evils.. I don't think any of us would let ISIS do whatever they want to our husband/wife or children, if we could prevent it..
Quote from: Seth on March 09, 2015, 10:44:14 PM
As for "Christian nations" fighting wars," God already has a label for me: "stranger in a strange land." I don't go by ifs. I know that's God is in control even on a national level, so I don't have to be involved judging the outside world. God is their judge and his method is nation vs nation, as it always was in the OT. I just don't have to be the one who swings those swords. I feel I can focus on the gospel of faith and love better that way and fulfill Paul's instruction not to judge those outside, and let God be their judge.
I find nothing to disagree with in that.. I too despise war and would not personally sign on.. even if I truly think ISIS should be stopped, by the nations, from their horrific carryings on..
Again, lots of good responses, too many for me to reference individually, and I don't know that there's an absolute "right" answer ("yes", or "no") here that fits everyone. Different functions.
micah, just a quick note about something you posted and I had thought about earlier but forgot. As far as "thou shalt not kill"..without looking it up right now, I believe that actually is "thou shalt not murder", i.e., kill without justifiable cause. I see that as not "being the aggressor, acting lawlessly or against the law. Shedding innocent blood, i.e., living by the sword". Just a quick :2c: for perspective. :Peace2:
(I also believe "sword" in various places means just that - a physical weapon and not always interpreted as spiritual. In the example in question, in context I believe Jesus was talking about a real purse, real money, and real sword (good find on the whip marie). But again, that's just my understanding and another :2c:.
Here's another oldie, this one with connections from my mom - "I want to be spiritual. But I don't want to be so heavenly-minded that I'm no earthly good". :laughing7: (thanks mom :HeartThrob:)
Hey Jock, you and your BB gun stirred it up, didn't you? :LH: It's amazing what a little BB can do.
Good times.
Seriously, good job discussing a very difficult and slippery topic TM family. :gimmefive:
The things that I keep going back to though, if in this particular case, if Christ is not speaking in parable (though unto them he spoke not without one) the Apostles and early church showed no signs of obeying Christ. What use did Paul have for a sword if he never defended himself? How could Peter "suffer as a Christian" and consider it a test more precious than gold if he was busy clashing swords with his attackers?
And yet if Christ's meaning were spiritual in this case, the Apostles most certainly sold their own cloak for a Sword.
Quote from: micah7:9 on March 09, 2015, 09:33:38 PM
I know I must reconsider. I am an American and believe in the 2nd amendment, Yes I am an American[one mind] I am also being saved through Christ Jesus[one mind] who do I serve?
I am an American and father and will protect my family, yet I am being born from above and a son, can I depend on my heavenly Father to do the same for me?
Is it death I fear from enemies or is it just death I fear? Yeah it's a heck of a mind muddler.
Luk 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
Given the depths to which 'Merica has fallen, from creditor to debtor, from the light of the world to "Go Home, Yankee!," from isolationism to the world's policeman, can we say, "Ye cannot serve God and America?" I am increasingly uncomfortable at what is being done in my name, as a citizen. I have moved from an "America first, without apology" mindset to something much more pacifistic. I fear that America is one of the ten toes of the image knocked to smithereens by the stone cut out by something other than human hands.
Quote from: Seth on March 09, 2015, 11:47:36 PM
How could Peter "suffer as a Christian" and consider it a test more precious than gold if he was busy clashing swords with his attackers?
will need to think more about the first 2 points. as far as this one, i posted this earlier; "I believe in turning the other cheek. However, I personally see this as being willing to take insult, ridicule, be done wrong etc. without [literally or] figuratively "taking a brother to court". Be willing to be wronged. Even in a non-life-threatening situation, literally taking a slap without fighting back. However - at some point (and judgment and discernment is a must) - I would likely protect myself. But especially, others. I think I'd find it easier to even be physically harmed or killed if it was just me. But again, those within my trust and care? I'm afraid I'd have to wield the sword in an attempt to protect them. Not avenge them, but protect them if possible." I think there are many ways to "suffer as a Christian" that don't involve physical violence, especially to the point of death. I believe that's only one aspect of it - most other times are ridicule, rejection, disrespect, disbelief, etc.
Quote from: Seth on March 09, 2015, 11:47:36 PM
And yet if Christ's meaning were spiritual in this case, the Apostles most certainly sold their own cloak for a Sword.
The reason I don't believe Christ's meaning was primarily spiritual here is, He also talked about taking other physical belongings, including money and a purse - things necessary to survive in the natural.
Quote from: micah7:9 on March 09, 2015, 10:41:57 PM
Quote from: marie glen on March 09, 2015, 10:30:06 PM
(Lk 22:35,36) "when I sent you out w/o money, or packed bag" (paraphrased!) "did you lack anything? but now I tell you take money and a packed bag, and whoever hasn't a sword let him sell his garment and buy one.."
Are there anymore verses? I just ask.... there should be for a witness or two. I agree with Seth on the thoughts of the sword. :HeartThrob:
I just want to be sure no one thinks I'm trying to badger them into joining the NRA :laugh:. If anyone is solid in their stance and their conscience is good before God, what better thing is there. :notworthy:
However, as far as discussion and looking at the whole issue, would you consider this a 2nd witness? " But if you do that which is evil, be afraid; for he bears not the sword in vain: for he is the
minister of God, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that does evil." Romans 13:4
Note to Seth - I also believe there's ALWAYS a spiritual application, even to things like Jesus riding a donkey into Jerusalem. However, not that that always rules out any natural/physical application as well (such as, I believe it was a real little donkey - cute little ears, swishy little tail.. :wink2:) but that it also tells us other things. It wasn't an "air" donkey :laughing7:. OK, well, anyway... yes, as spiritual as we can be, on our "knees" as much as we need to be, trusting God in however He chooses to do so, to meet ours and others' needs. Amen.
The issue about protecting someone weaker in immediate danger is a difficult one. I don't think standing by and allowing a child to be hurt is the absolute result of what I am saying. I'm responding to the "take up arms" in the sense of going to war, or seeking death penalty. I wouldn't stand by and let a child be hurt. I asked for God's grace though in handling in a Christ like manner (ie the money changer situation) not in a worldly way.
I was also responding to the concealed and carry for self protection. I just don't see the early church with that mindset. The apostles weren't just insulted, they were whipped and stoned and beaten.
The idea that Jesus mentioned practical things doesn't mean that he wasn't using them for parable usage. That's what parabolic language is all about. And, again, if he was being literal, the apostles did a pretty lousy job through their lack of self defense.
Maybe Jesus was just making a suggestion but the Apostles opted for nonviolence instead? :dontknow:
Quote from: Seth on March 10, 2015, 12:13:42 AM
The issue about protecting someone weaker in immediate danger is a difficult one. I don't think standing by and allowing a child to be hurt is the absolute result of what I am saying. I'm responding to the "take up arms" in the sense of going to war, or seeking death penalty. I wouldn't stand by and let a child be hurt. I asked for God's grace though in handling in a Christ like manner (ie the money changer situation) not in a worldly way.
I agree with you, but "in a worldly way" would need clarification
for me. I believe Jesus was angry, strong, and made a lot of racket that day - knocking stuff around. I'm personally (no proof) convinced He didn't lash a few of those fellows with His whip. :dunno2: We're not told specifically (as far as I know it's not recorded, but maybe it is somewhere historically). To me, "worldly" would be screaming, cursing, just trying to injure someone because I got a kick out of it or wanted something personal from it.
Quote from: Seth on March 10, 2015, 12:13:42 AM
I was also responding to the concealed and carry for self protection. I just don't see the early church with that mindset. The apostles weren't just insulted, they were whipped and stoned and beaten.
I have concealed carry and I employ it. It would be hard to protect that innocent person you mentioned above if confronted by 3 or 4 thugs with knives, clubs, or a gun who had intent to rob, kidnap, murder, if I wasn't carrying a weapon. I live in the St. Louis area. These things happen on a regular basis. Thankfully God has not allowed or put me in a situation where I had to use a weapon. But I have ducked behind a concrete wall before in an attempt to not get shot. Again, me getting killed is one thing. Not being prepared if at all possible to protect my family or other innocents who may be placed in my charge, IMO and FOR ME, would feel derelict on my part. I'm sure others have a different - and maybe even better perspective - and have more faith than I do.
Quote from: Seth on March 10, 2015, 12:13:42 AM
The idea that Jesus mentioned practical things doesn't mean that he wasn't using them for parable usage. That's what parabolic language is all about. And, again, if he was being literal, the apostles did a pretty lousy job through their lack of self defense.
:dontknow: things to think about
No matter what - how "well-prepared" one may be, etc., even armed to the teeth - guns, knives, swords and hand grenades falling out of their pocket - the final result is determined by the Lord. I just believe He often uses various and sundry things to accomplish His purpose. For instance - if someone has no food and no means to obtain it, I believe He can literally put flour in their container. But I don't think I personally should just sit around waiting for that as long as HE PROVIDES the means for me to get off my rear end and do something to "provide" for my family. As always, "I, but not I".
This conversation has so many variables and layers to it. I didn't mean to post anything else right now, but just as I signed off this hit me (excuse the pun).
If I were to absolutely rule out any owning of means of protection, feeling that it was a sin and wrong to do; should I still call 911? :faint:
Hey Seth. If I felt I "lost this discussion", could I say "I just got shot out of the saddle"? :LH: :high5:
I think we agree on some point for sure. I mean conceal and carry to protect one's self, (ie whoever messes with me is gonna get a bullet in the rear). That just makes me wonder how one's faith can be tested with manifold trials if one is protecting ones self from those very same trials with a deadly weapon.
When I mean worldly way, I mean like how you described. Jesus didn't let his judgement become a carnal excuse for power. Our carnal instinct, adrenaline etc can lure so that our minds are not in the right place.
Not only that Jesus was judging God's house, such as how Paul instructed to let God judges those on the outside and Paul preferred to focus on the church.
To that end, Jesus never laid a finger on a Gentile. Didn't call for the death penalty, or for his followers to join a battle against Rome.
Quote from: jabcat on March 10, 2015, 12:53:22 AM
Hey Seth. If I felt I "lost this discussion", could I say "I just got shot out of the saddle"? :LH: :high5:
:laughing7: :HeartThrob:
one thing I learned ..a long time ago.....never say never. Sure,we can say, why I'd never do this or that.......
and when put to the test..find ourselves doing that very thing.......
Peter said 'not me Lord!!!!" everyone else..but not me!
Amen to that. :iagree:
Quote from: sheila on March 10, 2015, 01:12:06 AM
one thing I learned ..a long time ago.....never say never. Sure,we can say, why I'd never do this or that.......
and when put to the test..find ourselves doing that very thing.......
Peter said 'not me Lord!!!!" everyone else..but not me!
:iagree: Room for the Holy Spirit of God
Heard this for a very long time, "Here's another oldie, this one with connections from my mom - "I want to be spiritual. But I don't want to be so heavenly-minded that I'm no earthly good". :laughing7: (thanks mom :HeartThrob:)"
And it no longer makes sense. :HeartThrob: After all being said including myself, I find that I am yet carnal in my thinking and am quite double minded, but I guess that leaves me in good company. And to offer kill as murder and murder as not kill, I don't know. :HeartThrob:
Quote from: micah7:9 on March 10, 2015, 05:44:34 AM
Heard this for a very long time, "Here's another oldie, this one with connections from my mom - "I want to be spiritual. But I don't want to be so heavenly-minded that I'm no earthly good". :laughing7: (thanks mom :HeartThrob:)"
And it no longer makes sense. :HeartThrob:
It makes sense to me, I have an idea of what she meant.
Quote from: jabcat on March 10, 2015, 05:49:26 AM
Quote from: micah7:9 on March 10, 2015, 05:44:34 AM
Heard this for a very long time, "Here's another oldie, this one with connections from my mom - "I want to be spiritual. But I don't want to be so heavenly-minded that I'm no earthly good". :laughing7: (thanks mom :HeartThrob:)"
And it no longer makes sense. :HeartThrob:
Maybe not to you, but it does to me. Maybe you don't know anyone like that. :dontknow:
Knew a lot of folks like that.
sorry, maybe i misunderstood what you meant. i thought you were saying the saying itself didn't make sense. my bad. yes, you know what i mean then.
as far as the murder/kill thing...
i'll look into it further. but IMO, if it strictly means 'kill' period, then God would have had many people break His own Law by having them conquer lands, kill thousands/hundreds of thousands (?) of people by His direct command. I don't believe He would have them break His Law, so I believe that makes it a justified killing, i.e., not murder. I'll get more on it, because that's how I understand it but right now can't give you much more "evidence". :high5:
Quote from: micah7:9 on March 10, 2015, 05:44:34 AM
to offer kill as murder and murder as not kill, I don't know. :HeartThrob:
:)
from a questionable source (wiki)..in a hurry, more later, but this might stimulate something further that's helpful;
"You shall not murder" (Hebrew לֹא תִּרְצָח lo tirṣaḥ) (sometimes translated as You shall not kill (KJV) or Thou shalt not kill (LXX; οὐ φονεύσεις), is a moral imperative included as one of the Ten Commandments in the Torah,[1] specifically Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17.
The imperative is against unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt.[2] The Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also allows for justified killing in the context of warfare, capital punishment, and self-defense.
I think the most important aspect to me is simply this: All truth is bound up in the person of Jesus Christ. He is the express image of the Father, and I am being changed into that image day by day. Do I really believe that Jesus Christ would use violence - and potentially deadly violence at that - to defend Himself or others? Do I believe He would take a human life? I truly don't.
Seeing as so much justification for violence is taken from the OT, I will go in there to draw a useful parallel to help with my point. When I think of Jesus saying to Peter "could I not ask my Father and have more than twelve legions of angels?" it also makes me harken back to Elisha and his servant, when the king of Syria sent soldiers to capture the prophet at Dothan:
Therefore he sent horses and chariots and a great army there, and they came by night and surrounded the city. 15 And when the servant of the man of God arose early and went out, there was an army, surrounding the city with horses and chariots. And his servant said to him, "Alas, my master! What shall we do?"
16 So he answered, "Do not fear, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them." 17 And Elisha prayed, and said, "Lord, I pray, open his eyes that he may see." Then the Lord opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw. And behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha. 18 So when the Syrians came down to him, Elisha prayed to the Lord, and said, "Strike this people, I pray, with blindness." And He struck them with blindness according to the word of Elisha.
19 Now Elisha said to them, "This is not the way, nor is this the city. Follow me, and I will bring you to the man whom you seek." But he led them to Samaria.
20 So it was, when they had come to Samaria, that Elisha said, "Lord, open the eyes of these men, that they may see." And the Lord opened their eyes, and they saw; and there they were, inside Samaria!
21 Now when the king of Israel saw them, he said to Elisha, "My father, shall I kill them? Shall I kill them?"
22 But he answered, "You shall not kill them. Would you kill those whom you have taken captive with your sword and your bow? Set food and water before them, that they may eat and drink and go to their master." 23 Then he prepared a great feast for them; and after they ate and drank, he sent them away and they went to their master. So the bands of Syrian raiders came no more into the land of Israel. (2 Kings 6:14-23)
I love this passage, as it demonstrates the wonder of seeing the unseen, and knowing the mighty hand of God in desperate situations. As a parallel to Christ in the garden it really opens up even more.
Another really interesting point about Jesus and the legions of angels, is that He said "more than twelve legions" - in other words, more than a legion for each of the twelve apostles! If it were not so serious it would cause a wry smile to think of Peter unwittingly seeing himself as a better defense than an entire legion of angels! And in the same way, can I take up a gun, and think of myself likewise?
James, thanks for the kind word. Firearms are illegal in Britain except for the very rich who go out on each other's estates to shoot pheasants, deer and geese/ducks.
There are other things though that are more lethal than a BB gun, plus I have a way to flee to a place in the highlands of Scotland. I have also been putting back food and water, enough to offer my neighbors at least, a meal.
Some time ago, I was made aware of the potential dangers that are looming up and I prayed. I spoke honestly with Him about what was in my heart to do. He has given witness, twice. That's enough for me. I even purchased a Gagercounter (spelling) for that Fukushima radiation that's spreading around the globe.
My hope is to encourage my American brothers to do likewise. Even just to store food and water for pete's sake! What I am doing I am doing because of love. Love for God who has entrusted me with my family, love for my neighbors and love for the brethren.
I hope that I NEVER have to raise my hand to another, God forbid but I am preparing myself should that situation arise, I pray that it doesn't.
I'll make another post with a couple of links for you.
Shalom
Jock. :Peace2:
This is from the UK so you may have to work through the various accents
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=uk+preppers+documentary&qpvt=UK+preppers+documentary&FORM=VDRE#view=detail&mid=5A6A10681645C1BE4B495A6A10681645C1BE4B49
Another one...................
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL95OoKzcFA
Now here's a feller with a whole different kind of accent
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru78oMKZV7M
That's it for the links but there is a whole wealth of them out there.
Blessings
Jock :Peace2:
James, you have a concealed carry licence and I think that's cool. I was just thinking about that crazy guy that came into the cinema in Aurora (Col?) and he had an AR15 with a huge magazine and started blasting away. Had you been there with a concealed weapon, you might just have seen a window where you could have taken that guy down/or out. Anyways, just a hypothetical thought.
Shalom :banana:
Jock.
Quote from: Jock on March 10, 2015, 12:46:48 PM
James, thanks for the kind word. Firearms are illegal in Britain except for the very rich who go out on each other's estates to shoot pheasants, deer and geese/ducks.
There are other things though that are more lethal than a BB gun, plus I have a way to flee to a place in the highlands of Scotland. I have also been putting back food and water, enough to offer my neighbors at least, a meal.
Some time ago, I was made aware of the potential dangers that are looming up and I prayed. I spoke honestly with Him about what was in my heart to do. He has given witness, twice. That's enough for me. I even purchased a Gagercounter (spelling) for that Fukushima radiation that's spreading around the globe.
My hope is to encourage my American brothers to do likewise. Even just to store food and water for pete's sake! What I am doing I am doing because of love. Love for God who has entrusted me with my family, love for my neighbors and love for the brethren.
I hope that I NEVER have to raise my hand to another, God forbid but I am preparing myself should that situation arise, I pray that it doesn't.
I'll make another post with a couple of links for you.
Shalom
Jock. :Peace2:
Beautiful post Jock. The highlands of Scotland..aaahhhhh
As far as the theater thing Jock, yes, if placed in that position I would attempt to prevent other innocent people from losing their lives by hoping to stop the attack. Only God knows about a situation and how He will intervene and who/what He will empower in a given moment or circumstance.
Also I agree with much of what Seth and Shev have to say, absolutely. I just personally don't think there's a cookie-cutter, black/white/one size fits all answer that perfectly fits everyone exactly the same. Everyone's done a good job of sharing "what this means to me" instead of "this is what you should do". :2thumbs: Some of the things it seems to me "fits all", and each has to take it before the Lord individually to determine what it looks like for them, are things like; follow God's leading in one's life as best as possible, including to love others, have a pure heart, clean conscience, and right motives. I believe this includes seeking to follow His command to not murder/kill unjustly [according to God's Law]; all of which IMO requires looking to Jesus, using discernment, sound judgment, and wise counsel.
Blessings.
:thumbsup:
I believe God is love. I believe peace is a fruit of the spirit. I believe I should love my associate as myself. I also believe Christ died willingly as a sacrifice for all mankind even though he had the power to stop it from happening. But, even though Christ taught us to love our enemies, it is prophesied that Christ will rule Israel in the next eon when some criminals will be killed, and their corpses will be burned in Gehenna. Christ will also judge unbelievers before the great white throne, and they will be killed with the second death in the lake of fire. God has killed many people in history. To kill is simply to deprive of life, but murder is the killing of a human being without moral or legal right. There are different words used in the ancient languages for these two different ideas. The two different ideas have been confused by inaccurate translation of scripture as has been done elsewhere such as with Gehenna and hell. I believe death will eventually be abolished and all mankind will have immortality at the consummation of the eons when God is all in all. In the meantime I think self-defense, even with lethal force, is justified in this wicked eon. That's why I agree with James about carrying a weapon to do so. A gun is simply a tool that can be used for good or bad. Evil will be nullified at the consummation of the eons, but it exists now to humble us. It's good to pray and trust God, but that doesn't mean we should just be passive and let something bad happen if we know how to stop it. Believing in the teachings of Christ doesn't mean you should just let your home be invaded and your family be murdered. I believe God expects us to defend our loved ones to the best of our ability. I think it's wrong for governments to disarm law abiding citizens who need guns to protect themselves against criminals who have guns. The Old Testament isn't the only place where there's justified killing. Have you read Revelation lately? When Christ comes again, he won't appear as the submissive victim of corrupt religious leaders. He will fight and defeat the forces of evil.
"And I perceived heaven open, and lo! a white horse. And He Who is sitting on it is called "Faithful and True," and in righteousness is He judging and battling. Now His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems, having names written of which no one except Himself is aware, and He is clothed in a cloak dipped in blood, and His name is called "The Word of God." And the armies in heaven, dressed in cambric, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. And out of His mouth a sharp blade is issuing, that with it He should be smiting the nations. And He will be shepherding them with an iron club. And He is treading the wine trough of the fury of the indignation of God, the Almighty. And on His cloak and on His thigh He has a name written: "King of kings and Lord of lords." And I perceived another messenger, standing in the sun. And he cries with a loud voice, saying to all the birds which are flying in mid-heaven, "Hither! Be gathered for the great dinner of God, that you may be eating the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of the strong, and the flesh of horses and of those sitting on them, and the flesh of all freemen as well as slaves, and of small and of great." And I perceived the wild beast and the kings of the earth and their armies, gathered to do battle with Him Who is sitting on the horse and with His army. And the wild beast is arrested, and with it the false prophet who does the signs in its sight, by which he deceives those getting the emblem of the wild beast, and those worshiping its image. Living, the two were cast into the lake of fire burning with sulphur. And the rest were killed with the blade which is coming out of the mouth of Him Who is sitting on the horse. And all the birds are satisfied with their flesh." (Revelation 19:11-21)
[attachment deleted by admin]
QuoteBut, even though Christ taught us to love our enemies, it is prophesied that Christ will rule Israel in the next eon when some criminals will be killed, and their corpses will be burned in Gehenna.
Well not everyone agrees with that interpretation of course. I don't. I see it as a metaphysical thing. Nevertheless, I believe I am to give vengeance to God and not myself. Paul says to let God be the judge of those outside the church, and to focus on the church. In terms of war, or seeking the death penalty (which I think are issues relevant to this discussion) if I join those causes then I believe that is acting in judgement upon them and not giving that place to God. I believe the role of the church is to spread peace and love into the earth and not worry about or get entangled with the machinations of the world.
Acting in self-defense is not seeking "vengeance." It is simply meeting force with force to preserve the life of yourself and your loved ones.
I wonder why the Apostles didn't defend themselves with violence and why they taught nonviolent responses. BTW I've addressed the protection of children.
Seems that each of us may likely have a different response to participating in a war effort (could even be a doctor or nurse to help the wounded) or regarding self-defense (is it persection for being a believer or a general act of violence with intent to harm against an innocent) or the death penalty for any convicted person.
Times ahead will likely get a bit rough as this age winds down. I do expect to see the Lord`s mighty deliverences and intervention in such threatening situations if someone tried to take a life before the appointed time just as when they wanted to push Him off the cliff in Nazareth and he walked right through or past or down the midst of them. That was one angry mob that day! But it was not his time and he could not be harmed by anyone.
It would be interesting to see a poll here and how we think we would all vote on these various issues....death penalty, self defense. Then the generally quiet members, like me :-) could participate too. Just a suggestion.
I think it's just an assumption that none of the apostles ever resisted a violent attack from animals or humans. Maybe they chose to be martyrs. There's nothing in scripture about any of that. Maybe you choose to be a martyr. I'd say a man should protect his family though. Everybody has to do what they think is right. If we're voting, I vote for self-defense, but we have to abide by the laws of the state even if we disagree with them. That's the case for the death penalty, abortion, gay marriage, and whatever else may offend us as believers.
Quote from: Tom on March 12, 2015, 12:16:16 AM
I think it's just an assumption that none of the apostles ever resisted a violent attack from animals or humans. Maybe they chose to be martyrs. There's nothing in scripture about any of that. Maybe you choose to be a martyr. "
Well we know from Acts 22:23 that Paul did defend himself to that centurion who was about to flog him, appealing to the fact that he (Paul) was a Roman citizen, and he questioned the legality of his punishment since he was not legally found guilty of anything yet.
It worked too! :-) I love how he then took advantage of the fact that both Pharisees and Sadducees were present there (Acts 23:6 ) and how that turned out with some of the Pharisees defending Paul. LOL
So, it seems to me that Paul was in no rush to be a martyr, and the Lord was with him and gave him the wisdom needed right then there to hush that angry mob who intended to murder him. I don`t think a sword would have done him much good in that kind of situation anyway.
( I really would like to comment more but this phone is
difficult to type with )
The question (Should Christians take up arms?)
There is no cohesive group called Christian.
We are all individual believers.
The question should be (would God command a believer to kill someone?)
It is an appointed time that every-man dies.
I think the idea was resisting violence with violence. I guess I messed up by not repeating that. You need a laptop, sis. I think God has commanded believers to kill people. Maybe the question should be is killing ever justified? I believe it is.
Quote from: Tom on March 12, 2015, 12:16:16 AM
I think it's just an assumption that none of the apostles ever resisted a violent attack from animals or humans. Maybe they chose to be martyrs. There's nothing in scripture about any of that.
To me, I think it's pretty clear all through the NT that the apostles not only re-payed violence with non-violence but preached the same. But I guess we can agree to disagree on that.
Quote from: Tom on March 12, 2015, 02:32:37 AM
I think the idea was resisting violence with violence. I guess I messed up by not repeating that. You need a laptop, sis. I think God has commanded believers to kill people. Maybe the question should be is killing ever justified? I believe it is.
God commanded believers to kill other people in the Old Testament, but Jesus said
Matthew 5
38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Jesus NEVER recommended Christians should be killing anyone, and none of the Apostles as well. In fact, they always led their lives by repaying evil with good and never striking their attackers back.
Sometimes we generalize statements based on principles that seem universal but maybe arent. These are just my opinions.
1)A policeman who is a Christian may have to violently subdue or kill someone in the line of duty.
2)A Christian soldier may have to kill someone in the line of duty.
These would be justified, before God, and even- as Paul defined it, even sanctioned by God, altho there are moderating factors on both for a Christian. "Am I defending someone or just killing". "Am I defending my nation or just killing for an oppressor". Many soldiers and police have at some point reached a crisis of conscience because they no longer felt their call to duty was a just one, so they refused to serve any longer, and sometimes paid a high price for that.
A man with with four children finds another man in his house in the middle of the night? I would ask God what to do, but I wouldnt wait long for an answer. If I did not see a weapon I would probably say something, like, "Get out of my house now, I have already called the police." But I would be prepared for violence and if my children or my wife were at risk I would be ready to get violent in their defense- short of a very strong impression or direct word from the Spirit that I shouldnt.
I think it would simply be wrong to judge a man for defending his family. God is the only judge of such things. If a husband and wife have decided together that they would not resist a robber- that is a matter of their conscience. My conscience would not allow me to do that. I would feel responsible to defend my family.
I am so grateful I have never had to test that out, altho I did at one time threaten a 21 year old student teacher who was trying to romance by beautiful but naive 14 year old daughter, who hated me for it :o), and now(18 years later) she loves me for it.
I just think this is one of those things will not fall under these universal ideals that get tossed around, in either direction.
Exodus 20:13 says You shall not murder in every major version except the KJV, Thou shalt not kill
The difference between kill and murder is signifigant. Murder is ALWAYS murder. Killing is not always murder. Murder is ALWAYS wickedness. Killing is not always wickedness.
God did not give the Israelites 10 prime directives one of which was "You shall not kill", and then tell them to go out and do just the opposite to the inhabitants of Canaan and their own serious criminals and sinners. The prime directive they received was, "You shall not murder". Then He told them to kill the Canaanites. Jesus was murdered. Stephen was murdered- but Paul did not see it as murder, nevertheless he was guilty of murder- so we see what a slippery slope this can be. :o)
The word in Exodus 20 is ratsach, it means to murder, similar to tabach(slaughter, kill ruthlessly with accusative personal)
this is as opposed to qetal, descriptive and objective of having been killed, slain....or harag which is also objective descriptive to kill(animal or man).
So I would not judge a person regardless of whether they chose to, for instance,
Join the army
Become a police officer or security person.
Defend there family in a life or death situation
Refuse military service because of their regard for the sanctity of life
Not embrace any calling or duty that might requre violence as a matter of conscience
Not defend their family in a life or death situation as a matter of conscience.
All of these things are beyond what any person is allowed to judge of another- only God can, and He will.
Dietrich Bonhoffer was one of the great Chrstian writers and theologians. He was executed for being in the resistance against Hitler in WW2. He worked with and was close friends with Hans Dohnanyi, who had planted a bomb in two champagne bottles on a plane Hitler was flying in(the mechanism failed).
"In October 1940, Dietrich Bonhoeffer began work as an agent for Military Intelligence, supposedly using his ecumenical contacts to help the cause of the Reich. In reality, he used his contacts to spread information about the resistance movement. In trips to Italy, Switzerland, and Scandinavia in 1941 and 1942, he informed them of resistance activities and tried, in turn, to gain foreign support for the German resistance."
On September 5, 1941, all Jews in the Reich were ordered to wear the yellow star; the first deportations to the East from Berlin occurred on October 15. On October 17 or 18, Bonhoeffer and Friedrich Perels, a Confessing Church lawyer, wrote a memo giving details of these first deportations. The memo was sent to trusted German military officials in the hope that it might move them to action(to overthrow Hitler), as well as to ecumenical contacts and the US State Department.
The arrests of Dohnanyi and Bonhoeffer followed in April 1943.(after they were discovered using large amounts of money they had received in donations to help Jews escape and emmigrate).The Gestapo report on Bonhoeffer described him as "completely in the opposition".
In October 1944, Bonhoeffer was moved to the dreaded Gestapo prison in Berlin; in February 1945, he was taken to Buchenwald. He was then moved to the Flossenbürg concentration camp where, on April 9, he was hanged, together with Canaris, Oster, and other conspirators.
The SS doctor who witnessed Bonhoeffer's death later recalled a man "devout . . . brave and composed. His death ensued after a few seconds . . . I have hardly ever seen a man die so entirely submissive to the will of God." Bonhoeffer sent one final message, to George Bell in England: "This is the end, for me the beginning of life."
In one of the last letters he wrote, to a former student, he said,
We realize that the world is in God's wrathful and merciful hands.... We learned too late that it is not the thought, but readiness to take responsibility that is the mainspring of action. Your generation will relate thought and action in a new way.
His book, The Cost of Discipleship, is one of the most revered Christian books outside of the Bible.
I think if it's a matter of judging, I don't judge anyone for doing those things. But, I think it's diffiult to live by Christ's directive to not repay eye for eye, and evil for evil, but to turn the other cheek when attacked, if joining the army to fight that same attacker :dontknow:
I think the turn the other cheek scripture is so difficult it tends to just be made into a suggestion, rather than a directive. I've seen Biblical literalists claim that Jesus meant something else, wasn't being literal or clear. I think he was pretty clear and literal myself. And, I can see how people reason about the child in danger, but I really don't see how joining a war fills Christ's commandment not to repay evil with evil. I mean, pretty much it can be reasoned into such a corner that it's like Jesus never said it. One preacher once said "don't confuse your personal life with your national life" as a way to justify not turning other cheek in war time, and repaying evil with evil (anyone who has seen war knows it's evil.)
But then others will say, that it doesn't even really apply to your own personal life (not talking about protecting a child, but one's personal self). Basically it works out that you don't really need to repay evil with good, only in very specific isolated circumstances. To me, that put restrictions on the text that Jesus never did. And if you apply both approaches at once, it renders the text as though it never existed.
And I think the apostles demonstrated their adherence to that commandment in the manner that the apostles lived, receiving all manner of degradation and physical assaults and literally applying Christ's words in ALL those situations and being at peace with all men, while letting God judge the outside world.
But oh well. Nobody agrees on everything. :Peace2:
Quote from: Seth on March 12, 2015, 06:47:39 AM
I think if it's a matter of judging, I don't judge anyone for doing those things. But, I think it's diffiult to live by Christ's directive to not repay eye for eye, and evil for evil, but to turn the other cheek when attacked, if joining the army to fight that same attacker :dontknow:
I think the turn the other cheek scripture is so difficult it tends to just be made into a suggestion, rather than a directive. I've seen Biblical literalists claim that Jesus meant something else, wasn't being literal or clear. I think he was pretty clear and literal myself. And, I can see how people reason about the child in danger, but I really don't see how joining a war fills Christ's commandment not to repay evil with evil. I mean, pretty much it can be reasoned into such a corner that it's like Jesus never said it. One preacher once said "don't confuse your personal life with your national life" as a way to justify not turning other cheek in war time, and repaying evil with evil (anyone who has seen war knows it's evil.)
But then others will say, that it doesn't even really apply to your own personal life (not talking about protecting a child, but one's personal self). Basically it works out that you don't really need to repay evil with good, only in very specific isolated circumstances. To me, that put restrictions on the text that Jesus never did. And if you apply both approaches at once, it renders the text as though it never existed.
And I think the apostles demonstrated their adherence to that commandment in the manner that the apostles lived, receiving all manner of degradation and physical assaults and literally applying Christ's words in ALL those situations and being at peace with all men, while letting God judge the outside world.
But oh well. Nobody agrees on everything. :Peace2:
Very well put, Seth. Obviously a very thorny and touchy subject, but it has drawn some thoughtful, measured responses on all sides, as is to be expected from this forum.
Personally I just feel very wary about the lack of violent example from Christ and His followers, in addition to the scriptures such as turning the other cheek that you quoted. For me to follow Christ, and to do something He commanded against, and did not set an example of, is very shaky ground. I just feel as though all the justifications for violence come either from the Law, or else rationalization of things said and done by Christ and the disciples that appear to be against violence. It almost becomes something along the lines of "we never are told that they DIDN'T use violence, therefore they must have."
The central reality to following Christ is that we are conformed to His image. The things that we do, we are then testifying that He does, because He is in us. To say (or imply) that Jesus Christ leans on the arm of the flesh for His protection, makes Him (to my mind) no different than the military messiah the Jews (and now modern Christians) are waiting for - who will subdue His enemies by force of arms, instead of by the spiritual double edged sword of the Word of God.
The way I look at is this. If Paul says the sword is implemeted by God so that evil-doers will fear- then it is so. Paul never disagreed with Jesus- the scriptures cannot be broken. There is no less authority in those words than in the words, "resist not evil, overcome evil with good"or, "turn the other cheek"- but the context is different, and they only connect in principle(all should always strive for peace). Paul is making it clear that God sanctions the rule of law and that the rule of law requires enforcement and that in a world of depraved violence and predation, sometimes the correct response is violent enforcement(military or police action). If Paul meant ANYTHING ELSE he would have used some other terminology than, "the sword". When it comes to defending the innocent from the predator, sometimes it is God's will to use violence. The fine lines of application in that, whether it is national military or community policing is something that everyone who engages in that will be judged in, because anything God sanctions that involves the exercize of power is judged more strictly.
The real purpose of police is to defend the weak against predators. Abuse of police power is judged unrighteous.
The real purpose of the military is to defend the community/nation against aggressors. Imperialist wars are judged unrighteous.
John 18;21-23 is an example of Jesus doing the turning of the cheek. physically violent attack over offense of the "word of truth"
spoken[offended over a word] He turned the other cheek,right there...and did not back down from speaking truth..even knowing
it may result in more violence against His person. it was about the testimony there/witnesses and establishing truth.
if thy ear offend thee..cut if off..Peter was called satan and told to get behind me..for the desire of men/not God.
Peter was offended that the Lord would be crucified. I wonder if it was the same servant of the High Priest whose ear was cut off
by Peter..and Jesus replaced..that slapped Him..?.
our battle is not against flesh and blood,but against [corrupt] powers and principalities in High places[like Ahab and Jezebel
did to Naboth for his vineyard,like Jesus parable of vineyard let out to tenants..that killed the Master's son]
WHAT IS TRUTH?
You white-washed tombs..offspring of vipers..hypocrites etc..doesn't seem like peaceable speech..but downright imflammatory or
provoking at times...the truth in your face!!
if we share spiritually in the 'word of God' likewise we share materially.... If a man spiritually be the head of his wife...so
too,phyisically......giving up his life to present her spotless and blameless unto himself........under the law covenant..he did
that by taking on the appearance of sin..and laying His life down......40 lashes save one..etc..........
isn't their something about love not seeking after it's own advantage,but the advantage of other's........
sometimes our hands are tied[bound on earth/bound in heaven] and we can't do much[the night comes when no man can work]
...and the Lord may reply...why do you trouble her? ..she did what she could.
but...I can not leave this topic without mentioning the book of Ester. .and Hamaan[symbolizing the wicked enemy of Israel]
setting a day to kill/exterminate all the jews..after all..when Hamaan wanted Mordecai to stand..he didn't,when he wanted
Mordecai to bow,He didn't.. Ester ch 3 please read about documents sent throughout the land pertaining to exterminating
the jews. Then read Odes of Solomon ch 23..about sealed document sent out throughout the land........
Jesus is a Lamb..Jesus is a LION OF THE TRIBE OF JUDAH. there were two High Priests...one was anointed for war...He makes
war in righteousness. Do not think I come to bring peace..but a sword..
..Zechariah ch 1 Angel of the Lord among the Myrtle trees Ester/Myrtle/Hadassah...four horns,four craftsmen,four chariots.
ten men[Zechariah 8;23] versus ten sons of Haman] from all languages and nations.. will say..'let us go with you,for we have
heard 'God is with you[o'immanuel] Zechariah 9;14 the Lord will appear over them,His arrow will flash like lightening[see arrow shot
violently from the bow in Ode 23]
the jews were granted to fight to defend themselves from annihilation per Hamaan in Persia......
Place me as a seal upon your heart and arm[sos] Ode 23 v6 and many hands rushed to the letter,to seize it and to take it,
and to read it,and it escaped their fingers and they were affrightened at it and the seal that was upon it. Because it was not permitted
unto them to loose it's seal;for the power that was over the seal was greater then they[for love is as strong as death]
Ester would not have bothered her Lord..with her request..if it was just a matter of being sold into slavery....they were facing
annihilation/genocide..........
before I knew it..my desire found me among the royal chariots of my people.
Some excellent posts here from everybody. I especially enjoyed Eaglesway's post including the story of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. One can see, even in a small grouping of Christians that there are many different takes in these matters. Every situation (should they occur) will be unique and every brother/sister, unique, all desiring to do God's will.
I would want to try to diffuse the situation if I could by offering food, water, valuables or whatever and in a perfect world, offer him a meal and speak to him about Christ. But we know that our next breath and our future rests with God. I would just pray that the Spirit would speak in my inner ear and I could obey. Anyway, it has been a most interesting and soul searching thread.
Thanks to you all :dsunny:
Shalom :Peace2:
Jock
oh, btw, here is a link that I received this morning through the daily telegraph. I would not judge these men. I am not in their position and have no idea in my wildest imagination, what it would be like. That rests with God alone I think.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9539244/Syria-Christians-take-up-arms-for-first-time.html
I'm reminded of this:
[attachment deleted by admin]
It's true that God implements the sword. But the same Apostle Paul who said that also said we ought not be the judges of the outside world, to repay evil with good, Harcourt weapons of war are not carnal but Spiritual.
And Jesus said himself not to repay eye for eye but to turn the other cheek. the way I see it, the outside world is to be for God's judgement, but blessed are the meek and the peacemakers.
the Bible says that some Christians were turned over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh so that the man live in the day of the Lord. In other words Satan is another tool of God. But that doesn't mean I want to be Satan. & I wouldn't want to be a Babylon soldier either even though God use them to judge Israel.
I want to live in peace. I have inner peace thanks to the power of the holy spirit of God. I'm not bloodthirsty, and I don't even want to hurt another human being emotionally. But I know a person, when faced with danger up close and personal, will react instinctively with survival skills whether that person is a believer or not. You may feel bad about it later if you have to hurt or kill somebody to save yourself and your family, but, in the seconds it takes for the violence to happen, you don't have time to think about turning the other cheek. You will just be trying to stay alive like any other living soul would do. Some people are better equipped to do so than others, but I think most people would do whatever is possible to try to react to the situation in a way that stops the attack by the perpetrator. You can have a debate afterward about if you think you did the right thing, but I think your family will be grateful you did something to protect them. It may result in another human being getting hurt very badly or even killed, but I think you would be justified for defending yourself and your family. Unfortunately, there are some places where the legal system would consider you a criminal for doing so. I recently read about an old guy who was attacked in his home by a few thugs, and he used his gun which was illegal in that place. Now he faces ten years in prison, and the guys who put stitches in his head before he fired a few shots hitting one of them will only have to do a couple of years because their crimes are seen to be less serious than the guy using a gun in his own home to protect himself. I learned a long time ago that the so called justice system is not fair, and you only get as much justice as you can afford. I think it's immoral that governments disarm their citizens when they need guns to protect themselves from criminals. The cops can't protect you because the violent crime happens in seconds. All the cops do is show up and do some paperwork while your dead body is laying on the floor. Before I moved to Florida, I lived on the south side of Chicago where there was gunfire on my street several times a week. I had a shotgun that I had to register with the city and .357 snubby that was illegal in the city. I kept them both loaded and ready all the time, and sometimes I had to get my ex down on the floor when the shooting was going on right outside my front window. I hear you can own a pistol in Chicago now, but it never should have been illegal to do so. People deserve to be able to protect themselves. There are a lot of stories about people getting locked up for doing so. The post about Hitler reminded me about how he easily managed to round up the Jews and take them away to die after he made it illegal for them to possess firearms. The government and the police are not your bodyguards with you 24/7. So you better be able to protect yourself and your family. I consider a violent person attacking me or my family a vicious predator just like a wild animal. I don't think there's time to consider spiritual matters when it happens. You just have to react with force to stop the attack. The intent is not to kill but to stop the violent confrontation that happens in a matter of seconds. People can philosophize all they want after you do what is necessary to stop the attack, but you have to stop it with whatever force and skill you have. If I'm going to be accused of being a bad Christian or a non-Christian because I used violence to stop an attack, I don't care. It would just be another reason I'd be criticized by people for not conforming to their beliefs. I believe the inspired written word of God, and I believe the section of Revelation about Christ coming back, fighting, and defeating the forces of evil is literal. I think there's a time and place for everything. I know there's a lot of debate about literal vs. figurative or metaphysical especially in Revelation, but I believe you should interpret everything literally unless it obviously can't be. I know some people think most of scripture is figurative, and some even think it's all fantasy. I think even those who aren't familiar with scripture or even Yahweh and Yeshua HaMashiach can still have a good conscience given to them by God and be good people. They may not be in the body of Christ and receive eonian life, but I believe God loves them and will save them from death at the consummation of the eons. I even believe God loves the violent criminal who may attack my family and will save him from death at the consummation of the eons because evil will eventually be nullified and death will be abolished. I can even say I love the violent criminal with the love of God, but I won't let that stop me from using force against force if I and my family are attacked. I believe God is love, but I also understand why God causes us all to be dying. I think we all experience dying to help us really appreciate life more. I think the darkness helps us appreciate light more. I think evil helps us appreciate good more. I think God is very wise to cause us to experience the full spectrum of life by subjecting us to evil and good. Thank God we have an expectation that a time will come when we will no longer have to experience evil or death. In the meantime, I'll try to do my best to follow the teachings of Christ but keep things in context. I'm sorry for the long post, but I just don't believe I'm supposed to be passive when confronted with violence if I can do something about it.
The things about literal vs figurative is interesting because the only place anyone can find an example of Christ supposedly condoning violence is from passages which are from parable or Revelation.
In revelation 19 the sword comes out of Christ's mouth. Do you LITERALLY believe that Christ is going to fight with a sword in his mouth? I think it shows that Christ method of fighting the world is by speaking the truth.
Jesus LITERALLY said that if someone strikes your cheek, turn the other one. How does that work with conceal and carry for self protection, or dropping napalm on villages to fight the commies?
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.
I would say that however we handle a situation that involves protecting ourselves or others, is how God wants the situation to be handled else it would be different. It's all in his hands, even our actions.
CHB
I agree that Jesus would not condone violence, after all why did God destroy the earth in Noah's time:
So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. Gen. 6:13
I see 'violence' as an offensive action (non-love). Very different than the 'use of force' in a defensive action.
It's almost like the ET/UR distinction.
When God disciplines and chastises, it is not an offensive action, on the contrary, he is ultimately protecting us against ourselves.
In Paul's letter to the Galatians in chapter 5, he basically said that he wished the Judaizers would cut off their genitals. This is not 'turning the other cheek'. Jesus said 'But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.' Matt. 5:28, so what Paul said about the Judaizers was the same as doing it, but, it was in defense of his 'little ones'.
For me, this is where I see the dividing line, has to do with motive of the heart. Murder is always an offensive (non-love) act. But, I can see a circumstance when killing could be considered an act of love.
Pat
QuoteI see 'violence' as an offensive action (non-love). Very different than the 'use of force' in a defensive action.
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?
In other words, Christ was preaching non-violence as a counter reaction to self defense. BTW, we have seen this in practice in the 60s civil rights movement, reacting with nonviolence to incoming violence, not repaying evil for evil, and that is what shamed the racist attackers before the whole nation on tv. Many of these people could have been killed but they held to MLK Jr's radical call for complete not violent response because he understood the power in it.
QuoteWhen God disciplines and chastises, it is not an offensive action, on the contrary, he is ultimately protecting us against ourselves.
I agree. I just think that we are to give the place of "offensive action" to God not put it into our own hands.
QuoteIn Paul's letter to the Galatians in chapter 5, he basically said that he wished the Judaizers would cut off their genitals. This is not 'turning the other cheek'. Jesus said 'But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.' Matt. 5:28, so what Paul said about the Judaizers was the same as doing it, but, it was in defense of his 'little ones'.
I'm not sure how the "lustfully" scripture is supporting what you are saying? How was Paul looking lustfully at a woman? Paul never went out and ACTUALLY castrated anyone. Here is what he said: that they would do it to
themselves rather than trouble the church. Paul was not about to pick up a sword and go out and cut people apart because he didn't practice violence.
If Paul thought violence was a way to protect his "little ones" from Judaizing he was well within his means to tell the church to literally castrate Judaizers. I think that is obviously he would never do, and he never did. He never told the church to protect the little ones in his church through violent action.
QuoteFor me, this is where I see the dividing line, has to do with motive of the heart. Murder is always an offensive (non-love) act. But, I can see a circumstance when killing could be considered an act of love.
So if a terrorist attacks a building, going out to kill him is an act of loving him? That's what Jesus had in mind by not fighting evil with evil and loving your enemy?
So if a terrorist attacks a building, going out to kill him is an act of loving him? That's what Jesus had in mind by not fighting evil with evil and loving your enemy?
I think you missed the point. The act of love is not toward the terrorist, but defending others from him (love for them).
Quote from: Patinak on March 12, 2015, 08:00:39 PM
So if a terrorist attacks a building, going out to kill him is an act of loving him? That's what Jesus had in mind by not fighting evil with evil and loving your enemy?
I think you missed the point. The act of love is not toward the terrorist, but defending others from him (love for them).
But we are supposed to love our enemies, not go out and kill them. We are supposed to let God use the outside world not to make ourselves their judgment.
Luke 6
27"But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies,
do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
29If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you.
32"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them.
33And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. 35But love your enemies,
do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
People may say that none of that counts in wartime. But I believe that is when it counts the most because wartime is when the worst evil is done to me enemies as a response to them doing evil to me.
Therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, I urge you to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God; this is your spiritual worship.[a] 2 Do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may discern what is the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God.
"do not be conformed to this age"
"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:
:iagree:
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.
Quote from: Seth on March 12, 2015, 07:33:17 PM
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.
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:
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.
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:
Quote from: bushy on March 12, 2015, 10:38:16 PM
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:
Quote from: micah7:9At 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.
Quote from: Seth on March 12, 2015, 05:44:47 PM
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
BTW, JOCK- you started a GREAT thread :banana:
Quote from: eagleswayI 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.
Quote from: eagleswayBTW, JOCK- you started a GREAT thread :banana:
:iagree:
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 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.
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:
Thanks Seth. Complicated topic. :HeartThrob:
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.
Quote from: dajomaco on March 13, 2015, 12:03:20 AM
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.
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:
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: joeteekay on March 13, 2015, 12:44:23 AM
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:
Quote from: Tom on March 13, 2015, 12:49:47 AM
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.
yes, i understood your point, thanks. yeah, i hear you..sad but true, that it might be "easier" to look the other way and let evil have its way. But then I'd feel "evil" for doing so :sigh:
I hear ya James. I even got tired of the whole forum a few months ago and had to take a break. I hear ya, Joe, but sometimes we have to discuss hypothetical situations to understand what's up. It's sad that we even have to consider these things, but the real world is a violent place. The good thing is that we have an expectation of a time when evil will be nullified and even death will be abolished. Even God's messengers of evil will lose their power and be reconciled to God. Then we won't have to be concerned with any of this stuff anymore.
Well, James, in your scenario, I couldn't look the other way. I would have to confront the maniac and just hope the legal system would see it as justified.
One of the reasons I think this topic is wearying is that it is pretty broad. "Christians taking up arms" to defend themselves. Well the death penalty isn't really self defense, anyway. But so many things go into the concept of "taking up arms." Protecting one's family can include many things, such as having a gun in the home, going off to fight in a war, defending one's self while preaching the gospel in a synagogue (historic reference intended) etc. It's hard not to speak past each other in that respect because one person may be talking about one aspect (what to do when your family is attacked by rapists) and another person could be talking about a different aspect (joining the army and going oversees to drop bombs). So I have been in agreement with many here about the fact that "taking up arms" is a gradation of an issue and many issues are being discussed all at once.
I hear ya, bro.
A person who is not a Christian gets a sense of comfort and protection from having a gun.
Does the person you is a believer get the same sense
of protection from his gun as the unbeliever does.
I own a gun I was thinking of getting rid of it.
I think a gun is simply a tool that can be used for defense of yourself and your loved ones. Why are you thinking about getting rid of yours?
Wow, another 37 new posts this morning with several scenarios. I agree, it is a wise thing to have a dog but not necessarily a mean looking dog. We have a little Papillon that is an excellent watch dog. Anyone comes to our door, he goes ballistic, so he doubles as a good house alarm. I was thinking though, scripture says many things about Christ and man's relationship with God and his neighbour. There is something here I think we should consider, as follows: Paul said:
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. This is spiritual warfare and the battleground is usually the mind, however, these powers and principalities can move people to do heinous things to innocent people. When ISIS came into Mosul, they beheaded all the children and put their heads on sticks in the local park. I, for one am glad that we have a military to bomb these people to hell and gone.
These people are demon possessed and their god (Allah) is the devil. They are the descendents of Ishmael of whom the Lord said "he will be a wild man". I'm not sure if they will ever occupy the town I live in but if I even get a whiff of their presence, I will take my family and flee to the hills. Of course, that may sound a bit far fetched right now, but in 5 years?????
In the meantime we have plenty violence in our towns and cities and if we come up against a threat, remember that we are coming up against an evil principality.
Shalom :Peace2:
Jock.
BTW, I believe that word "principality" covers things like wickedness in the government, in commerce, the police and the military, and in some cases, the church, imo
I figured that quote would come up. I understand, but I think some humans are instruments of these evil spiritual forces just as we are supposed to be instruments for God's will. So I don't believe I need to submit to humans coming at me with evil intentions. I can love my enemies without letting them destroy me. I think being martyred for the word of God is different than just being passive while being attacked by thugs on the street or in your home. I think all believers should expect to be persecuted for our beliefs, but I don't think that means we are supposed to submit to all violence against us. I think you can be a believer and still resist people who threaten your life with whatever skills and tools you have including firearms just as you would defend yourself against attacks by any vicious animals. I think that's a natural instinct that's justified. If you choose to be a martyr for the word of God, you can get a one way ticket to Syria and do so. That's your choice, but I think that's a different situation than self-defense.
Tom, I agree. Just think what a difference it might make if all people knew that if they tried to rob, kill, or fight someone that they would be met with resistance. Wouldn't a robber, murderer think twice to mess with someone they knew might get them first? Not that we should look for violence but there are those who do and if everyone was ready for them it might stop a lot of violence. If a robber or murderer was looking for a victim, who do you think he would go after, the man with a gun, or someone with no protection? If this murderer or robber knew that everyone had some form of protection I think it would make him think twice before he attacked someone.
I admit that no weapon, force, violence, of any kind is the ideal way to live but we are all human and humans without God in their lives can be evil. This perfect living arrangement without violence will not happen until all are spirit but till then we have to deal with these things. But as I said in another post, God is in charge of it all, whatever we do is the way God wants each of us to handle things.
CHB
2 Cor 10
3For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after (like) the flesh: 4(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) 5Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
Wrestling with principalities does not mean, in my opinion, warring like the flesh does or adopting carnal weapons of war. It involves prayer and battling "everything that exalts itself against the knowledge of God" by bringing into captivity every THOUGHT to the obedience of Christ. Paul was not recommending taking up carnal weapons and fighting people who are tempted of the devil to hate their own enemies.
BTW, when you do a word study on the phrase "high places" it is often associated with idol worship in the Bible. Idols were worshipped in high places. So since man is meant to be a temple of God, where would the location of that high place be for idol worship?
http://biblehub.com/topical/h/high_places.htm
When the poorer people didn't have resources to build a temple, they would make a large mound for a high place to worship.
Ezekiel 6:6
In all your dwellingplaces the cities shall be laid waste, and the high places shall be desolate; that your altars may be laid waste and made desolate, and your idols may be broken and cease, and your images may be cut down, and your works may be abolished.
Seth
I agree that Paul was not talking about warring in the flesh, although these spirits and powers in "high places" have authority over many. I said in my post that the battle is in the mind. If one spirit can dislodge another, it gains authority, that was what I was driving at.
Thanks for the well intentioned correction though :winkgrin:
Shalom :Peace2:
Jock
Hi Jock, I liked the things in your post about the mind. My post wasn't a direct response to yours. Just adding to the mix. :gimmefive:
Seth
Tom put it well when he said:
- "I figured that quote would come up. I understand, but I think some humans are instruments of these evil spiritual forces just as we are supposed to be instruments for God's will. So I don't believe I need to submit to humans coming at me with evil intentions"
I have quite a history of spiritual warfare and still get attacked at times, So I look to the scriptures and the counsel of my brothers, for the truth that ALWAYS sets me free! This is how I grow.
Shalom :Peace2:
Jock.
Seth, no worries bro :gimmefive: :gimmefive:
As far as submitting to evil forces coming at them, those apostles didn't fight to defend their personal selves with human methods of war. They stood on Christ instruction to fight evil with goodness, prayer and blessing. Martin Luther King Jr did the same thing with principalities of his day.
Tom, I agree. Just think what a difference it might make if all people knew that if they tried to rob, kill, or fight someone that they would be met with resistance. Wouldn't a robber, murderer think twice to mess with someone they knew might get them first? Not that we should look for violence but there are those who do and if everyone was ready for them it might stop a lot of violence. If a robber or murderer was looking for a victim, who do you think he would go after, the man with a gun, or someone with no protection? If this murderer or robber knew that everyone had some form of protection I think it would make him think twice before he attacked someone.
The USA has already the most guns per capita than any other industrial Nation.
They also have the highest murder rate.
More guns more murder.
Does the unbeliever get the same sense of protection from his gun as a believer ?
daj, I'd suggest looking at the amount of 'illegal' guns. There are a lot of guns in America, but we also have a very large and rapidly increasing culture of thugs who hate the law and think they can do whatever they want. I'd suggest looking at studies that involve 'legal' ownership, i.e., law-abiding citizens who care about the law and others. The latest I saw was Seth's state, California (which, sorry Seth, it's not your fault :laugh:, you're one of the good guys; but I believe is generally the most 'Godless', humanistic, "insane" state in the union - though we all have our share). LEGAL gun ownership in California has recently dramatically increased, and murder rates have significantly decreased. Re: CA, I'm the pot calling the kettle black, because I live in the St. Louis area, where if you make someone a little bit mad or are just in the "wrong place at the wrong time", you're literally taking yours and your family's lives in your hands. The lawless thug culture is extremely high here.
As far as believers and unbelievers gaining the same sense of protection, I think that's hard to answer because it would be so individualized. If I could guess and generalize, I'd hope believers would know that ultimately, no matter what, their strength, comfort, protection, and all that is life comes from the Lord and is directed by His hand. While at the same time, I would suspect many feel justified and of clear conscience being prepared as best as each persons' means are supplied. :2c:
p.s. i suspect in america we've reached a tipping point, to where the Godless, lawless sub-culture has increased to the point to where it's taking over. and much of our government is corrupt and a humanistic (or worse) product of the 60's, so are complicit if not actively supporting it. so whether the perspective and reactions are right or wrong (legal citizens physically preparing to defend themselves and their families [and other innocents]), if all the guns were supposedly seized or if lawful people surrendered their arms, who would still have the weapons? i seriously doubt the criminal element would just gladly turn theirs over. as chb and tom and others have suggested, it's a mess, and ultimately only God is going to remedy it. :2c:
Quote from: Seth on March 13, 2015, 09:18:00 PM
As far as submitting to evil forces coming at them, those apostles didn't fight to defend their personal selves with human methods of war. They stood on Christ instruction to fight evil with goodness, prayer and blessing. Martin Luther King Jr did the same thing with principalities of his day.
Seth, why did Jesus say, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world,
then would my servants FIGHT"? CHB
Quote from: CHB on March 14, 2015, 12:06:34 AM
Quote from: Seth on March 13, 2015, 09:18:00 PM
As far as submitting to evil forces coming at them, those apostles didn't fight to defend their personal selves with human methods of war. They stood on Christ instruction to fight evil with goodness, prayer and blessing. Martin Luther King Jr did the same thing with principalities of his day.
Seth, why did Jesus say, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants FIGHT"?
CHB
I may just ask....How did Jesus fight..in the world?
Quote from: CHB on March 14, 2015, 12:06:34 AM
Quote from: Seth on March 13, 2015, 09:18:00 PM
As far as submitting to evil forces coming at them, those apostles didn't fight to defend their personal selves with human methods of war. They stood on Christ instruction to fight evil with goodness, prayer and blessing. Martin Luther King Jr did the same thing with principalities of his day.
Seth, why did Jesus say, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants FIGHT"?
CHB
Well, that's what Peter did. Jesus said: "my servant would fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews:" Doesn't that sound exactly like Peter? Peter was of this world, so he fought, and Jesus stopped him from doing that. But, Peter had not been converted yet,
"For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." (Romans 14:7)The very fact that Christ's kingdom is not of this world is why they are a people of peace. Jesus is responding to Pilot who asked why his own people have delivered them to him. Christ's response is that my kingdom is NOT of this world. If it were then they WOULD fight, just like Peter did.
To answer Pilot's question, yes Jesus is a king, but those seeking his death were not his kingdom. The very fact that he could stand before pilot without fighting back is a living and active demonstration that his kingdom is not of this world and doesn't function like this world.
Sorry, but I keep seeing things said that I think may have a "balance" or other side to it, or at least another way to look at it/more to consider.
Paul said live at peace with all men "as much as lies in you", "as much as dependes on you", or "as much as is possible" etc. depending on the translation. :2c:
As for Jesus Himself; I remember an earlier mention, that Jesus had a specific mission; in large part, to physically die.
That I take to mean that it's not your actions that manifest violence. If they preach the gospel in the synagogue they will not be at peace, but not because they fight back. At that point it's out of their hands.
I take it to mean that I don't instigate the problem, even going out of my to solve/reconcile, etc.
Somewhere Paul said that people who live in righteousness WILL experience persecution or troubles. When you do what God says people won't be at peace with you.
Yes, I don't think one necessarily negates the other.
again, discernment, the Lord's leading, different situations, all that (much of what's already been said :footmouth:) :)
using your own example of rescuing a child from an attacker, doing that even without violence exacted on the attacker will not put you at peace with him for sure.
Quote from: jabcat on March 14, 2015, 01:48:30 AM
again, discernment, the Lord's leading, different situations, all that (much of what's already been said :footmouth:) :)
:iagree:
I think Jesus stopped Peter from using his sword because it wasn't the right time to use it even after he had just told the disciples to get some swords. I think Jesus did it for the same reason that he rebuked Peter for not wanting him to be crucified. Peter didn't seem to understand that it was God's will for Jesus to be crucified. Regarding MLK, I think there's a difference between non-violent civil disobedience and personal defense of self and family. I doubt he would have remained non-violent if somebody was attacking his family. I think, if you have a family, you have a responsibility to protect them. If you want be celibate and preach the evangel, then it wouldn't be a problem if you want to be a martyr. We all suffer persecution for the faith, but I think thugs attacking you and your loved ones is a different story. Everybody has a choice to make about whether they want to submit to violence or not. I think it's a lot easier to philosophize about it than to actually experience it and then try to remain passive while somebody is attacking you. And just letting it happen to yourself is one thing, but letting it happen to your loved ones for the sake of some ideal is something else.
As far as family members go I agree with Jabcat it's a take it as it comes situation. Let God guide through his Grace. Anyway, that's my prayer.
As far as joining the military, I think Jabcat's referenced scripture is another witness against that. Live at peace as much as it depends on you.
Do you have a choice not to join an army and bomb your enemies and the hapless women and children who are collateral? Does that choice depend on you? Of course it does.
Bombing ISIS might satisfy a sense of vengeance for many but if you think it will end the violence look at history. Before Isis there was Al Qaeda, before that there was Lebanon. You kill them, their children grow up to hate you, and so since the beginning of time.
I choose not to participate in that bloody cycle. I choose to live at peace with all men so much as it depends on me.
I hear ya, brother. I choose to live at peace with all men too, but if some of those men choose not to live at peace with me, then what?
Then live peacefully as much as it depends on you...not them. Joining a war depends on you not them that's why Paul's actions which were based on his words, were not violent. Can you tell me that Paul would join the US army and go bomb ISIS. I couldn't say that and keep a straight face personally.
I'm not thinking about going to bomb ISIS, just personal defense on the street or in the home.
That's why this conversation can wearying :laughing7:
We're talking about different things.
Well, I mentioned "bombing ISIS" because I was very angry at the thought of what they were doing to little kids, and that they do it wantonly. James is right, things are getting worse and imo this is the time to be thinking about alarming and hardening our homes against intruders. Guns, knives, billy clubs, baseball bats et all. Fleeing to the hills even in a 5th wheel. Storing food and water etc.
Jock.
I say these things because they ARE my conviction before God and men. If you knew me personally, you would quickly see that I am a gentle person, I was even bullied in High School and didn't fight back. However, this is a new world we are living in now, and I have a family and as a Christian, I expect to be persecuted. So, these are my contingencies in the case of being under lethal threat.
I'm not going to try and spiritualize this, I'm just being honest and up front about it. It wasn't my desire to cause any strife on the thread.
Here's a video of Maine prepper who is a Christian and a prepper. He is ex military and has a lot of good common sense and wise things to say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsdEgcE_Yss
Shalom
Jock.
I see what Jesus said "then my servants would fight" as saying, there is a time when it is ok to fight for a good cause. Just like in Ecc.3:3 "a time to kill and a time to heal". Verse 8, a time of war,and a time of peace.
I have a question? if this Country was being attacked and every one of our lives were in danger should we all just sit around and do nothing? What then?
CHB
CHB I would do exactly what Jesus said to do, run for the hills. the world sees that is cowardice but I see it as Christ directive towards those that are not of this world. Being of this world as Jesus said means to fight. But because his kingdom is not of this world they run for the hills. they go to a higher place that overlooks the valley where all this fighting and bloodshed is.
did Jesus say "stand up, be a man, and fight" or "run for the hills?"
Seth
Outstanding brother!
:iagree: :iagree: :iagree:
Shalom
Jock.
Quote from: CHB on March 14, 2015, 12:06:34 AM
Quote from: Seth on March 13, 2015, 09:18:00 PM
As far as submitting to evil forces coming at them, those apostles didn't fight to defend their personal selves with human methods of war. They stood on Christ instruction to fight evil with goodness, prayer and blessing. Martin Luther King Jr did the same thing with principalities of his day.
Seth, why did Jesus say, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants FIGHT"?
CHB
Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My deputies, also, would have contended, lest I should be given up to the Jews.
Yet now is My kingdom not hence."
If Jesus kingdom had been of this world then his servants would fight. We are of this world therefore we sometimes have to fight, just like Jesus servants would do.
Even John the Baptist recognized the need for soldiers in our present societies. He advised soldiers to be content with their wages. At no time did he advise soldiers to get out of the military (Luke 3:14). In actual fact, the armed forces of civilized countries are as necessary today for the preservation of the peace as they were in the time of Moses, in the time of David or when Christ comes to war with his divine army to prevail against all evil. For Christ's use of war, read all of Revelation 19.
Luke 3:14 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely and be content with your wages.
CHB
Heading for the hills may not be an option sometimes just like sometimes you might not be able to get away from an attack on the street or in your home. You may have no choice but to fight or simply be killed without fighting. If you have a family to protect, I'd say you should do whatever you can to try to protect them.
Quote from: Seth on March 14, 2015, 04:56:31 PM
CHB I would do exactly what Jesus said to do, run for the hills. the world sees that is cowardice but I see it as Christ directive towards those that are not of this world. Being of this world as Jesus said means to fight. But because his kingdom is not of this world they run for the hills. they go to a higher place that overlooks the valley where all this fighting and bloodshed is.
did Jesus say "stand up, be a man, and fight" or "run for the hills?"
Luk 21:14
Ponder, then, in your hearts not to be premeditating a defense,Luk 21:15
for I will be giving you a mouth and wisdom, which all those opposing you shall not be able to withstand or contradict."Luk 21:21 Then let those in Judea flee into the mountains...... [I could not find "flee to the hills]
When I (imo) read this I read those in Praise[knowing that the Lord is my high tower] flee to the high places of strength from Him. But that is just me. :2c: :HeartThrob:
Quote from: CHB on March 14, 2015, 05:36:20 PM
If Jesus kingdom had been of this world then his servants would fight. We are of this world therefore we sometimes have to fight, just like Jesus servants would do.
Look at the context. Pilot asked Jesus if he was a king. If so, why were his people delivering him up to be killed. Because his kingdom is not of this world. IF IT WERE then they would fight that he not be delivered to the Jews, just like the Jews wanted to kill him. He is explaining to pilot why a king wouldn't fight back.
The Kingdom is rightousness PEACE and joy in The Holy Spirit. That's the scriptural definition. The Holy Spirit is not of this world it is in heaven. And that is why those who are not of this world live in peace with those who are evil to them.
When Peter fought for Jesus, he was rebuked by Jesus. That's because Peter was fighting in the manner of this world.
Jesus said "they would fight
THAT I NOT BE DELIVERED TO THE JEWS." That's the whole context of what he said. That's exactly what Peter did and was rebuked for it.
CHB, in the context of the scripture you are quoting, since you say you are of this world, would you fight
that Jesus not be delivered to the Jews? You keep cutting Christ's sentence in half when you quote it.
QuoteFor Christ's use of war, read all of Revelation 19.
I did read revelation 19. It says Jesus fights with a sword that comes from his MOUTH.
Quote from: micah7:9 on March 14, 2015, 06:16:24 PM
Quote from: Seth on March 14, 2015, 04:56:31 PM
CHB I would do exactly what Jesus said to do, run for the hills. the world sees that is cowardice but I see it as Christ directive towards those that are not of this world. Being of this world as Jesus said means to fight. But because his kingdom is not of this world they run for the hills. they go to a higher place that overlooks the valley where all this fighting and bloodshed is.
did Jesus say "stand up, be a man, and fight" or "run for the hills?"
Luk 21:14 Ponder, then, in your hearts not to be premeditating a defense,
Luk 21:15 for I will be giving you a mouth and wisdom, which all those opposing you shall not be able to withstand or contradict."
Luk 21:21 Then let those in Judea flee into the mountains...... [I could not find "flee to the hills]
When I (imo) read this I read those in Praise[knowing that the Lord is my high tower] flee to the high places of strength from Him. But that is just me. :2c: :HeartThrob:
Spiritually I see it the same way. Go to a higher place. Not fight back with the same evil.
Quote from: Tom on March 14, 2015, 06:01:31 PM
Heading for the hills may not be an option sometimes just like sometimes you might not be able to get away from an attack on the street or in your home. You may have no choice but to fight or simply be killed without fighting. If you have a family to protect, I'd say you should do whatever you can to try to protect them.
That's up to you brother :HeartThrob:
Quote from: Seth on March 14, 2015, 06:21:52 PM
Quote from: micah7:9 on March 14, 2015, 06:16:24 PM
Quote from: Seth on March 14, 2015, 04:56:31 PM
CHB I would do exactly what Jesus said to do, run for the hills. the world sees that is cowardice but I see it as Christ directive towards those that are not of this world. Being of this world as Jesus said means to fight. But because his kingdom is not of this world they run for the hills. they go to a higher place that overlooks the valley where all this fighting and bloodshed is.
did Jesus say "stand up, be a man, and fight" or "run for the hills?"
Luk 21:14 Ponder, then, in your hearts not to be premeditating a defense,
Luk 21:15 for I will be giving you a mouth and wisdom, which all those opposing you shall not be able to withstand or contradict."
Luk 21:21 Then let those in Judea flee into the mountains...... [I could not find "flee to the hills]
When I (imo) read this I read those in Praise[knowing that the Lord is my high tower] flee to the high places of strength from Him. But that is just me. :2c: :HeartThrob:
Spiritually I see it the same way. Go to a higher place. Not fight back with the same evil.
I know I am slow on the uptake sometimes, "Spiritually I see it the same way." Is that not how we are to understand? I know I am a human being and I live in America, but to paraphrase, How can I be to spiritually minded and be of no earthly good? Jesus said,
Joh 6:63 The
Spirit is that which is vivifying. The flesh is not benefiting anything.
The declarations which I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
Joh 4:24 God is spirit, and those who are worshiping Him must be worshiping in spirit and truth."
Should I continue[as I still do] stand with a gun in one hand and the Word in the other, I (as a carnal human) will always be wrestling with the old man vs. the new man. My old man stands on common and logical sense, while my new man is trying to understand that my only weapon to stand with is the Almighty I AM.
God is spirit, and those who are worshiping Him must be worshiping in spirit and truth."
2Sa 22:3 My Elohim [is] my rock--I take refuge in Him; My shield, and the horn of my salvation, My high tower, and my refuge! My Saviour, from violence You save me!"
:2c: :HeartThrob:
I see running to the hills literally as in being given the strength to resist fighting in the manner of the world, going to a high place spiritually. I see them correlating.
Seth
Going to a high place spiritually is our default condition, or should be. Jesus told his disciples to flee to the hills, He didn't tell them to be more spiritual!
It's really a pity you had to justify and spiritualize it, you seemed to be on the right track earlier, oh well!
Jock.
I have always seen it in a spiritual way, but I really would run for the hills literally. Some people don't have literal hills they can make it to, but the principle is not to resist the persecution but to be at peace with all men so much as it depends on me.
OK, sorry mate, I misunderstood you. I know what you mean now. :dsunny:
Shalom
Jock. :Peace2:
No worries :friendstu:
I agree that we should do no harm to any one. We should avoid all apperances of evil. We should not go looking for violence of any kind and so forth. But, sometimes it is just impossible to do the above if you are confronted in such a manner that your life or the life of others are in danger. I wouldn't think much of a man or woman who if they saw me being beaten to death turned and ran for the hills. There is a time for all things. I have seen on tv where a bunch of people just stood around while someone beat the crap out of another. Is that acting godly? is that showing love for your fellow man? is this pleasing to God?
CHB
Go with how you feel led. In the end that's what we all have to do :HeartThrob:
Quote from: Seth on March 14, 2015, 09:00:30 PM
Go with how you feel led. In the end that's what we all have to do :HeartThrob:
Exactly. :iagree:
I agree with Seth. Do what's in your heart to do and allow the Lord to judge it.
I think I'm gonna bow out from this thread, it's been a humdinger though
Gnnight all
Jock. :friendstu:
BTW, God willing if I saw you being attacked, I would try to rescue you by pulling you away from danger. If you turned around and asked me to suit up and join the war effort, I'd politely decline. :gimmefive:
Quote from: CHB on March 14, 2015, 05:36:20 PM
If Jesus kingdom had been of this world then his servants would fight. We are of this world therefore we sometimes have to fight, just like Jesus servants would do.
If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because
you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. (John 15:19)
In that one, isolated reference, Jesus was speaking specifically to His disciples. I know that applies to us as well at least in some sense. I wonder though if there are other [later] scriptures and circumstances that add further context..such as "put the sword away"/"take [what you need] buy a sword". We are different, because of Christ in us, working His work, however, we are still in the world. In it, but not of it..again, I wonder about other relevant context. Also, all the ways 'in not of' may be interpreted, applied, and mean to each individual. Some believe that means live in a commune, pray 18 hours a day, don't work, don't talk to anyone, etc. As we know, most of us others walk it out in many different ways. If we weren't in a physical world (although we do have spiritual differences than the world) we wouldn't need to work, procure food, handle money, etc...Jesus said in one place not to worry over these things, they'll be provided...still, He said to bring them. And Paul said a man who doesn't supply his family with such is worse than an infidel...balance, in the end and first and foremost trusting Him to supply all our needs by His riches in glory. He gives all good gifts..but there are tangible gifts (necessities, tools, needs in everyday life).
that's why I believe it's discernment, personal conscience, and not in every instance a cookie-cutter "one scripture always settles it" kind of thing. an example of similar is; I've said myself to try to prove an overall point, and also saw quoted earlier in this thread re: the sword, that Jesus "only spoke to them in parables". That was true - up to a point - but then, not often heard quoted, it changed. "His disciples said, "Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech!" John 16:29
Quote from: jabcat on March 08, 2015, 06:21:43 PM
...
So a serious question is (and I do truly personally wrestle with this, so I'm not just being facetious now) at what point faith and being spiritual, while attending to daily needs, in a real life, with real problems, and real wicked people? Is it taking absolutely no precautions or making absolutely no preparations and trusting God? Or is it DOING those things (if one is provided the means by God to do so) but still trusting God as the "final answer", and as the Provider of all good things? Is there a balance somewhere? Blessings.
Mr 6:9 But [be] shod with sandals; and not put on two coats.
Why two sandals and one coat? The feet represent our 'walk' or 'life', and the coat represents works. As long as we live, we walk in the flesh and in the spirit. Paul cries out, Ro 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
But we are to have only one work, the "good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." Eph 2:10
As the work and workmanship of Christ I am a theological and philosophical passivist. But because I have two sandals, I may backslide and I will cry out with Paul "O wretched man that I am!"
Quote from: jabcatWe are different, because of Christ in us, working His work, however, we are still in the world. In it, but not of it..again, I wonder about other relevant context. Also, all the ways 'in not of' may be interpreted, applied, and mean to each individual. Some believe that means live in a commune, pray 18 hours a day, don't work, don't talk to anyone, etc.
To me, I think it's important, when quoting a sentence that someone in the Bible says, to consider the whole sentence. We could talk a lot about what it means to be in the world and of the world, but we should also talk about what Jesus means when he says "If my kingdom were of this world, they would fight that I not be delivered to the Jews" and not just cut off the rest of the sentence at the word "fight."
In other words, Jesus knows that we are literally in the world, but if fighting to keep Jesus from being delivered from the Jews is representative of being "of this world" then I would say in that sense Peter was of this world when he fought to do that, and Jesus was not of this world. In that sense.
Makes sense to me. I also think of the context though of Jesus' intent being to die - He wasn't asking, nor did He want anyone to defend or deliver Him if His Father didn't. This was a specific time, specific events, specific people - when He was walking the earth with the mission that MUST be fulfilled at the cross. i'm not saying that's an end-all be-all statement for this particular thread, just that there are many things to consider.
:handshake:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNTxr2NJHa0
Yes, that was a historic event, but I believe it is meant to become a template for our own walk:
1 John2
3And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. 4He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. 6He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.
:HeartThrob:
Agreed..but because there are so many variables, that's why we can't "judge another man's servant". One person's walk (all within the boundaries of scripture, a good conscience, the Lord's leading) may not look exactly like each others'. I believe that's why one can serve as a policeman and carry an assault weapon (and use it) while another can spend their time in the Alps in a commune on their knees 18 hours a day and wouldn't kill an ant if it crawled on them - and still both be exactly in the Lord's will. Both a minister of the Lord. :2c:
I think that's for the Lord to decide though.
In other words you disagree.
No, I mean that whatever is exactly in the Lord's will is up to him to decide. I only go by what I believe from the scriptures. And you go by what you see. What is exactly in his will we will see when the time comes. Whatever happens, nobody is going to hell for any of this. It'll all get straightened out by him in the scope of his infinite understanding.
Quote from: jabcat on March 15, 2015, 07:44:19 PM
In that one, isolated reference, Jesus was speaking specifically to His disciples. I know that applies to us as well at least in some sense. I wonder though if there are other [later] scriptures and circumstances that add further context..such as "put the sword away"/"take [what you need] buy a sword". We are different, because of Christ in us, working His work, however, we are still in the world. In it, but not of it..again, I wonder about other relevant context. Also, all the ways 'in not of' may be interpreted, applied, and mean to each individual. Some believe that means live in a commune, pray 18 hours a day, don't work, don't talk to anyone, etc. As we know, most of us others walk it out in many different ways. If we weren't in a physical world (although we do have spiritual differences than the world) we wouldn't need to work, procure food, handle money, etc...Jesus said in one place not to worry over these things, they'll be provided...still, He said to bring them. And Paul said a man who doesn't supply his family with such is worse than an infidel...balance, in the end and first and foremost trusting Him to supply all our needs by His riches in glory. He gives all good gifts..but there are tangible gifts (necessities, tools, needs in everyday life).
that's why I believe it's discernment, personal conscience, and not in every instance a cookie-cutter "one scripture always settles it" kind of thing. an example of similar is; I've said myself to try to prove an overall point, and also saw quoted earlier in this thread re: the sword, that Jesus "only spoke to them in parables". That was true - up to a point - but then, not often heard quoted, it changed. "His disciples said, "Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech!" John 16:29
Jabcat, you sure have a way about explaining things that I wish I had. Amen to all you say here.
CHB
If, you picked up the NT and you knew nothing about human nature, human logic, human common sense, you just understood the words that were on the paper and you read the NT and the teachings, would you come away with any sense of violence, be it self- defense or otherwise?
In my opinion, we all live in a time that our thinking comes from the history of our beginning, whether that be the wheel, America's Revolution, Civil War, and wars up unto the distress of 3/2015, robbery, crime, riots, etc. Our at least mine, mindset is to physically defend self, family, friend, country......faith.
Just wondering is that mindset of the mind of Christ? :Chinscratch: :HeartThrob:
I think you have to know what you are shooting for .
Is your goal to have the mind of Christ .
If so are there things of the world that distract you now, but you hope you can over come .
Is carrying a gun something to overcome?
Maybe it's me and probably is, but I think you missed my point, or as usual I didn't ask it correctly. Sorry. :sigh:
I thought I was agreeing with your post :rolllol:
Quote from: dajomaco on March 16, 2015, 08:02:35 PM
I think you have to know what you are shooting for .
Is your goal to have the mind of Christ .
If so are there things of the world that distract you now, but you hope you can over come .
Is carrying a gun something to overcome?
Like giving it up for Christ?
Could be I guess. Happy is the man that does not condemn himself by that which he allows.
Each individual has a personal relationship with the Lord, and they together will work it out.
Quote from: micah7:9 on March 16, 2015, 07:00:02 PM
If, you picked up the NT and you knew nothing about human nature, human logic, human common sense, you just understood the words that were on the paper and you read the NT and the teachings, would you come away with any sense of violence, be it self- defense or otherwise?
In my opinion, we all live in a time that our thinking comes from the history of our beginning, whether that be the wheel, America's Revolution, Civil War, and wars up unto the distress of 3/2015, robbery, crime, riots, etc. Our at least mine, mindset is to physically defend self, family, friend, country……faith.
Just wondering is that mindset of the mind of Christ? :Chinscratch: :HeartThrob:
Freedom seems to be godly to me.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
God saw fit to put Jesus in a perfect place in history. His ministry was to "the lost sheep of Israel". That is all he ever knew, one place in history, with one specific ministry.
Now in bringing the gospel to the world, Jesus is no longer bound to that culture, climate, and political system, nor are we, thank God.