PDA

View Full Version : To Kill or Be Killed?... That is the Question.



Pages : [1] 2 3

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jul 28th 2010, 12:32 AM
In an unprovoked violent life-threatening non-persecution situation where you and/or your family couldn't flee, would you resist with some kind of force or not resist?

Scripture for choices welcome.

-SEEKING-
Jul 28th 2010, 12:36 AM
Absolutely. Without thinking twice.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jul 28th 2010, 12:59 AM
Poll added. :-)

BibleGirl02
Jul 28th 2010, 01:35 AM
I would probably use non-lethal weapon force if I thought that would stop them. If that wouldn't be enough, I would use lethal weapon force. First, I would shy shooting them in the shoulder, leg, or arm and if that didn't work, I'd have to use lethal force and shoot them in the chest or head.

Slug1
Jul 28th 2010, 02:03 AM
I have trained for combat, killed in combat and at heart I am still a Minister of God now retired from military service of 21 years as an Infantryman. I know that killing is completely OK with God and only murder is wrong and He has commanded us all, never to murder. If my families life, my friends lives, a strangers life and finally my own life is threatened... the threat is gonna be killed and after the police are done taking my statement, I'm going to sleep that night and wake up and go on as the Lord has had me go on serving Him.

TexUs
Jul 28th 2010, 02:37 AM
What's the difference between lethal physical force and lethal weapon force?
Beating someone to death or shooting them to death? Not sure that there's much difference. I'd rather put a humane end to his life with one clean shot myself.

But yes, if someone broke in and their intentions were clear- I'd shoot them without thinking a second thought about it.
Sure- I'd probably be torn up about it for awhile, but if my life and family's life was saved: that's what matters.

Now, I'd try every means possible to not kill him. If the sight of a Glock with .40 hollowpoints scares him into throwing his hands in the air, I'm holding him at gunpoint until police get there to arrest him. But if he goes on a violent spree, then my hand is forced.

Slug1
Jul 28th 2010, 02:43 AM
Now, I'd try every means possible to not kill him. If the sight of a Glock with .40 hollowpoints scares him into throwing his hands in the air, I'm holding him at gunpoint until police get there to arrest him. But if he goes on a violent spree, then my hand is forced.That's why a pump shotgun is real handy. When the person threatening you either sees or even hears that round being chambered (I have a Remington 800) and they continue to advance, you KNOW what you're up against and the next sound will be the blast of a 3.5 inch, 12ga magnum 00buck and them sailing through the air until a wall or the floor catches the body.

Vhayes
Jul 28th 2010, 02:47 AM
Our families are given to us to protect, to watch over. We should love our family. If someone broke into my home, what am I to think? That they've come in without my asking because they like me? Nope. They come in to do me and mine harm. Would I kill them? Absolutely - no questions asked, no second thoughts.

I would do the same if I saw someone break into my neighbors. Why? Because I love my neighbor as well.

Amos_with_goats
Jul 28th 2010, 05:17 AM
I suspect there may be differing answers from those who have the luxury of never having faced this decision, then those who have.

Much like the opinions about the moral implications of military service, there is a vast gulf between those who know first hand and those who may think they understand something.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jul 28th 2010, 05:56 AM
What's the difference between lethal physical force and lethal weapon force?
Beating someone to death or shooting them to death? Not sure that there's much difference. I'd rather put a humane end to his life with one clean shot myself.

Some don't have guns, etc. to use and would have to rely on physical force and/or objects that aren't weapons by design, like a lamp, golf club, or fireplace poker. Others might not want or need a weapon because of combat or martial arts training. All of these could be non-lethal or lethal. Just mixin' it up to give options. :-)

nazzer_aij
Jul 28th 2010, 06:14 AM
Need not to apply non lethal force but first pray and adopt other necessary way.
John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: thou that tou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fullfilled.
Matt. 17:20And Jesus said unto them, because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, I f ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, (Logos) ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be imposible unto you.
nazzer_aij

AndrewBaptistFL
Jul 28th 2010, 12:03 PM
I trust God with my safety and with the safety of my family and am prepared to do anything and everything in the protection of my family that is directed by the Spirit.

HisLeast
Jul 28th 2010, 01:36 PM
I voted "don't know", simply because to make distinctions between different flavors of force when force is necessary is to consume milliseconds of response time that I need. My philosophy of force in the context of defending my family is "that amount of force sufficient to completely overwhelm my opponent, and cause immediate cessation of the endangering activity". Quite frankly, I do not have time to wonder or even hope that what I do is lethal, less than lethal, or non-lethal.

The only point at which I'd have a moral dilemma with violence is the off chance I can subdue the assailant without permanent damage. If I had an assailant laying on the ground of my home, or on the sidewalk, and I was still standing... would I take the opportunity to inflict additional suffering, for suffering's sake? THAT would naggle my conscience. But everything I did in the process of neutralization is fair game. EVERYTHING.

TexUs
Jul 28th 2010, 02:36 PM
I suspect there may be differing answers from those who have the luxury of never having faced this decision, then those who have.

Much like the opinions about the moral implications of military service, there is a vast gulf between those who know first hand and those who may think they understand something.
You're saying someone that killed a serial murder rapist breaking into their home would later regret saving the lives of 4 family members?


I voted "don't know", simply because to make distinctions between different flavors of force when force is necessary is to consume milliseconds of response time that I need. My philosophy of force in the context of defending my family is "that amount of force sufficient to completely overwhelm my opponent, and cause immediate cessation of the endangering activity". Quite frankly, I do not have time to wonder or even hope that what I do is lethal, less than lethal, or non-lethal.

The only point at which I'd have a moral dilemma with violence is the off chance I can subdue the assailant without permanent damage. If I had an assailant laying on the ground of my home, or on the sidewalk, and I was still standing... would I take the opportunity to inflict additional suffering, for suffering's sake? THAT would naggle my conscience. But everything I did in the process of neutralization is fair game. EVERYTHING.
That's all true. If my gun isn't within quick accessibility than obviously I'll grab or do whatever I need to do. But if I had a choice of course I want a pistol or shotgun in my hands.

As far as inflicting additional suffering, I wouldn't do it. It then becomes offensive instead of defensive. As I said, I don't want the guy to suffer, so I'd just hope one clean shot will take care of it to end the threat as well as not cause him suffering.

Amos_with_goats
Jul 28th 2010, 02:55 PM
You're saying someone that killed a serial murder rapist breaking into their home would later regret saving the lives of 4 family members?

You misunderstand the reply.

The point was that many who answer with no experience may choose a different answer then someone who has.


I suspect there may be differing answers from those who have the luxury of never having faced this decision, then those who have.

Much like the opinions about the moral implications of military service, there is a vast gulf between those who know first hand and those who may think they understand something.

It is easy to have ideas about something, when you have no experience. There are aspects of a situation that only become clear once you are in a given situation.

Amos_with_goats
Jul 28th 2010, 02:58 PM
I voted "don't know", simply because to make distinctions between different flavors of force when force is necessary is to consume milliseconds of response time that I need. My philosophy of force in the context of defending my family is "that amount of force sufficient to completely overwhelm my opponent, and cause immediate cessation of the endangering activity". Quite frankly, I do not have time to wonder or even hope that what I do is lethal, less than lethal, or non-lethal......

Absolutely. This is the 'theoretical distinction' that might be made by someone having no clue about what they are talking about.

Much like the idea of 'shoot to wound' that is often stupidly portrayed on television... in real life there is no 'shoot to wound'.

HisLeast
Jul 28th 2010, 03:00 PM
That's all true. If my gun isn't within quick accessibility than obviously I'll grab or do whatever I need to do. But if I had a choice of course I want a pistol or shotgun in my hands.

As far as inflicting additional suffering, I wouldn't do it. It then becomes offensive instead of defensive. As I said, I don't want the guy to suffer, so I'd just hope one clean shot will take care of it to end the threat as well as not cause him suffering.

A gun would be my preference too. No need to get my hands dirty if I can neutralize a threat from a distance. As for inflicting additional suffering, I would HOPE that I wouldn't do it, but that's where the true dilema lies for me. In the moment, when my adrenalin is surging, and I've already primed my mind and body to destroy the threat, how would I tell the difference between a neutralized threat, and a temporarily immobilized threat.

TexUs
Jul 28th 2010, 03:39 PM
You misunderstand the reply.

The point was that many who answer with no experience may choose a different answer then someone who has.

Example?
Seems like the choice to use harm against intruder to protect your family or not are the two options.

So it seems to me either you supported your choice or regretted it.
I will tell you, ask most any police officer, military person, etc that has had to kill someone. Many of them will say it bothers them. But you'd be hard pressed to find ANY that would have chosen differently, though.


[FONT="Comic Sans MS"][SIZE="3"][COLOR="Navy"]Much like the idea of 'shoot to wound' that is often stupidly portrayed on television... in real life there is no 'shoot to wound'.
I beg to differ:
http://www.bing.com/search?setmkt=en-US&q=shot+and+wounded

You can also shoot to wound if that's your goal. I can shoot someone in the kneecap and just wound them, but honestly I won't be thinking about that if someone has a gun pulled on ME or if they're breaking in... My only thought will be at stopping it.


A gun would be my preference too. No need to get my hands dirty if I can neutralize a threat from a distance. As for inflicting additional suffering, I would HOPE that I wouldn't do it, but that's where the true dilema lies for me. In the moment, when my adrenalin is surging, and I've already primed my mind and body to destroy the threat, how would I tell the difference between a neutralized threat, and a temporarily immobilized threat.
Guns are still getting your hands dirty... If you don't watch out the liberals will string you up on that as a reason to eliminate guns. Guns are just a more effective tool- it still results in you killing someone, it's just more effective (and humane) at doing that.
If a temporarily immobilized threat is just that... immobilized, I wouldn't shoot him when he's down, of course. That's when you call the PD and wait for them to arrive... If he raises a weapon against you (highly unlikely, hollywood portrays that but in reality if you've been seriously wounded and losing blood you won't stand up with any amount of ease) then you deal with it.

The Mighty Sword
Jul 28th 2010, 03:52 PM
I have and I would again. As in the famous words of Wyatt Earp " Mr. I've been in a bad mood for a couple of years you don't want to mess with me" :cool:

Not killed but I have defended my family against thugs.

dan
Jul 28th 2010, 04:54 PM
Guns are still getting your hands dirty... If you don't watch out the liberals will string you up on that as a reason to eliminate guns. Guns are just a more effective tool- it still results in you killing someone, it's just more effective (and humane) at doing that.
If a temporarily immobilized threat is just that... immobilized, I wouldn't shoot him when he's down, of course. That's when you call the PD and wait for them to arrive... If he raises a weapon against you (highly unlikely, hollywood portrays that but in reality if you've been seriously wounded and losing blood you won't stand up with any amount of ease) then you deal with it.

Not getting dirty? Did someone forget to mention the blood and pieces of flesh and bone that splash back at you when you shoot at really close range. Yech!

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jul 28th 2010, 05:18 PM
I voted "don't know", simply because to make distinctions between different flavors of force when force is necessary is to consume milliseconds of response time that I need. My philosophy of force in the context of defending my family is "that amount of force sufficient to completely overwhelm my opponent, and cause immediate cessation of the endangering activity". Quite frankly, I do not have time to wonder or even hope that what I do is lethal, less than lethal, or non-lethal.

The only point at which I'd have a moral dilemma with violence is the off chance I can subdue the assailant without permanent damage. If I had an assailant laying on the ground of my home, or on the sidewalk, and I was still standing... would I take the opportunity to inflict additional suffering, for suffering's sake? THAT would naggle my conscience. But everything I did in the process of neutralization is fair game. EVERYTHING.

I was referring to a pre-determination of the type and greatest degree of force one
would use; not so much a situational dilemna of choice. :-)

Amos_with_goats
Jul 28th 2010, 05:27 PM
...I beg to differ:
http://www.bing.com/search?setmkt=en-US&q=shot+and+wounded


Again, I believe you are not reading the replies.

First, your quoting a search that shows that some who shoot do not kill proves nothing. I am not aware of anywhere but television where 'shoot to wound' is an intention. When you draw a weapon your intent is to kill... point blank. Some foolish comments made by people later might suggest you could have chosen to
'shoot to wound' but it is just that... foolishness.

The decision is made in the moment, and is unequivocal. The bereaved family of some fine upstanding citizen or insurgent in some distant land will accuse and say 'they could have just wounded, they did not have to kill him'. This is foolish.

When someone has placed themselves into this position, they have made their decision. If it is an insurgent in Iraq, they have CHOSEN to die. If it is an intruder into someone's home, they have also chosen to die. It is as though they work up that morning, and DECIDED they did not wish to live any longer.

When someone uses force in these situations, they are merely acting on the desire of the aggressor.


..You can also shoot to wound if that's your goal. I can shoot someone in the kneecap and just wound them, but honestly I won't be thinking about that if someone has a gun pulled on ME or if they're breaking in... My only thought will be at stopping it.....

Your suggestion that someone can be simply 'shoot in the kneecap' is what I am taking issue with. Yes, it is possible... at the range. In a real situation, it would not be. If a shooter hits his mark in the heat of conflict it is a result of training, and a great deal of luck. Many close (less then 10') exchanges result in empty weapons with no injury. It is simply much more difficult to hit someone then the average (television trained) person believes. As such, the option of 'shoot to wound' is simply not realistic.

TexUs
Jul 28th 2010, 05:56 PM
I am not aware of anywhere but television where 'shoot to wound' is an intention.
You haven't spent much time around guys in the military, have you? I'm not just talking of your foot solider (though they can do it, too), but rather Delta force guys that prefer piano wire to a firearm anyway... You ask them if they've ever shoot to wound. Getting shot in the kneecap hurts and if you talk to them you'll find it's rather effective with getting intel out of most folks.


When you draw a weapon your intent is to kill... point blank. Some foolish comments made by people later might suggest you could have chosen to
'shoot to wound' but it is just that... foolishness.

The decision is made in the moment, and is unequivocal. The bereaved family of some fine upstanding citizen or insurgent in some distant land will accuse and say 'they could have just wounded, they did not have to kill him'. This is foolish.

When someone has placed themselves into this position, they have made their decision. If it is an insurgent in Iraq, they have CHOSEN to die. If it is an intruder into someone's home, they have also chosen to die. It is as though they work up that morning, and DECIDED they did not wish to live any longer.
I agree...



Your suggestion that someone can be simply 'shoot in the kneecap' is what I am taking issue with. Yes, it is possible... at the range. In a real situation, it would not be. If a shooter hits his mark in the heat of conflict it is a result of training, and a great deal of luck. Many close (less then 10') exchanges result in empty weapons with no injury. It is simply much more difficult to hit someone then the average (television trained) person believes. As such, the option of 'shoot to wound' is simply not realistic.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
Your Average Joe, sure. If you've been trained? No.
However your initial statement was still "In real life there is no shoot to wound". If you're willing to retract that then I'd agree but I still disagree with that statement entirely.

Amos_with_goats
Jul 29th 2010, 02:31 AM
Well Tex,

At least we agree one out of 3 times...

;)

nazzer_aij
Jul 29th 2010, 03:03 AM
My quote shall be if what the scriputre bear.Isaiah 54:13-17
And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord; and great shall be the peace of thy children.
In righteousness thou be established: thou shalt be far from oppression; for thou shalt not fear: and from terror; for it not shall come near thee.
Behold, they surely gather together, but not by me: whosoever gather together against thee shall fall for thy sake.
Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy.
No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that rise against thee in judgement thou shalt condemn.This the heritage of the servants of the Lord,
and their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord.
nazzer_aij.

LookingUp
Jul 29th 2010, 03:50 AM
In an unprovoked violent life-threatening non-persecution situation where you and/or your family couldn't flee, would you resist with some kind of force or not resist?

Scripture for choices welcome.I don't see anything in Scripture that tells me it's OK to use force against anyone, but never having experienced this, I'm not sure how I would react. My gut tells me I would do anything in my power to stop the harm, but I really don't know what kind of peace, calm, control, etc. God would give me in such a situation.

I may be odd to some, but to me, death is not the worst thing that could happen to a believer. However, that doesn’t mean my maternal instincts wouldn’t kick in and direct my actions. Just tryin’ to be honest.

TexUs
Jul 29th 2010, 02:29 PM
My quote shall be if what the scriputre bear.Isaiah 54:13-17
And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord; and great shall be the peace of thy children.
In righteousness thou be established: thou shalt be far from oppression; for thou shalt not fear: and from terror; for it not shall come near thee.
Behold, they surely gather together, but not by me: whosoever gather together against thee shall fall for thy sake.
Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy.
No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that rise against thee in judgement thou shalt condemn.This the heritage of the servants of the Lord,
and their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord.
nazzer_aij.
That explain's Paul's martyrdom, eh?


I don't see anything in Scripture that tells me it's OK to use force against anyone

What did Christ do in the temple? That was force.

There's a difference between MURDER and killing, war, self-defense, or justice.

Exodus 22:2, "If the thief is caught while breaking in, and is struck so that he dies, there will be no blood guiltiness on his account."
This is perhaps your best example as it's within the context of the Ten Commandments.

Deut 19:10, "So innocent blood will not be shed in the midst of your land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance, and blood guiltiness be on you."
We're to protect the innocent (our families)

Slug1
Jul 29th 2010, 02:33 PM
I don't see anything in Scripture that tells me it's OK to use force against anyone,We have to define force also. Clearly this thread has defined "some" methods of force. There are others. Do you feel that calling the police to help you, is a form of "using" force? By calling the police, you are "not" doing nothing after all.

Vhayes
Jul 29th 2010, 02:38 PM
It is not loving my family to allow them to be raped, beaten, robbed of both their possessions and privacy. How can anyone think that is a demonstration of love?

i also do not think it is showing love to the intruder - what you would be teaching him would be tthat it is acceptable to take from others - that harming others is something God condones.

Maybe I'm missing something here?

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jul 29th 2010, 03:06 PM
Hi VH-

No, you're not missing anything. This poll-thread was prompted by a series of over-zealous pacifism thread topics that "heated up".

In non-persecution/martyrdom violent civil circumstances, it's not a "violent" violation of Matt. 5, etc. to utilize force to resist. Many "one tenet of faith" pacifists insist we must not EVER resist evil, according to the command of the Word (Matt. 5:39).

This is used to protest believers being in the military or law enforcement, etc. (which, of course, brings up the dilemna of even calling for help as a "force" alternative.

For those who say, "Just trust God and pray"; I'll bet they're paying home, auto, and health insurance premiums and thet lock their security-alarmed homes and vehicles.

Jesus and the Twelve cast out demons. I'd say that's "resisting evil".

Thanks for responses so far.

LookingUp
Jul 29th 2010, 06:05 PM
What did Christ do in the temple? That was force.

There's a difference between MURDER and killing, war, self-defense, or justice.

Exodus 22:2, "If the thief is caught while breaking in, and is struck so that he dies, there will be no blood guiltiness on his account."
This is perhaps your best example as it's within the context of the Ten Commandments.

Deut 19:10, "So innocent blood will not be shed in the midst of your land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance, and blood guiltiness be on you."
We're to protect the innocent (our families)Ex. 22:2 sounds like a very good example. But I'm still not sure how I would react, because I've never experienced anything like it. Maybe I'd pass out; maybe I’d be dizzy with fear and freeze; maybe I'd have enough adrenaline rushing through me to really defend my family. I'd hope God would give me whatever I needed in the moment.

Butch5
Jul 29th 2010, 06:11 PM
In an unprovoked violent life-threatening non-persecution situation where you and/or your family couldn't flee, would you resist with some kind of force or not resist?

Scripture for choices welcome.

I answered you poll the way I would hope to act, however, anyone who has not been in the situation can only really make a guess at how they would react.


What you Poll asks in reality is Do you trust God?

LookingUp
Jul 29th 2010, 06:13 PM
We have to define force also. Clearly this thread has defined "some" methods of force. There are others. Do you feel that calling the police to help you, is a form of "using" force? By calling the police, you are "not" doing nothing after all.Sure, I'd call the police. Maybe I don't understand the options clearly. I would hope that I'd have it in me to do whatever I could to protect my family (i.e. maybe even out smart the guy in some way). But I'm not certain I could, for example, use a weapon to kill someone. I'm not sure I have what it takes to do that. But I don't think I can know that, really, unless I was faced with it.

Butch5
Jul 29th 2010, 06:17 PM
Sure, I'd call the police. Maybe I don't understand the options clearly. I would hope that I'd have it in me to do whatever I could to protect my family (i.e. maybe even out smart the guy in some way). But I'm not certain I could, for example, use a weapon to kill someone. I'm not sure I have what it takes to do that. But I don't think I can know that, really, unless I was faced with it.

I don't think you can really know that unless you have been in a situation like that.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jul 29th 2010, 06:21 PM
Ex. 22:2 sounds like a very good example. But I'm still not sure how I would react, because I've never experienced anything like it. Maybe I'd pass out; maybe I’d be dizzy with fear and freeze; maybe I'd have enough adrenaline rushing through me to really defend my family. I'd hope God would give me whatever I needed in the moment.

Well said. Most instructors of concealed-carry training classes, etc. stress exactly this. Slug1 and others have been more seasoned through training and experience. For others, "the moment" could be one of the most difficult things in their life, both during and after.

TexUs
Jul 29th 2010, 06:27 PM
Ex. 22:2 sounds like a very good example. But I'm still not sure how I would react, because I've never experienced anything like it. Maybe I'd pass out; maybe I’d be dizzy with fear and freeze; maybe I'd have enough adrenaline rushing through me to really defend my family. I'd hope God would give me whatever I needed in the moment.

Well, of course. But like I was pointing out to you, it's OK to use force against someone ;) IE, it's within God's will for us. Seems like you can see that so I'm happy.

Weather or not you CAN is another issue, like you say. Even military and cops get emotionally wrecked and discharged because it messes with them so much, so... It's not something you'd ever know until you get to that point.

I'd like to think if I ever encounter that situation, either I end up dead and in God's graces or the intruder ends up dead. I don't want either of us to suffer, nor anyone innocent (family).

Butch5
Jul 29th 2010, 06:35 PM
Question,

Those who chose the use of force, suppose you kill the intruder, have you thought maybe God had planned to put someone in their path that would lead them to Christ?

threebigrocks
Jul 29th 2010, 06:41 PM
I would meet the situation with what was necessary. If someone is running at me with a knife - whatever it takes to stop them is what I'd do. Even if it was warning them "In the name of Jesus stop. If you don't I"ll shoot" while holding my husband's 1170.

So it depends. I'll meet the threat with equal resistance, knowing that that police aren't far off.

Reynolds357
Jul 29th 2010, 06:52 PM
In an unprovoked violent life-threatening non-persecution situation where you and/or your family couldn't flee, would you resist with some kind of force or not resist?

Scripture for choices welcome.
I would resist them with an AR-15 if it were handy. If not, they would just be on the business end of my FN.
I use force to protect myself and others pretty much daily.

TexUs
Jul 29th 2010, 07:09 PM
Question,

Those who chose the use of force, suppose you kill the intruder, have you thought maybe God had planned to put someone in their path that would lead them to Christ?
I've got no doubt that by killing the intruder I'm personally introducing him to Christ.


I would meet the situation with what was necessary. If someone is running at me with a knife - whatever it takes to stop them is what I'd do. Even if it was warning them "In the name of Jesus stop. If you don't I"ll shoot" while holding my husband's 1170.

So it depends. I'll meet the threat with equal resistance, knowing that that police aren't far off.
When you're talking of milliseconds in a situation, there's no way you'll spend three seconds to announce that. A quick "stop!" with an immediate response by either himself (by stopping) or myself (by shooting the guy that's not stopped) is all there will be.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jul 29th 2010, 07:10 PM
I answered you poll the way I would hope to act, however, anyone who has not been in the situation can only really make a guess at how they would react. What you Poll asks in reality is Do you trust God?
I don't think you can really know that unless you have been in a situation like that.

Thanx, Butch. I understand.

How does this extend to many other daily issues, though? Insurance, alarms, locks, fences, gates, etc.? How could we conscionably call the Police that we eschew as evil? These are WAY bigger double standards than a 99th-percentile do-or-die situation? And I'm not even touching the military part, which allows such casual freedoms apart from oppression and real persecution that might actually test this area of faith.

Insurance isn't trusting God; nor are other protection and security measures. Children calling to check in and caution at night in dark secluded areas fall into the "trusting God" category. Seatbelts? Helmets? The list is endless.

There's an interface with stewardship and wisdom for all these things, not just trust. I don't trust the enemy and the host of hell. Does the instruction in Matt. 5:39 prohibit casting out demons? The Word says, "Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.". Our entire Christians lives are about resisting evil.

(I am NOT provoking you in the least. I greatly respect your constant substantial contributions and your love for the Word and the Early Church Fathers.)

Slug1
Jul 29th 2010, 07:20 PM
Question,

Those who chose the use of force, suppose you kill the intruder, have you thought maybe God had planned to put someone in their path that would lead them to Christ?That is an extremely difficult question to answer Butch. If I was driving and a deer ran out infront of me and my body did what came natural... I swirved. This leads to me sideswiping a car in the oncoming lane. The end result of the crash is the driver of that car is killed... what about the possiblility that God had a person that would cross their path in the future that was to either plant or water?

threebigrocks
Jul 29th 2010, 07:31 PM
That is an extremely difficult question to answer Butch. If I was driving and a deer ran out infront of me and my body did what came natural... I swirved. This leads to me sideswiping a car in the oncoming lane. The end result of the crash is the driver of that car is killed... what about the possiblility that God had a person that would cross their path in the future that was to either plant or water?

With all due respect, don't think the deer meant to jump out at you, although some would beg to differ. :rolleyes:

An armed intruder or someone robbing a convenience store at gunpoint most times just wants money or stuff. Sometimes they get what they want and then leave, harming nobody. Really, sometimes the best way is to let them take stuff and they leave.

But then there's the crazies who will murder just because they can.

There's a line to cross, and if letting my property be carried off is what keeps me or my family from bodily harm so be it. It's stuff.

mcgyver
Jul 29th 2010, 07:36 PM
I personally would use whatever force was necessary to defend my family, to include deadly force...and although I would regret that I had to use that force, yet I would not hesitate to kill if I needed to do so.

And to answer this question:


Those who chose the use of force, suppose you kill the intruder, have you thought maybe God had planned to put someone in their path that would lead them to Christ?

Two things: First God's plan can not be swayed nor changed by the actions of men, for God is sovereign....He doesn't look down and say: "Wow! So and so just blew my plan out of the water."

Secondly, have you though that perhaps God has already given them over to a debased mind?

RabbiKnife
Jul 29th 2010, 07:40 PM
I figure that if someone chooses to enter my house without permission and threatens my family, they have chosen to die and I will assist God in not violating their free will.

Or, if that is theologically unpalatable,

I figure that if someone is predestined to enter my house on a certain date and time and threaten my family and I am predestined to be in the house with a loaded firearm at that time and that I have been predestined to have the training I have then I must assume that God has predestined them to die in my living room, and the will of God could not be resisted.

Slug1
Jul 29th 2010, 07:50 PM
With all due respect, don't think the deer meant to jump out at you, although some would beg to differ. :rolleyes:

An armed intruder or someone robbing a convenience store at gunpoint most times just wants money or stuff. Sometimes they get what they want and then leave, harming nobody. Really, sometimes the best way is to let them take stuff and they leave.

But then there's the crazies who will murder just because they can.

There's a line to cross, and if letting my property be carried off is what keeps me or my family from bodily harm so be it. It's stuff.Oh, I agree. The OP is about being threatened. If a dude stays away from me and happens to take the tv on his way out the door... cool. I got insurance and 3 other TVs.

My example to Butch was an "what if" concerning an accidental death of that driver compared to an intentinal death of an intruder who happened to attempt to harm me. If they both had a person in the future that they'd cross paths with and they would plant or water them... well... we can go round and round with this one, can't we :lol:

Slug1
Jul 29th 2010, 07:54 PM
I figure that if someone chooses to enter my house without permission and threatens my family, they have chosen to die and I will assist God in not violating their free will.

Or, if that is theologically unpalatable,

I figure that if someone is predestined to enter my house on a certain date and time and threaten my family and I am predestined to be in the house with a loaded firearm at that time and that I have been predestined to have the training I have then I must assume that God has predestined them to die in my living room, and the will of God could not be resisted.If so predestined... then I'm shooting at the cealing and watching the bullet curve and blow the person about to harm me, away...

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jul 29th 2010, 07:57 PM
I figure that if someone chooses to enter my house without permission and threatens my family, they have chosen to die and I will assist God in not violating their free will.

Or, if that is theologically unpalatable,

I figure that if someone is predestined to enter my house on a certain date and time and threaten my family and I am predestined to be in the house with a loaded firearm at that time and that I have been predestined to have the training I have then I must assume that God has predestined them to die in my living room, and the will of God could not be resisted.

:rofl: Oh... no... you... di'nt!
(Where's the moonwalk emoticon?)

TexUs
Jul 29th 2010, 08:08 PM
With all due respect, don't think the deer meant to jump out at you, although some would beg to differ. :rolleyes:
If it's part of God's will anyway it could've, LOL



An armed intruder or someone robbing a convenience store at gunpoint most times just wants money or stuff. Sometimes they get what they want and then leave, harming nobody. Really, sometimes the best way is to let them take stuff and they leave.
You apparently don't know there's a difference between a burglar that breaks into a "corporate" and one that's "individual". It's easier to rob corporate as nobody is individually attached to it. It takes a different mentality to do that to an individual, and that mentality usually always has the capacity to turn violent, which is evident in the majority of burglaries where the people were home.

Butch5
Jul 29th 2010, 08:09 PM
Thanx, Butch. I understand.

How does this extend to many other daily issues, though? Insurance, alarms, locks, fences, gates, etc.? How could we conscionably call the Police that we eschew as evil? These are WAY bigger double standards than a 99th-percentile do-or-die situation? And I'm not even touching the military part, which allows such casual freedoms apart from oppression and real persecution that might actually test this area of faith.

Insurance isn't trusting God; nor are other protection and security measures. Children calling to check in and caution at night in dark secluded areas fall into the "trusting God" category. Seatbelts? Helmets? The list is endless.

There's an interface with stewardship and wisdom for all these things, not just trust. I don't trust the enemy and the host of hell. Does the instruction in Matt. 5:39 prohibit casting out demons? The Word says, "Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.". Our entire Christians lives are about resisting evil.

(I am NOT provoking you in the least. I greatly respect your constant substantial contributions and your love for the Word and the Early Church Fathers.)

Hi PPs,

with the issues you raise I think we have a defining point. All of the issues you raised, seat belts, Helmet, Locks, etc. do not cause us to do harm to another individual. I think when God says do not resist an evil person He doesn't mean do absolutely nothing. As I said in another post, we are told to flee when possible so we are not just doing nothing.

I think God's point is that we not cause harm to another person, This born out in the historical record. Even in calling the police which is the issue many bring up, Paul says that they are the ministers of God and are for that purpose. Paul himself used the Romans to take him out of harms way.

I think the issue is when we are faced with breaking a direct command from Christ. I mean we claim that we believe that God can protect us and we say He loves us, yet when faced with physical danger, we rely upon ourselves, not God. Why? I mean if we really do trust God, why would we shoot someone coming in the window? Surely He can protect us.

It is at this point that we face the dilemma, do we obey the command or not? Do we trust God that He will protect us or do we protect ourselves.

You see we could make all kinds of scenarios, I could say, what if some guy was only breaking in to steal a few dollars and the husband charges the intruder and gets shot and killed. The family is now without a father and a husband, possibly without the breadwinner, parents have lost a child and so on, when in the long run if nothing had been done the intruder would have simply taken a few dollars and everyone would be live. But this doesn't prove anything either. In the end it all comes down to God, are we going to trust that He will protect us or not. You see, to me it seems that if I get a gun and shoot the intruder, then I am not trusting God, I am trusting Butch5.


Daniel 3:14-28 ( KJV )
Nebuchadnezzar spake and said unto them, Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, do not ye serve my gods, nor worship the golden image which I have set up?
Now if ye be ready that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of music, ye fall down and worship the image which I have made; well: but if ye worship not, ye shall be cast the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace; and who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands? Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter.
If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.
But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.
Then was Nebuchadnezzar full of fury, and the form of his visage was changed against Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego: therefore he spake, and commanded that they should heat the furnace one seven times more than it was wont to be heated.
And he commanded the most mighty men that were in his army to bind Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and to cast them into the burning fiery furnace.
Then these men were bound in their coats, their hosen, and their hats, and their other garments, and were cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.
Therefore because the king’s commandment was urgent, and the furnace exceeding hot, the flame of the fire slew those men that took up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.
And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace.
Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonied, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king.
He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God. Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace, and spake, and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, ye servants of the most high God, come forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, came forth of the midst of the fire.
And the princes, governors, and captains, and the king’s counsellors, being gathered together, saw these men, upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them. Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king’s word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God.


In this account, they were faced with idol worship, however, they were faced with a choice, either obey God's command or not. We see they obeyed and were delivered by God. However, there are three words in this account that I think give Christians a lot of trouble "But if not". I think this is a major problem for Christians, what if God chooses not to deliver me? I think this is one of the main reasons that Christians use self defense, fear that God may not deliver them.

In your scenario above, the intruder most likely is an unbeliever or they would probably would not be committing the crime in the first place. If the victim (Christian) is shot and killed, there will be sorrow, but also consolation in knowing that they are with the Lord. If the intruder is killed, there is no longer any hope for them to turn to God, they are most likely eternally damned, and we have broken God's command.

Butch5
Jul 29th 2010, 08:11 PM
I've got no doubt that by killing the intruder I'm personally introducing him to Christ.

Yes, you are, as judge.

threebigrocks
Jul 29th 2010, 08:12 PM
You apparently don't know there's a difference between a burglar that breaks into a "corporate" and one that's "individual". It's easier to rob corporate as nobody is individually attached to it. It takes a different mentality to do that to an individual, and that mentality usually always has the capacity to turn violent, which is evident in the majority of burglaries where the people were home.

Oh, I know. That's my point. Individually are the nut jobs I'm talking about. Those are the ones where I"m not going to hesitate.

Butch5
Jul 29th 2010, 08:17 PM
That is an extremely difficult question to answer Butch. If I was driving and a deer ran out infront of me and my body did what came natural... I swirved. This leads to me sideswiping a car in the oncoming lane. The end result of the crash is the driver of that car is killed... what about the possiblility that God had a person that would cross their path in the future that was to either plant or water?

There's a difference Slug1, in your analogy the swerve and crash was not preplanned.

Butch5
Jul 29th 2010, 08:20 PM
I personally would use whatever force was necessary to defend my family, to include deadly force...and although I would regret that I had to use that force, yet I would not hesitate to kill if I needed to do so.

And to answer this question:



Two things: First God's plan can not be swayed nor changed by the actions of men, for God is sovereign....He doesn't look down and say: "Wow! So and so just blew my plan out of the water."

Secondly, have you though that perhaps God has already given them over to a debased mind?

1. But God hasn't chosen who will be saved.

2. The point is we don't if He has or has not.

Butch5
Jul 29th 2010, 08:22 PM
I figure that if someone chooses to enter my house without permission and threatens my family, they have chosen to die and I will assist God in not violating their free will.

Or, if that is theologically unpalatable,

I figure that if someone is predestined to enter my house on a certain date and time and threaten my family and I am predestined to be in the house with a loaded firearm at that time and that I have been predestined to have the training I have then I must assume that God has predestined them to die in my living room, and the will of God could not be resisted.

The will of God is to love your enemy, how would you be doing that?

Slug1
Jul 29th 2010, 08:27 PM
There's a difference Slug1, in your analogy the swerve and crash was not preplanned.Like I planned for a thief to come in and overcome the strongman of my house? Me! I'm just being prepared. I don't plan for someone to overcome me, I just prepare to prevent the enemy from doing it, through whoever he sends.

RabbiKnife
Jul 29th 2010, 08:31 PM
The will of God is to love your enemy, how would you be doing that?

Maybe we could write "Smile...John 3:16 on the bushing of the .45 ACP"

The will of God is also to provide for one's family. How is letting them be attacked, killed, and raped doing that?

So I guess either (a) someone's interpretation is wrong or (b) God is confused and contradicting himself.

TexUs
Jul 29th 2010, 08:31 PM
I mean if we really do trust God, why would we shoot someone coming in the window? Surely He can protect us.
There's a difference between divine intervention and stupidity. Knowingly letting yourself be killed runs close to suicide, as well.
We're told to protect the innocent and also given provision for self-defense.

Sure, God CAN protect us. God CAN stop any kind of sin if he wanted to, but he doesn't.





It is at this point that we face the dilemma, do we obey the command or not? Do we trust God that He will protect us or do we protect ourselves.

Neither. We OBEY God. We're to defend ourselves. We have to make a reasonable effort to follow his Word, if he choses to supernaturally intercede more than that they he will.


You see we could make all kinds of scenarios, I could say, what if some guy was only breaking in to steal a few dollars and the husband charges the intruder and gets shot and killed. The family is now without a father and a husband, possibly without the breadwinner, parents have lost a child and so on, when in the long run if nothing had been done the intruder would have simply taken a few dollars and everyone would be live.
If he's not posing a threat to life then it'd be foolish to do much more than hold him at gunpoint until the police arrive or ask him to just leave.


Yes, you are, as judge.
It was a joke, relax.


1. But God hasn't chosen who will be saved.

This is not the place for Calvin vs Armenian in this thread, kindof surprised you're trying to bring it up. It's one thing to poke comments about it but another to be trying to start a debate about it.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jul 29th 2010, 08:36 PM
Hi Butch-

I get all that, I really do. My insurance, alarms, locks subject was more along the lines of the trust you're talking about. If we don't trust God with the daily affairs of our health and welfare, the "crisis" trust is unlikely to suffice. If I'm insured and locked-up and clamped-down, I'm not living the life of trust that will enable me to trust God for my physical life. It's a double-standard to presume upon God for safety in the extreme when I don't trust Him in the mundane.

The fiery furnace was a persecution/martyrdom circumstance. Other than fleeing or hiding, one should stand ready to pay any cost necessary for their faith and the Gospel.

John146
Jul 29th 2010, 08:54 PM
I know what most of us would have a tendency to do, but what does scripture say about it?

Romans 12
17Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
18If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
19Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Matt 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.

I would say for sure that these would indicate that lethal force as a response to such a situation should be ruled out, but I'm not sure if non-lethal force should also be ruled out or not. I think, ideally, if we could think fast enough and had time, we'd pray and ask God to miraculously spare our lives if that was His will. But, of course, there may not be time for that. So, I guess this is something we better think about now and decide now what we would do in case something like that ever happens and that will make it more likely that we do the right thing (at least what we believe to be the right thing).

All that said I'm not too interested in debating this with anyone who would prefer to go all Rambo on someone who tried to harm their families. Let everyone decide for themselves what is the right thing to do but we should take scripture into account when making that decision.

threebigrocks
Jul 29th 2010, 09:11 PM
Aren't all these saying not to play God? Don't take vengeance, pronounce judgment? If someone lies about their credentials and they get the job and you don't - don't set out to repay deed for deed. If someone sneaks into your home in the middle of the night and kills your family, don't look to take their life out of malice and revenge. The guy who cuts you off in traffic - don't drive like a moron in order to try to run him off the road out of anger and revenge. It would be like staying to an intruder "WEll, you shot my wife. Here's my son, I'm turning the other cheek, if you would like to kill him too here he is. I love you."

It's the pay back mindset. In this situation, if you can ward off evil to stop harm coming to others that's not vengeance.

What of the character of the people in this situation? Someone mentioned that one who would seek to murder may have been given over by God. He may, we don't know. What we do know is that that person is not acting within the character of God. They are acting under the guise of satan, they are evil. Without a body and a mind to carry out what character and nature we sow to, be it Christ or satan, neither has any effect whatsoever.

We will come across both types. Good and evil. We are to be on guard. We are to let God be the judge and jury, we are not to take vengeance. But we can prevent ourselves from being overtaken by the nature of someone who is evil.

Butch5
Jul 29th 2010, 09:12 PM
Hi Butch-

I get all that, I really do. My insurance, alarms, locks subject was more along the lines of the trust you're talking about. If we don't trust God with the daily affairs of our health and welfare, the "crisis" trust is unlikely to suffice. If I'm insured and locked-up and clamped-down, I'm not living the life of trust that will enable me to trust God for my physical life. It's a double-standard to presume upon God for safety in the extreme when I don't trust Him in the mundane.

The fiery furnace was a persecution/martyrdom circumstance. Other than fleeing or hiding, one should stand ready to pay any cost necessary for their faith and the Gospel.

I don't think it is a double standard, I don't think God expects us to go blindly into the world, however, I also don't think He expects us to break his commands to protect ourselves.

As for the fiery furnace, yes it is persecution/martyrdom, however, wouldn't it be the same thing if I am killed because I refuse to disobey a command of Christ?

threebigrocks
Jul 29th 2010, 09:18 PM
There's a huge difference between someone coming up to you with a loaded gun to your head saying I'm going to kill you and then kidnap your kids and someone out to kill you because you are a Christian. I'm evil and will hurt your family vs. renounce Christ or die. Huge difference my friend.

Butch5
Jul 29th 2010, 09:22 PM
There's a difference between divine intervention and stupidity. Knowingly letting yourself be killed runs close to suicide, as well.
We're told to protect the innocent and also given provision for self-defense.

Sure, God CAN protect us. God CAN stop any kind of sin if he wanted to, but he doesn't.

The issue is obeying the command of Christ. Do we obey or not? It seems to me that is what it boils down to.



Neither. We OBEY God. We're to defend ourselves. We have to make a reasonable effort to follow his Word, if he choses to supernaturally intercede more than that they he will.

Reasonable effort??? Didn't Jesus say,


Matthew 16:24-26 ( KJV )
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?



This is not the place for Calvin vs Armenian in this thread, kindof surprised you're trying to bring it up. It's one thing to poke comments about it but another to be trying to start a debate about it

????? I was responding to a comment, I was not debating Cal/Arm.

Butch5
Jul 29th 2010, 09:23 PM
There's a huge difference between someone coming up to you with a loaded gun to your head saying I'm going to kill you and then kidnap your kids and someone out to kill you because you are a Christian. I'm evil and will hurt your family vs. renounce Christ or die. Huge difference my friend.

Are your comment posted toward me TBR?

TexUs
Jul 29th 2010, 09:26 PM
If you're obeying the Word then why don't you obey the word about protecting the innocent?
If scripture seems to contradict each other, then it's OUR opinions that are wrong.

I've yet to see any scripture posted here that deals with this directly.
Vengeance is not self-defense.
Denying ourselves and taking up our cross is talking about salvation.
The passage in Daniel doesn't even talk about this, neither does Is 54.

But there's many examples of standing in opposition to evil, protecting the innocent, and defending our homes.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jul 29th 2010, 09:52 PM
I know what most of us would have a tendency to do, but what does scripture say about it?
Romans 12
17Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
18If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
19Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord

Matt 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

I would say for sure that these would indicate that lethal force as a response to such a situation should be ruled out, but I'm not sure if non-lethal force should also be ruled out or not. I think, ideally, if we could think fast enough and had time, we'd pray and ask God to miraculously spare our lives if that was His will. But, of course, there may not be time for that. So, I guess this is something we better think about now and decide now what we would do in case something like that ever happens and that will make it more likely that we do the right thing (at least what we believe to be the right thing).

All that said I'm not too interested in debating this with anyone who would prefer to go all Rambo on someone who tried to harm their families. Let everyone decide for themselves what is the right thing to do but we should take scripture into account when making that decision.

In Romans 12, the word evil (kakos G2556) refers is worthless, depraved, malicious, wicked. It can refer to a cowardly soldier and retreat in battle. He may be content to perish in his own corruption, whereas poneros (G4190) is not content unless also corrupting others and drawing them into like destruction with himself.

This speaks more to the "how" than the "what". Martial arts comes to mind; calm unmalicious response to physical threat.

In v19, avenge and vengeance (G1556/1557) have the primary meaning of vengeful punishment or vindictive penal retribution; esoecially relating to one's honor.

Again, this speaks more to "how" and "why" than what. A physically peaceful situation with ardently-pressed criminal charges would be more wrong than initial responsive force, lethal or not.

The Rambo thing would be what this is referring to as what not to do, not simple protection. Vindictiveness, by nature, would be post-incident action, not incident action.


Matthew 16:24-26 ( KJV )
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Just clarifying-
The bolded "life" renderings are psuche (G5590), which is soul or, more specifically soul-life. It is not used primarily for vital natural life, though it includes that. He's not referring to laying down one's physical life so much as laying down one's self.

Butch5
Jul 29th 2010, 10:06 PM
If you're obeying the Word then why don't you obey the word about protecting the innocent?
If scripture seems to contradict each other, then it's OUR opinions that are wrong.

I've yet to see any scripture posted here that deals with this directly.
Vengeance is not self-defense.
Denying ourselves and taking up our cross is talking about salvation.
The passage in Daniel doesn't even talk about this, neither does Is 54.

But there's many examples of standing in opposition to evil, protecting the innocent, and defending our homes.

Where are we told to protect the innocent or anyone for that matter?

The passage in Daniel does talk about this issue, The point of the passage was that no matter what the king threatened them with they would not disobey God, that is the same thing we are discussing here. If we are about to be killed will we obey or not?

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jul 29th 2010, 10:21 PM
I'm not sure why we keep returning to martyrdom situations, because those are more obvious in scripture. The OP excludes persecution.

The many examples of scripture referring to resisting evil and vengeance have renderings that suggest more a disposition of the heart condition more than specifically prohibited action.

Vigilante squads are a no-go, but self-defense isn't included in the actual word-meanings.


(Butch- Would it be too laborious to provide some Early Father support specifically about civil violence?)

Slug1
Jul 29th 2010, 10:28 PM
Sure, I'd call the police. Maybe I don't understand the options clearly. I would hope that I'd have it in me to do whatever I could to protect my family (i.e. maybe even out smart the guy in some way). But I'm not certain I could, for example, use a weapon to kill someone. I'm not sure I have what it takes to do that. But I don't think I can know that, really, unless I was faced with it.

I asked my question because you said this:
I don't see anything in Scripture that tells me it's OK to use force against anyone,
Calling the police is a form of using force. Many don't see it that way and many will say that it's not. I guess it's a matter of opinion.

Also, we do find scripture where such a call for the "police" was done. Check out Acts 23. Paul received a death threat and what did he do? He did what we'd call today a 911 call to the authorities.

If a person is so convicted to not lift a finger, how do they justify calling 911 and have the police come in and do for them what they could have done for themselves in the case of the OP of this thread?

So the police arrive and come into the house and the "threat" decides to resist... BLAM, Blam, blam,blam,blamblamblamblamblamblam. Gotta love those 9mm autos with 15 rounds.

Anyway... a what if here in my post.

The point... does the "Christian" wipe his/her hands clean because "they" didn't pull the trigger? Calling the police has nothing to do with the death of the "threat" to them? It's all the police's "fault", the threat is dead?

I don't think so... if a person is that much a pacifist (bound by satan) then they wouldn't even call the police for help, due to that bondage.

threebigrocks
Jul 29th 2010, 10:50 PM
Pacifism is a bondage? When it comes to faith - yes. We are called to action not to be complacent. But to self defense...I'm not seeing the connection.

Slug1
Jul 29th 2010, 11:00 PM
Pacifism is a bondage? When it comes to faith - yes. We are called to action not to be complacent. But to self defense...I'm not seeing the connection.Ha... Well, what do you know, check out todays featured Blog (http://bibleforums.org/entry.php/2000-29.-The-Bondage-of-Pacifism).

TexUs
Jul 29th 2010, 11:12 PM
Where are we told to protect the innocent or anyone for that matter?
I guess it's too much to ask to read the thread, as it's been posted once already:
Deut 19:10, "Do this so that innocent blood will not be shed in your land, which the LORD your God is giving you as your inheritance, and so that you will not be guilty of bloodshed."
That's definitely one verse you cannot take at face value however and I suggest studying the context.



The passage in Daniel does talk about this issue, The point of the passage was that no matter what the king threatened them with they would not disobey God, that is the same thing we are discussing here. If we are about to be killed will we obey or not?
Exactly. It's talking about disobeying God, not about self-defense.

Butch5
Jul 30th 2010, 12:55 AM
I guess it's too much to ask to read the thread, as it's been posted once already:
Deut 19:10, "Do this so that innocent blood will not be shed in your land, which the LORD your God is giving you as your inheritance, and so that you will not be guilty of bloodshed."
That's definitely one verse you cannot take at face value however and I suggest studying the context.

My friend, Jesus changed the old law.

The New Law

Isaiah 42:1-9 ( KJV )
Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.
He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street.
A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law. Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.
I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them.

(Note: The phrase "The isles shall wait for His Law" is found in the Masoretic text. The Septuagint renders this verse "and upon His name nations shall hope").

This prophecy is clearly speaking of Christ, in it God says the Isles (Gentiles) shall wait for his law. This is the new law that Christ brought, the old law has been superseded. Notice what God says, the former things are come to pass, the old covenant is passing away, god says "new things do I declare." The new things are the law that Christ brought. Isaiah isn't the only one to speak of this, Moses told of a prophet that God would raise up from among the Jews and he say whoever would not listen to that prophet would be cut off from the people.

Moses writes,


Genesis 49:8-12 ( KJV )
Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise: thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies; thy father’s children shall bow down before thee.
Judah is a lion’s whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up?
The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass’s colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes:
His eyes shall be red with wine, and his teeth white with milk.


Deuteronomy 18:15-19 ( KJV )
The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.
And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.
I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

John 1:19-25 (KJV)
And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?
And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.
And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?
He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias.
And they which were sent were of the Pharisees.
And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?

John 6:12-14 ( KJV )
When they were filled, he said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost. Therefore they gathered them together, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above unto them that had eaten.
Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.

God said this prophet would speak the word’s the He commanded Him, Jesus said.

John 7:14-17 ( KJV )
Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught.
And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?
Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
In case there is any question about who this prophet is Peter assures us.

Acts 3:19-24 ( KJV )
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.
The Writer of Hebrews tells us,

Hebrews 7:11-19 ( KJV )
If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

I think it is clear that God foretold of a time when Christ would come and He would bring a new law, "Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare:" The time for violence ended when Christ initiated the New covenant.




Exactly. It's talking about disobeying God, not about self-defense.

My friend, self defense requires that one do harm to another thereby disobeying Christ's command to 'love your enemies', to 'do good to them who persecute and despitefully use you. It breaks Paul's charge to 'As much as is possible with you live peaceably with men' and to not return evil for evil' . As Luke records the words of Jesus,

Luke 6:35 ( KJV )
But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

nazzer_aij
Jul 30th 2010, 01:53 AM
That explain's Paul's martyrdom, eh?


What did Christ do in the temple? That was force.

There's a difference between MURDER and killing, war, self-defense, or justice.

Exodus 22:2, "If the thief is caught while breaking in, and is struck so that he dies, there will be no blood guiltiness on his account."
This is perhaps your best example as it's within the context of the Ten Commandments.

Deut 19:10, "So innocent blood will not be shed in the midst of your land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance, and blood guiltiness be on you."
We're to protect the innocent (our families)

Friend Texus,
Thank you for your comment but what I quote was not as just because it was written in Holy writ
but because it was God had teaches me to do.
Do not compare what Jesus did in the temple when he scattered the products of the vendor infront
of the temple because he had to do that to let them know that the temple is sacred and be use
for praising the Lord.
It was not also as a kind to show martyrdom of Paul, but as a testimonies from our Lord Jesus Christ. John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I KEPT THEM IN THY NAME: thou that
gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost. but the son of perdition; taht the scripture might be fullfilled.
I believe that because of my faith in Christ what was written in Is. 54:14-17 shall be fullfill
In righteousness shalt thou be established: thou shalt be far from oppression; for thou shalt not fear; and from terror; for it shall come near thee.
Behold, they shall surely gather together, but not by me: who so ever gather together against thee
shall fall for thee sake.
No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper: and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgement thou shalt condem. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord.
By this faith I know that the purpose of this OP is no longer applicable to me and my love ones.
Thanks
nazzer_aij.

Butch5
Jul 30th 2010, 02:49 AM
I'm not sure why we keep returning to martyrdom situations, because those are more obvious in scripture. The OP excludes persecution.

The many examples of scripture referring to resisting evil and vengeance have renderings that suggest more a disposition of the heart condition more than specifically prohibited action.

Vigilante squads are a no-go, but self-defense isn't included in the actual word-meanings.


(Butch- Would it be too laborious to provide some Early Father support specifically about civil violence?)

How can you get away from martyrdom? If I am killed because I do not use force against an attacker, it is because I am following the command of Christ, by default I think that makes it martyrdom. If I were not following Christ I would use lethal force if necessary. This was a hard issue for me to deal with because I was extreme the other way. I used to hold that the death penalty should not be reserved for just murder, I believed it should be used for rape and attempted murder also. They say identity theft is becoming a big problem, the solution I used to hold would have solved the problem, give them a minimum of 50 years, no parole, no early release, just 50 years. You have heard the term the punishment should fit the crime? I didn't think that was right, I held that the punishment should be so severe that the crime was not even worth considering. I am not exaggerating, people can tell you this is how I felt, so for me to do a 180 on this issue was a big deal. However, when faced with the evidence from the early church and the Scriptures they used and the arguments they made, the conclusion I came to was, I was wrong.

I can provide some support on civil violence, I may need some time to get than what is here.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 9
Aristides 125 A.D.
They do not worship idols (made) in the image of man; and whatsoever they would not that others should do unto them, they do not to others; and of the food which is consecrated to idols they do not eat, for they are pure. And their oppressors they appease (lit: comfort) and make them their friends; they do good to their enemies; and their women, O King, are pure as virgins, and their daughters are modest; and their men keep themselves from every unlawful union and from all uncleanness, in the hope of a recompense to come in the other world.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1

Justin Martyr 160 AD.
we who formerly used to murder one another do not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies,

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1

Justin Martyr
and we who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every wickedness, have each through the whole earth changed our warlike weapons,—our swords into ploughshares, and our spears into implements of tillage,—and we cultivate piety, righteousness, philanthropy, faith, and hope, which we have from the Father Himself through Him who was crucified;

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 2
Athenagoras 175 AD.
for we have learned, not only not to return blow for blow, nor to go to law with those who plunder and rob us, but to those who smite us on one side of the face to offer the other side also, and to those who take away our coat to give likewise our cloak. But, when we have surrendered our property, they plot against our very bodies and souls, pouring upon us wholesale charges of crimes of which we are guiltless even in thought, but which belong to these idle praters themselves, and to the whole tribe of those who are like them.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1
Irenaeus 180 AD.
the new covenant which brings back peace, and the law which gives life, has gone forth over the whole earth, as the prophets said: “For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem; and He shall rebuke many people; and they shall break down their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks, and they shall no longer learn to fight.”

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1
Irenaeus
1. Moreover, this impious opinion of theirs with respect to actions—namely, that it is incumbent on them to have experience of all kinds of deeds, even the most abominable—is refuted by the teaching of the Lord, with whom not only is the adulterer rejected, but also the man who desires to commit adultery; (Matt. 5:21, etc.) and not only is the actual murderer held guilty of having killed another to his own damnation, but the man also who is angry with his brother without a cause: who commanded [His disciples] not only not to hate men, but also to love their enemies; and enjoined them not only not to swear falsely, but not even to swear at all; and not only not to speak evil of their neighbours, but not even to style any one “Raca” and “fool;” [declaring] that otherwise they were in danger of hell-fire; and not only not to strike, but even, when themselves struck, to present the other cheek [to those that maltreated them]; and not only not to refuse to give up the property of others, but even if their own were taken away, not to demand it back again from those that took it; and not only not to injure their neighbours, nor to do them any evil, but also, when themselves wickedly dealt with, to be long-suffering, and to show kindness towards those [that injured them], and to pray for them, that by means of repentance they might be saved—so that we should in no respect imitate the arrogance, lust, and pride of others.


The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 2
Clement of Alexandria
And an enemy must be aided, that he may not continue an enemy. For by help good feeling is compacted, and enmity dissolved.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 2
Clement of Alexandria
Above all, Christians are not allowed to correct with violence the delinquencies of sins. For it is not those that abstain from wickedness from compulsion, but those that abstain from choice, that God crowns.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3
Tertullian 197 AD.
If we are enjoined, then, to love our enemies, as I have remarked above, whom have we to hate? If injured, we are forbidden to retaliate, lest we become as bad ourselves: who can suffer injury at our hands?

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3
Tertullian
In short, the coming procession of a new law out of this “house of the God of Jacob” Isaiah in the ensuing words announces, saying, “For from Zion shall go out a law, and the word of the Lord out of Jerusalem, and shall judge among the nations,”—that is, among us, who have been called out of the nations,—“and they shall join to beat their glaives into ploughs, and their lances into sickles; and nations shall not take up glaive against nation, and they shall no more learn to fight.” (Isaiah 2:3-4) Who else, therefore, are understood but we, who, fully taught by the new law, observe these practices,—the old law being obliterated, the coming of whose abolition the action itself demonstrates? For the wont of the old law was to avenge itself by the vengeance of the glaive, and to pluck out “eye for eye,” and to inflict retaliatory revenge for injury. (compare Exodus 21:24-25; Leviticus 24:17-22; Deuteronomy 19:11-21; Matthew 5:38) But the new law’s wont was to point to clemency, and to convert to tranquillity the pristine ferocity of “glaives” and “lances,” and to remodel the pristine execution of “war” upon the rivals and foes of the law into the pacific actions of “ploughing” and “tilling” the land. Therefore as we have shown above that the coming cessation of the old law and of the carnal circumcision was declared, so, too, the observance of the new law and the spiritual circumcision has shone out into the voluntary obediences of peace.
The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3
Tertullian
the Christian does no harm even to his foe

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3
Tertullian
Nay, He puts His interdict on every sort of man-killing by that one summary precept, “Thou shalt not kill.”

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 4
Commodianus 240 A.D.
Many are the martyrdoms which are made without shedding of blood. Not to desire other men’s goods; to wish to have the benefit of martyrdom; to bridle the tongue, thou oughtest to make thyself humble; not willingly to use force, nor to return force used against thee, thou wilt be a patient mind, understand that thou art a martyr.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 5
Cyprian
and that by this very fact they are invincible, that they do not fear death; that they do not in turn assail their assailants, since it is not lawful for the innocent even to kill the guilty;


The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 5
Cyprian
nor, after the Eucharist carried in it, is the hand spotted with the sword and blood.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 6
Theonas of Alexandria 300 A.D.
And do thou, my dearest Lucianus, since thou art wise, bear with good-will the unwise; (2 Cor. 11:19) and they too may perchance become wise. Do no one an injury at any time, and provoke no one to anger. If an injury is done to you, look to Jesus Christ; and even as ye desire that He may remit your transgressions, do ye also forgive them theirs; (Mark 11:25) and then also shall ye do away with all ill-will, and bruise the head of that ancient serpent, (Rom. 16:20) who is ever on the watch with all subtlety to undo your good works and your prosperous attainments.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 7
Lactantius 304-313 A.D.
But we, on the contrary, do not require that any one should be compelled, whether he is willing or unwilling, to worship our God, who is the God of all men; nor are we angry if any one does not worship Him. For we trust in the majesty of Him who has power to avenge contempt shown towards Himself, as also He has power to avenge the calamities and injuries inflicted on His servants. And therefore, when we suffer such impious things, we do not resist even in word; but we remit vengeance to God, not as they act who would have it appear that they are defenders of their gods, and rage without restraint against those who do not worship them

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 7
Lactantius
He also, having no pride or insolence, does not raise himself too highly, nor lift up his head with arrogance; but he is calm and peaceful, lowly and courteous, because he knows his own condition. Since, therefore, he does injury to none, nor desires the property of others, and does not even defend his own if it is taken from him by violence, since he knows how even to bear with moderation an injury inflicted upon him, because he is endued with virtue; it is necessary that the just man should be subject to the unjust, and that the wise should be insulted by the foolish, that the one may sin because he is unjust, and the other may have virtue in himself because he is just.


There are more in you would like to see them, it is laborious cutting and pasting them.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jul 30th 2010, 03:44 AM
(EDIT: Butch, I was typing this when you posted above.)

Let me share something related:

My dearest friend and Brother is serving multiple life sentences without parole. As a young man of God, he was distressed when his godly mother died and backslid in anger and grief. During that 3-year period, his half-brother drew him in to a lifestyle of drug-dealing and the like. As his grief waned, his guilt grew; and found himself at the foot of his bed weeping in repentance.

The next day, he went to his brother and let him know his lifestyle of criminal activity was over. He went to his father's church and openly repented, and spent the next 2 years preaching street meetings and tent revivals. Hundreds came to salvation and he spent every moment preaching, discipling, visiting lost family members of new converts, and praying/fasting/studying. He was (and is) the most faithful yielded person I've ever known.

Jealous of this spiritual life and resentful of him leaving, his step-brother became extremely violent in his criminal lifestyle and ultimately murdered several people. When caught, he maliciously implicated my beloved faithful Brother in those murders to reduce his own sentence. That was in summer 1997, and he has been incarcerated in a series of federal facilities since.

When he was younger, he studied a variety of martial arts, and by age 25 he was a multi-degree blackbelt in several different styles/disciplines. He literally is capable of preventing another human from even touching him, if he chooses. In prison, he is Pastor to hundreds and disciples them rigorously. He constantly has families for me to minister to on the outside, and I've made many multi-state trips for families in need of many things, especially the Gospel.

Several times I've received calls about him being stabbed while defending the lives of brethren that were threatened by various gangs inmside the prison. One such occurence was with a young inmate that a gang of other inmates came to attack. This group came into the chapel during service and grabbed this young convert with intentions of gang-raping him and murdering him. As the other believers stood in shock and fear, my Brother took on all twelve of these guys with their shanks. He calmly and quickly dispatched them in pairs with broken arms and wrists, etc., disarming them all in the process. By the time he finished, all twelve were sent to the infirmary, as was he. He sustained multiple stab wounds, but had prevailed over all twelve and saved this young man's life.

This has happened various times in different situations, but each time he was able to save innocent lives. Each time, he has gone to the bedside of each attacker and prayed for them and their families. He has won many to Christ who now sing and pray and serve next to those whom they had previously attacked. He relentlessly ministers to all of them and they, like me, would give their lives for him, because he gives his life for them.

If he had simply stood passively while he and others were killed, there would be hundreds of souls lost that have found salvation AND deep discipleship. They have had baptism services with over 100 at a time. Such fervor and zeal and dedication I've never seen.

Facing death under persecution is our devotion of love. Facing death under criminal violence is not. I will lay my life down (by His grace), but I will not let it be needlessly taken by someone to whom my life does not belong.

Slug1
Jul 30th 2010, 11:51 AM
Facing death under persecution is our devotion of love. Facing death under criminal violence is not. I will lay my life down (by His grace), but I will not let it be needlessly taken by someone to whom my life does not belong.Amen... we must not allow satan to take us, steal away from us what the Lord has purposed us for. We all must protect that purpose we are blessed with and do not allow the enemy to take it so freely.

Luke 12:39 But know this, that if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and[a] not allowed his house to be broken into.

TexUs
Jul 30th 2010, 02:22 PM
My friend, Jesus changed the old law.

Where did I not say that to the contrary?
I guess you've got to draw your line of where the OT is applicable today, then.

The OT was the working law. It's entire purpose was to show us what we WERE to live up to but couldn't, it was the highest standard.

As such, protecting the innocent is a "highest standard".

Now, the changes in the law took place with regards to salvation, obviously. Does this then invalidate the Ten Commandments? No. Does this invalidate protecting the innocent? No. If we don't follow these commands anymore, do we go to hell? No- THAT's the change in the law.

Jesus himself refers back to Old Testament relevancy with the sermon on the mount. It's the high standard we can't live up to, and Jesus further enforced that.

threebigrocks
Jul 30th 2010, 06:02 PM
Just to toss a quip in here - the OT isn't the law, the 613 Levitical laws that show us our need for a Savior. The 10 we stand by today have not changed. The OT as a whole isn't the Law.

TexUs
Jul 30th 2010, 06:19 PM
the 613 Levitical laws that show us our need for a Savior.

Yet you just called them laws yourself :)

dan
Jul 30th 2010, 07:04 PM
The Rambo thing would be what this is referring to as what not to do, not simple protection. Vindictiveness, by nature, would be post-incident action, not incident action.


I might point out that in the last Rambo movie he rescued Christian Missionaries.

Don't tell Sly, he's been used by God.:pp

1JN 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love [of God], because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down [our] lives for the brethren.

dan
Jul 30th 2010, 07:28 PM
The issue is obeying the command of Christ. Do we obey or not? It seems to me that is what it boils down to.

IMO:

Jesus commanded that you buy a weapon, did you?

LK 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

I believe that He also said that murderers must be killed with the sword:

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear:
REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

This verse also implies, to me at least, that those that don't believe that murderers deserve death by the sword, will never be among the saints.

If one were to consider that only saints will be allowed in heaven, then, this is a very important tenet.

It may be one of the things for which Jesus denies some before God.

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. (Matt 7:21)

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? (Matt 7:22)

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matt 7:23)

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: (Matt 7:24)

inn
Jul 30th 2010, 08:00 PM
If you kill, you do so in disobedience to the King of Kings.

inn
Jul 30th 2010, 08:07 PM
Jesus commanded that you buy a weapon.

LK 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.


The quote is incomplete, thus out of context, see 2 verses on;'Here are 2 swords' said the disciples, 'THAT'S ENOUGH' said Jesus!
Does buying a small sword usualy used for cutting mean you must kill?
I'd say no, as Jesus would certainly not contradict himself in earlier teachings!

inn
Jul 30th 2010, 08:13 PM
There's a huge difference between someone coming up to you with a loaded gun to your head saying I'm going to kill you and then kidnap your kids and someone out to kill you because you are a Christian. I'm evil and will hurt your family vs. renounce Christ or die. Huge difference my friend.

I like what you said in your post 61!
I agree there is a difference in scenes, what you said above, but does Jesus' command change when the scene changes?

inn
Jul 30th 2010, 08:19 PM
if a person is that much a pacifist (bound by satan) then they wouldn't even call the police for help, due to that bondage.

A preson obeying Jesus certainly can't be called 'bound by satan'. Perhaps a person is MUCH more likely to be called bound by satan who disobeys Jesus!

inn
Jul 30th 2010, 08:23 PM
Do not compare what Jesus did in the temple when he scattered the products of the vendor infront
of the temple because he had to do that to let them know that the temple is sacred and be use
for praising the Lord.


Also, Jesus did not kill anyone in the temple in this passage.
Nor does it say he even injured anyone!

HisLeast
Jul 30th 2010, 08:29 PM
Also, Jesus did not kill anyone in the temple in this passage.
Nor does it say he even injured anyone!

If he hit any one of them with a scourge, you can garauntee that he injured them.

inn
Jul 30th 2010, 08:31 PM
Facing death under persecution is our devotion of love. Facing death under criminal violence is not. I will lay my life down (by His grace), but I will not let it be needlessly taken by someone to whom my life does not belong.

Sorry to hear of your friend.
Interesting you use the words;' Facing death under persecution is our devotion of love.' But you leave this out when criminal violence comes up. Does your devotion of love leave you when this element arrives?
Do you think any criminal has any power over your life?
To whom does your life belong?

inn
Jul 30th 2010, 08:35 PM
Where did I not say that to the contrary?
I guess you've got to draw your line of where the OT is applicable today, then.


Jesus taught that the old form of; 'an eye for an eye' IS now changed. Lk 6, Mt 5 and many other NT verses.

inn
Jul 30th 2010, 08:37 PM
No. Does this invalidate protecting the innocent?


Does the NT teach to protect the innocent by killing?

TexUs
Jul 30th 2010, 08:59 PM
A preson obeying Jesus certainly can't be called 'bound by satan'. Perhaps a person is MUCH more likely to be called bound by satan who disobeys Jesus!
You mean someone that lets innocent lives be taken?


Does the NT teach to protect the innocent by killing?
Sure.



I believe that He also said that murderers must be killed with the sword:

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear:
REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

This verse also implies, to me at least, that those that don't believe that murderers deserve death by the sword, will never be among the saints.

If one were to consider that only saints will be allowed in heaven, then, this is a very important tenet.

It may be one of the things for which Jesus denies some before God.

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. (Matt 7:21)

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? (Matt 7:22)

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matt 7:23)

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: (Matt 7:24)


So if we're not to kill, please enlighten us all how the above example is wrong. Apparently pacifism isn't correct, is it?

inn
Jul 30th 2010, 09:09 PM
I must assume that God has predestined them to die in my living room, and the will of God could not be resisted.

I like that you use the word assume.
I hope you are not tested on this one;'and the will of God could not be resisted.'

inn
Jul 30th 2010, 09:12 PM
You mean someone that lets innocent lives be taken?
Sure.


Please explain your question.
You say the NT teaches christians to kill, but there's NO NT evidence for this!

inn
Jul 30th 2010, 09:18 PM
If it is an intruder into someone's home, they have also chosen to die.

An added thought; perhaps God has chosen you to share the gospel with the intruder.
In this instance, would it not be better NOT to shoot him/her?

inn
Jul 30th 2010, 09:23 PM
It is not loving my family to allow them to be raped, beaten, robbed of both their possessions and privacy. How can anyone think that is a demonstration of love?

i also do not think it is showing love to the intruder - what you would be teaching him would be tthat it is acceptable to take from others - that harming others is something God condones.

Maybe I'm missing something here?

God lovingly allows rape , murder etc. Perhaps the bigger picture WE ALL MISS. God is in CONTROL at ALL times!

Slug1
Jul 30th 2010, 09:23 PM
An added thought; perhaps God has chosen you to share the gospel with the intruder.
In this instance, would it not be better NOT to shoot him/her?See, that's the thing Inn, your post here is a cop out. Why? Because if the reason for this person to threaten your life was to receive the Gospel, then the Holy Spirit would inform the master of the house of this. The Holy Spirit would have woken the master of the house up and they'd be waiting Bible in hand for the thief to break into their home.

inn
Jul 30th 2010, 09:26 PM
For those who say, "Just trust God and pray"; I'll bet they're paying home, auto, and health insurance premiums and thet lock their security-alarmed homes and vehicles.


A little light hearted response for affect: How much you wanna bet? I'm not after your money, but I'll bet in any way, as I am SURE gonna WIN!!

dan
Jul 30th 2010, 09:29 PM
If you kill, you do so in disobedience to the King of Kings.

I disagree!

Deadly force is good enough for Moses' Law, which is the unreachable standard.

God told you to kill, and Jesus never said that a "life for a life" has changed.

Possession of deadly weapons is, in itself, the inclusion of the use of deadly force.

Read anyone's law anywhere!

inn
Jul 30th 2010, 09:29 PM
Originally Posted by dan
I believe that He also said that murderers must be killed with the sword:

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear:
REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

This verse also implies, to me at least, that those that don't believe that murderers deserve death by the sword, will never be among the saints.

If one were to consider that only saints will be allowed in heaven, then, this is a very important tenet.

It may be one of the things for which Jesus denies some before God.

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. (Matt 7:21)

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? (Matt 7:22)

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matt 7:23)

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: (Matt 7:24)

NOT ONE!!

TexUs
Jul 30th 2010, 09:32 PM
Please explain your question.
You say the NT teaches christians to kill, but there's NO NT evidence for this!
Sure it does.


IMO:

Jesus commanded that you buy a weapon, did you?

LK 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

I believe that He also said that murderers must be killed with the sword:

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear:
REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

This verse also implies, to me at least, that those that don't believe that murderers deserve death by the sword, will never be among the saints.

If one were to consider that only saints will be allowed in heaven, then, this is a very important tenet.

It may be one of the things for which Jesus denies some before God.

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. (Matt 7:21)

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? (Matt 7:22)

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matt 7:23)

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: (Matt 7:24)


That right there proves you wrong.


And PLEASE learn how to multi-quote... Or I will ignore you to get rid of the needles string of replies.

dan
Jul 31st 2010, 12:50 AM
None of these verses posted by Dan say go and kill!! NOT ONE!!

...Through Jeremiah to throw stumblingblocks before you, yes?

JER 6:21 Therefore thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will lay stumblingblocks before this people, and the fathers and the sons together shall fall upon them; the neighbour and his friend shall perish.

And here, in my opinion, is one of the greatest:

EX 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.(KJV)

Of course, the Jews weren't fooled:

EX 20:13 Thou shalt not murder. (Jewish Publication Society)

Only those that didn't dig deeper fail to understand.

Jesus says that the good should confront the evil:

MT 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.

And because the armed man can be a threat to multiple assailants, regardless of size or age, he does, therefore, motivate others to peaceful endeavors:

LK 11:21 When a strong man armed keepeth his court, those things are in peace which he possesseth.

(And, yes, I do understand that this statement is out of context of the story in the Bible. However, it is a universal truth on it's own: There is no physical peace without armed men. Perhaps you could ask a soldier why Radical Islam attacks police in Iraq and Afghanistan.)

Previously, I mentioned that arms automatically add death as one of the possible outcomes of an encounter, although, come to think of it, I should have said "fighting".

If a "goodman" seeks to prevent intruders from breaking into his house, as he should according to scripture, there can be fighting.

There can be death.

But, the armed man may not have to exert himself, whatever his age, because evil men fear arms more than good men.

As Cesare Becarria put it in "On Crimes And Punishments":

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction.

The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.

Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity,the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if stictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty-so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator-and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer?

Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence thn an armed man.

They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impressions of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." -Cesare Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishments" (1764).

Jesus said to confront evil and buy a weapon. When He did either, He included killing as a possible outcome of some encounters.

When Jesus said to believe that killing those that murder with a weapon is just, He made it acceptable again.

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear:
REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

Paul also said fighting to preserve life was necessary:

1COR 15:32 If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.

Butch5
Jul 31st 2010, 01:22 AM
(EDIT: Butch, I was typing this when you posted above.)

Let me share something related:

My dearest friend and Brother is serving multiple life sentences without parole. As a young man of God, he was distressed when his godly mother died and backslid in anger and grief. During that 3-year period, his half-brother drew him in to a lifestyle of drug-dealing and the like. As his grief waned, his guilt grew; and found himself at the foot of his bed weeping in repentance.

The next day, he went to his brother and let him know his lifestyle of criminal activity was over. He went to his father's church and openly repented, and spent the next 2 years preaching street meetings and tent revivals. Hundreds came to salvation and he spent every moment preaching, discipling, visiting lost family members of new converts, and praying/fasting/studying. He was (and is) the most faithful yielded person I've ever known.

Jealous of this spiritual life and resentful of him leaving, his step-brother became extremely violent in his criminal lifestyle and ultimately murdered several people. When caught, he maliciously implicated my beloved faithful Brother in those murders to reduce his own sentence. That was in summer 1997, and he has been incarcerated in a series of federal facilities since.

When he was younger, he studied a variety of martial arts, and by age 25 he was a multi-degree blackbelt in several different styles/disciplines. He literally is capable of preventing another human from even touching him, if he chooses. In prison, he is Pastor to hundreds and disciples them rigorously. He constantly has families for me to minister to on the outside, and I've made many multi-state trips for families in need of many things, especially the Gospel.

Several times I've received calls about him being stabbed while defending the lives of brethren that were threatened by various gangs inmside the prison. One such occurence was with a young inmate that a gang of other inmates came to attack. This group came into the chapel during service and grabbed this young convert with intentions of gang-raping him and murdering him. As the other believers stood in shock and fear, my Brother took on all twelve of these guys with their shanks. He calmly and quickly dispatched them in pairs with broken arms and wrists, etc., disarming them all in the process. By the time he finished, all twelve were sent to the infirmary, as was he. He sustained multiple stab wounds, but had prevailed over all twelve and saved this young man's life.

This has happened various times in different situations, but each time he was able to save innocent lives. Each time, he has gone to the bedside of each attacker and prayed for them and their families. He has won many to Christ who now sing and pray and serve next to those whom they had previously attacked. He relentlessly ministers to all of them and they, like me, would give their lives for him, because he gives his life for them.

If he had simply stood passively while he and others were killed, there would be hundreds of souls lost that have found salvation AND deep discipleship. They have had baptism services with over 100 at a time. Such fervor and zeal and dedication I've never seen.

Facing death under persecution is our devotion of love. Facing death under criminal violence is not. I will lay my life down (by His grace), but I will not let it be needlessly taken by someone to whom my life does not belong.

I can't speak for your friend, but the question still remains, do we obey Christ's commands or not. That is what it boils down to. I am sure there are stories similar to yours on both sides. I have heard stories where people broke in and the victims began to pray and the intruders ran off. I live north of Atlanta, and remember the Nichol's case where, a man in federal court, shot a deputy, court reporter, and a judge and ran out of the building and shot a federal officer. Later he took a young woman hostage, over the period of about a day or so, he did not harm her and she began witnessing to him about Christ. I don't remember if he got saved but he did turn himself in and did not harm her. I think God was with her. My point is that I believe that God can and will protect me and my family, however, I have to also say, "But if not" along with three in the furnace.

I really am dismayed, that Christians say they totally trust God, yet when their physical life is endangered they trust themselves. I just don't see how that is totally trusting God. I just don't see how shooting an intruder is loving him.

Butch5
Jul 31st 2010, 01:26 AM
Amen... we must not allow satan to take us, steal away from us what the Lord has purposed us for. We all must protect that purpose we are blessed with and do not allow the enemy to take it so freely.

Luke 12:39 But know this, that if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and[a] not allowed his house to be broken into.

"We must not allow Satatn to take us" ? Is Satan more powerful than God?, Are we more powerful than God? Are we more powerful than Satan? My friend, if God didn't stop Satan from taking us, I don't think we could.

Slug1
Jul 31st 2010, 01:38 AM
"We must not allow Satatn to take us" ? Is Satan more powerful than God?, Are we more powerful than God? Are we more powerful than Satan? My friend, if God didn't stop Satan from taking us, I don't think we could.We're all warned that satan can devour... why make it easy for him by way of sending in a criminal to kill you, knowing you'll do nothing to stop him?

I plan on applying the scripture I posted and that you quoted.

Again, if anything you said has any truth, then Paul would have never needed to ask for help from those centurions. He'd have just walked to his next destination and God would have stopped those assassins. But Paul did the smart thing since he was incapable to handle all those that threatened him, himself.

Butch5
Jul 31st 2010, 01:41 AM
Where did I not say that to the contrary?
I guess you've got to draw your line of where the OT is applicable today, then.

The OT was the working law. It's entire purpose was to show us what we WERE to live up to but couldn't, it was the highest standard.

As such, protecting the innocent is a "highest standard".

Now, the changes in the law took place with regards to salvation, obviously. Does this then invalidate the Ten Commandments? No. Does this invalidate protecting the innocent? No. If we don't follow these commands anymore, do we go to hell? No- THAT's the change in the law.

Jesus himself refers back to Old Testament relevancy with the sermon on the mount. It's the high standard we can't live up to, and Jesus further enforced that.

The OT law was for the Jew, the Gentiles were not undeer that Law, it was to show God's character. Jesus did not just change salvation, He changed the law. 'You have heard it said an eye for an eye', but I say to you, that is not about salvation, taht is about the way the Christian is to conduct himself in this life. Christians interpret these things according to their own diesires and overlook the enormous amount of evidence to the cotrary. AS i said in another post, this issue was a 180 degree turn for me, the reason for the turn was that I was not willing to overlook the evidence. No matter what doctrines I had to rid myself of I was not going to overlook the evidence. If I am turly seeking the "Truth" I cannot turn a blind eye to things I don't like, or things that disagree with the doctrines I hold. No, I have to accept what the evidence says or I am not seeking the tuth.


Hebrews 7:18 ( KJV )
For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

Butch5
Jul 31st 2010, 01:48 AM
IMO:

Jesus commanded that you buy a weapon, did you?

LK 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

I believe that He also said that murderers must be killed with the sword:

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear:
REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

This verse also implies, to me at least, that those that don't believe that murderers deserve death by the sword, will never be among the saints.

If one were to consider that only saints will be allowed in heaven, then, this is a very important tenet.

It may be one of the things for which Jesus denies some before God.

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. (Matt 7:21)

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? (Matt 7:22)

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matt 7:23)

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: (Matt 7:24)

Dan, you've got the verses our ocontext and you are overlooking the overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of your own interpretation.

The Greek word Jesus used is a large knife or a small sword. There would be many uses for a this item. If the purpose was to kill, why did Jesus rebuke Peter for injuring the servant?

Can you put the Revelation verses in context and explain the passage to me?

Butch5
Jul 31st 2010, 01:49 AM
We're all warned that satan can devour... why make it easy for him by way of sending in a criminal to kill you, knowing you'll do nothing to stop him?

I plan on applying the scripture I posted and that you quoted.

Again, if anything you said has any truth, then Paul would have never needed to ask for help from those centurions. He'd have just walked to his next destination and God would have stopped those assassins. But Paul did the smart thing since he was incapable to handle all those that threatened him, himself.

I guess he was he was in prison.

Why didn't the other disciples defend Paul when he was stoned?

Slug1
Jul 31st 2010, 02:04 AM
I guess he was he was in prison.

Why didn't the other disciples defend Paul when he was stoned?Butch, you changed the subject :lol:

If what you said was true, then Paul would have had NOTHING to fear from those assassins. Yet he still got that escort. Put yourself in His place with all you are saying. Would you or would you not have done the same thing?

Point blank... if you would have done the same thing as Paul, cool. But, by your words and all what you are saying, you would not have asked for that help from the Centurions because you would say, "God will protect me." No need to send the boy with the 911 call.

I'll tell you what... if you stuck to your conviction... you'd be assassin's meat and dead along that road.

And for what? Now you are another devoured victim of satan.

TexUs
Jul 31st 2010, 02:33 AM
Butch, I went and looked through this thread. Other than this one case in Luke I fail to see any scripture postings by you to show us where you are coming from:
You're continually clambering for "obeying Christ" yet you have not produced any examples of not to kill at all.

The passage in Luke is CLEARLY talking about vengeance, revenge, and taking the offensive:
If someone strikes you, don't strike them back
If someone steals, don't steal from them
These are, again, CLEARLY about taking revenge, vengeance, or as someone put it: Going Rambo.
He then gives an example of lending

THEN he goes in and talks about doing good to our enemies, lending without strings attached.

Context is amazing, isn't it?

You also know what's rather amazing about context is it of course clarifies things.
Do not MURDER is rather clear. Hebrew râtsach. To dash, murder. And RIGHT AFTER THAT he then speaks of putting to death murderers, those that attack their parents, etc. Which makes it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that the command was "No killing, period." It's no killing in cold blood, no pre-meditated killing of malice.
And then we also see in 22:2, "If the thief is caught while breaking in, and is struck so that he dies, there will be no blood guiltiness on his account."

This can't be any more clear.

Is obeying God's word reading your own personal and completely unbiblical meaning into the commandments or is obeying God's word trusting it as what it means?


I really am dismayed, that Christians say they totally trust God, yet when their physical life is endangered they trust themselves. I just don't see how that is totally trusting God. I just don't see how shooting an intruder is loving him.
I trust myself because God tells me I should trust myself. And since I'm trusting him I'm doing what we're told about self-defense.


"We must not allow Satatn to take us" ? Is Satan more powerful than God?, Are we more powerful than God? Are we more powerful than Satan? My friend, if God didn't stop Satan from taking us, I don't think we could.
If God wanted to stop the attack he could have done so. However, he doesn't. Are you saying God isn't powerful enough to have prevented it? You're acting like God is reactionary instead of proactive. "Oh, he broke in! I guess I better wake up from my nap to do something about that!"
It also seems to me that the disciples were constantly standing in opposition to Satan, even to the point of Christ rebuking him himself.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jul 31st 2010, 02:34 AM
I can't speak for your friend, but the question still remains, do we obey Christ's commands or not. That is what it boils down to. I am sure there are stories similar to yours on both sides. I have heard stories where people broke in and the victims began to pray and the intruders ran off. I live north of Atlanta, and remember the Nichol's case where, a man in federal court, shot a deputy, court reporter, and a judge and ran out of the building and shot a federal officer. Later he took a young woman hostage, over the period of about a day or so, he did not harm her and she began witnessing to him about Christ. I don't remember if he got saved but he did turn himself in and did not harm her. I think God was with her. My point is that I believe that God can and will protect me and my family, however, I have to also say, "But if not" along with three in the furnace.

I really am dismayed, that Christians say they totally trust God, yet when their physical life is endangered they trust themselves. I just don't see how that is totally trusting God. I just don't see how shooting an intruder is loving him.

I understand, and I personally know several "stories" on both "sides" with opposite results, as well. I know a missionary whose husband was killed by natives they were ministering to. She stayed with them after his death and ultimately the whole tribe was won to Christ. I also know a missionary whose wife was savagely gang-raped by rebels to get them to leave. Their sponsors recalled them and their work collapsed. They have never been able to return to the field, and they're still struggling in many ways.

I'm 47, and by faith I've never had health insurance; but I don't necessarily think insurance is a lack of faith or trust, either. I simply don't see the absolutes in scripture regarding state-war (not holy war), law enforcement, or extreme self-defense. I don't see the hard line that killing is murder in those cases.

Like most on this board, I live very peacably and would suffer loss in virtually every way before having even verbal conflict with someone. I've never struck another human, even responsively; and I bite my tongue on the occasions when criticism or conflict arise. My father was the meekest man I've known, and I pray for that in my own life.

I trust God for many things, and take delegated stewardship responsibility for many others under obedience and guidance of the Word and the leading of the Spirit. For the most part, insurance and locks and such are a stewardship issue, including liability for others. I keep my garage locked because I have a bazillion motorcycles, many of which are realistically irreplaceable; I generally wear a helmet and gear; I always wear a seatbelt. Stewardship doesn't mean a lack of trust in God; it's wisdom and prudence.

I have no desire to initiate any violence nor respond violently. If it's just me, I could consider giving no resistance to a violent life-threatening attack; for others, I am certainly compelled to be an agent of protection.

The Word is interpretational. I see no command being violated. I pray God moves upon my heart by His grace to change that if I am wrong.

TexUs
Jul 31st 2010, 02:38 AM
Is the prayer of Christ one of pacifism, laying down, and accepting circumstances?
"My Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me."

inn
Jul 31st 2010, 06:34 AM
Sure it does.
And PLEASE learn how to multi-quote... Or I will ignore you to get rid of the needles string of replies.

Please quote the verse where it says christians should kill, and under the verse a short interpretation. It seems clear you did not read the verses you quoted!
Not one of them say a christian should kill.

I have a old pc. Can't multi quote, but please feel free to ignore the the points I make,[most of page 6 in this thread was ignored] I will not be offended.
God love you

inn
Jul 31st 2010, 06:36 AM
Is the prayer of Christ one of pacifism, laying down, and accepting circumstances?
"My Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me."

Yet NOT my will be done, but Thine!

inn
Jul 31st 2010, 06:44 AM
I trust myself because God tells me I should trust myself. And since I'm trusting him I'm doing what we're told about self-defense.


I can see by what you write that you trust your self, this is clear.
Scripture teaches;'Cursed is the one who trusts in the flesh.' Not the opposite

inn
Jul 31st 2010, 06:51 AM
Like most on this board, I live very peacably and would suffer loss in virtually every way before having even verbal conflict with someone. I've never struck another human, even responsively; and I bite my tongue on the occasions when criticism or conflict arise. My father was the meekest man I've known, and I pray for that in my own life.
I have no desire to initiate any violence nor respond violently. If it's just me, I could consider giving no resistance to a violent life-threatening attack; for others, I am certainly compelled to be an agent of protection.


Here is an example of how to avoid the question being asked. Originally Posted by Butch5
I can't speak for your friend, but the question still remains, do we obey Christ's commands or not.

inn
Jul 31st 2010, 06:56 AM
We're all warned that satan can devour... why make it easy for him by way of sending in a criminal to kill you, knowing you'll do nothing to stop him?

I plan on applying the scripture I posted and that you quoted.

Again, if anything you said has any truth, then Paul would have never needed to ask for help from those centurions. He'd have just walked to his next destination and God would have stopped those assassins. But Paul did the smart thing since he was incapable to handle all those that threatened him, himself.

The thief comes to kill, I have come so that you may have life, and take it from others. This is not the gospel I believe in. The gospel I believe in is called the gospel of life and peace.

inn
Jul 31st 2010, 06:58 AM
Butch, you changed the subject


No he didn't, you are avoiding the issue.

inn
Jul 31st 2010, 07:01 AM
If what you said was true, then Paul would have had NOTHING to fear from those assassins.


Does scripture say Paul feared, or are you adding to scripture?

inn
Jul 31st 2010, 07:04 AM
...Through Jeremiah to throw stumblingblocks before you, yes?

JER 6:21 Therefore thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will lay stumblingblocks before this people, and the fathers and the sons together shall fall upon them; the neighbour and his friend shall perish.

And here, in my opinion, is one of the greatest:

EX 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.(KJV)

Of course, the Jews weren't fooled:

EX 20:13 Thou shalt not murder. (Jewish Publication Society)

Only those that didn't dig deeper fail to understand.

Jesus says that the good should confront the evil:

MT 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.

And because the armed man can be a threat to multiple assailants, regardless of size or age, he does, therefore, motivate others to peaceful endeavors:

LK 11:21 When a strong man armed keepeth his court, those things are in peace which he possesseth.

(And, yes, I do understand that this statement is out of context of the story in the Bible. However, it is a universal truth on it's own: There is no physical peace without armed men. Perhaps you could ask a soldier why Radical Islam attacks police in Iraq and Afghanistan.)

Previously, I mentioned that arms automatically add death as one of the possible outcomes of an encounter, although, come to think of it, I should have said "fighting".

If a "goodman" seeks to prevent intruders from breaking into his house, as he should according to scripture, there can be fighting.

There can be death.

But, the armed man may not have to exert himself, whatever his age, because evil men fear arms more than good men.

As Cesare Becarria put it in "On Crimes And Punishments":

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction.

The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.

Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity,the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if stictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty-so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator-and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer?

Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence thn an armed man.

They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impressions of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." -Cesare Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishments" (1764).

Jesus said to confront evil and buy a weapon. When He did either, He included killing as a possible outcome of some encounters.

When Jesus said to believe that killing those that murder with a weapon is just, He made it acceptable again.

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear:
REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

Paul also said fighting to preserve life was necessary:

1COR 15:32 If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.

And these verses from the NT tell christians to go kill. This defies logic

inn
Jul 31st 2010, 07:11 AM
It also seems to me that the disciples were constantly standing in opposition to Satan, even to the point of Christ rebuking him himself.

And how did they do it? They NEVER did it in the flesh,[except Peter, when cutting an ear off, for which he was rebuked, and for which Christ again rebukes those who follow Him who rely on the flesh].

How did they constantly stand in opposition to Satan? By waging war in the SPIRIT, the ONLY way we are commanded to wage war against the devil today
in the NT.
God love you

inn
Jul 31st 2010, 07:26 AM
...(And, yes, I do understand that this statement is out of context of the story in the Bible. However, it is a universal truth on it's own: There is no physical peace without armed men. Perhaps you could ask a soldier why Radical Islam attacks police in Iraq and Afghanistan.)


I don't know where you get your peace from, but it's not from the Prince of Peace, or the gospel of peace.
Jesus never came to establish a physical kingdom, and He never promised physical peace, in fact the COMPLETE opposite. 'Whoever wants to live a godly life will suffer persecution.'

In Afganistan, in U.S.A. in the world there is only ONE solution to the worlds problems, Jesus, and if you are preaching war[and physical violence] you ARE NOT PREACHING THE JESUS OF THE BIBLE!

God love you

Dugdeep
Jul 31st 2010, 12:04 PM
[QUOTE=inn;]

Absolutly inn. Beware of those who add other teaching to the gospel, and say it is the gospel.

Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Dugdeep
Jul 31st 2010, 12:06 PM
And these verses from the NT tell christians to go kill. This defies logic

Yes I agree, these verses do not tell of going to kill that Dan posted.

Dugdeep
Jul 31st 2010, 12:10 PM
And how did they do it? They NEVER did it in the flesh,[except Peter, when cutting an ear off, for which he was rebuked, and for which Christ again rebukes those who follow Him who rely on the flesh].

How did they constantly stand in opposition to Satan? By waging war in the SPIRIT, the ONLY way we are commanded to wage war against the devil today
in the NT.
God love you
Amen, the verse is found in Eph 6:12

Dugdeep
Jul 31st 2010, 12:15 PM
We're all warned that satan can devour... why make it easy for him by way of sending in a criminal to kill you, knowing you'll do nothing to stop him?

I plan on applying the scripture I posted and that you quoted.

Again, if anything you said has any truth, then Paul would have never needed to ask for help from those centurions. He'd have just walked to his next destination and God would have stopped those assassins. But Paul did the smart thing since he was incapable to handle all those that threatened him, himself.

Why do you need to kill the criminal to stop him? Do you not believe it is possible to stop him by the preaching of the gospel? This worked in Jesus time, do you not think it works anymore? I you apply the scripture that Butch5 quoted, you will not harm, but will rather preach the gospel, so are you really being sincere here? If you are I am expecting you to post that you have repented from violence and killing.

Dugdeep
Jul 31st 2010, 12:20 PM
Jesus laid down His life leaving an example. He never told us as believers to follow another example. So, will you fellow believer follow Him or not?If you follow the way of violence, and harming others, you are not following Jesus.

Dugdeep
Jul 31st 2010, 12:22 PM
The OT law was for the Jew, the Gentiles were not undeer that Law, it was to show God's character. Jesus did not just change salvation, He changed the law. 'You have heard it said an eye for an eye', but I say to you, that is not about salvation, taht is about the way the Christian is to conduct himself in this life. Christians interpret these things according to their own diesires and overlook the enormous amount of evidence to the cotrary. AS i said in another post, this issue was a 180 degree turn for me, the reason for the turn was that I was not willing to overlook the evidence. No matter what doctrines I had to rid myself of I was not going to overlook the evidence. If I am turly seeking the "Truth" I cannot turn a blind eye to things I don't like, or things that disagree with the doctrines I hold. No, I have to accept what the evidence says or I am not seeking the tuth.


Hebrews 7:18 ( KJV )
For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

This is sound theology straight from the New Covenant. Please fellow believer take heed how you hear.

Dugdeep
Jul 31st 2010, 12:24 PM
I guess he was he was in prison.

Why didn't the other disciples defend Paul when he was stoned?

A good question. There is not reference that the other disciples defended Paul when he was stoned.

Dugdeep
Jul 31st 2010, 12:27 PM
I figure that if someone chooses to enter my house without permission and threatens my family, they have chosen to die and I will assist God in not violating their free will.

Or, if that is theologically unpalatable,

I figure that if someone is predestined to enter my house on a certain date and time and threaten my family and I am predestined to be in the house with a loaded firearm at that time and that I have been predestined to have the training I have then I must assume that God has predestined them to die in my living room, and the will of God could not be resisted.

Isn't just the statement about you needing to assist God prideful? Do you think God is unable to do it with out you?

Dugdeep
Jul 31st 2010, 12:29 PM
Well said. Most instructors of concealed-carry training classes, etc. stress exactly this. Slug1 and others have been more seasoned through training and experience. For others, "the moment" could be one of the most difficult things in their life, both during and after.

Does it matter how seasoned one is? God can do His will through seasoned(experienced) or inexperienced people.

Dugdeep
Jul 31st 2010, 12:36 PM
Well, of course. But like I was pointing out to you, it's OK to use force against someone ;) IE, it's within God's will for us. Seems like you can see that so I'm happy.

Weather or not you CAN is another issue, like you say. Even military and cops get emotionally wrecked and discharged because it messes with them so much, so... It's not something you'd ever know until you get to that point.

I'd like to think if I ever encounter that situation, either I end up dead and in God's graces or the intruder ends up dead. I don't want either of us to suffer, nor anyone innocent (family).

Yes I agree with you. People who use extra force get very wrecked, I know of so many ex-military dudes who are totaly messed up. Because God did not make us as killing and violent machines(but in fact, for the opposite) people who committ violence end up on the sticky end of the stick(badly messed up) and some due to their lack of repentence from this violence, end up demon possesed. Our spiritual war we are called to is a huge mission, and if we try do it according to the might of the flesh, we will end up in bad shape.

Dugdeep
Jul 31st 2010, 12:41 PM
Question,

Those who chose the use of force, suppose you kill the intruder, have you thought maybe God had planned to put someone in their path that would lead them to Christ?

One of the best questions asked in this thread. I haven't seen anyone trying to answer it, only a comment. Butch5 you have asked a very insightful question. I hope some of those who love violence will try and answer you.

Dugdeep
Jul 31st 2010, 12:43 PM
I would meet the situation with what was necessary. If someone is running at me with a knife - whatever it takes to stop them is what I'd do. Even if it was warning them "In the name of Jesus stop. If you don't I"ll shoot" while holding my husband's 1170.

So it depends. I'll meet the threat with equal resistance, knowing that that police aren't far off.

I have experienced telling evil people to stop in Jesus Name, and God did it. He is faithful to His own nature. Bless His Holy Name.

Crystal911
Jul 31st 2010, 02:08 PM
Why do you need to kill the criminal to stop him? Do you not believe it is possible to stop him by the preaching of the gospel? This worked in Jesus time, do you not think it works anymore? I you apply the scripture that Butch5 quoted, you will not harm, but will rather preach the gospel, so are you really being sincere here? If you are I am expecting you to post that you have repented from violence and killing.


Hi Dugdeep,
I must ask this and I hope I am not breaking rules here by going off of the OP, but here goes.

A scenario for you...
If a person was standing there with a gun to your child (or any loved one's) head and had already killed several people, would you want my police officer husband to lay down his gun and pick up his Bible and start preaching to this person?

Butch5
Jul 31st 2010, 02:38 PM
Butch, you changed the subject :lol:

If what you said was true, then Paul would have had NOTHING to fear from those assassins. Yet he still got that escort. Put yourself in His place with all you are saying. Would you or would you not have done the same thing?

Point blank... if you would have done the same thing as Paul, cool. But, by your words and all what you are saying, you would not have asked for that help from the Centurions because you would say, "God will protect me." No need to send the boy with the 911 call.

I'll tell you what... if you stuck to your conviction... you'd be assassin's meat and dead along that road.

And for what? Now you are another devoured victim of satan.

Not so Slug1, calling 911 does not break any of Christ's commands. Paul said that the ministers of God were there to keep order. However, as I have pointed out numerous times, the ministers of God that he spoke of, were not Christians. I don't really doubt that the Holy Spirit was involved with Paul's learning of that plot and his subsequently making that plan known to the centurions. It is clear in Scripture that God has used men to serve His purposes, if that is to administer justice, that is God's prerogative. However, no one yet has shown me anything from the NT were Christians are called to, or allowed to administer that justice. I have been asking for something along these lines in several different threads and as yet have had nothing presented.

You position is based on Cornelius, nothing is said about what happened to him after the account in Acts. We don't know if he stayed in or left the military. You have assumed he stayed, but there is nothing to support that assumption. It seems to me your argument is based on an assumption. This might be logical if we didn't have all of the other evidence, we know what Christ said, we know what Paul said, and we have almost 300 years of the first church and literally thousands and thousands of converts who said the Christian is not to use violence. I think this evidence is overwhelming, especially in light of the fact that your argument from Cornelius is base on an assumption. I am willing to review the evidence if you can present any, however, as I said no has given anything that did not involve their own personal interpretation.

Butch5
Jul 31st 2010, 03:20 PM
TexUs---Butch, I went and looked through this thread. Other than this one case in Luke I fail to see any scripture postings by you to show us where you are coming from:
You're continually clambering for "obeying Christ" yet you have not produced any examples of not to kill at all.

The passage in Luke is CLEARLY talking about vengeance, revenge, and taking the offensive:
If someone strikes you, don't strike them back
If someone steals, don't steal from them
These are, again, CLEARLY about taking revenge, vengeance, or as someone put it: Going Rambo.
He then gives an example of lending

THEN he goes in and talks about doing good to our enemies, lending without strings attached.

Context is amazing, isn't it?

You also know what's rather amazing about context is it of course clarifies things.
Do not MURDER is rather clear. Hebrew râtsach. To dash, murder. And RIGHT AFTER THAT he then speaks of putting to death murderers, those that attack their parents, etc. Which makes it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that the command was "No killing, period." It's no killing in cold blood, no pre-meditated killing of malice.
And then we also see in 22:2, "If the thief is caught while breaking in, and is struck so that he dies, there will be no blood guiltiness on his account."

This can't be any more clear.

Is obeying God's word reading your own personal and completely unbiblical meaning into the commandments or is obeying God's word trusting it as what it means?

Hi Texus,

Most who participate in this thread have also participated in previous thread of this nature and are well aware of the passage that I am speaking of. You speak of context, OK, let's, do you think context is just reading a few words around the verse in question, or, does it also include having an understanding of the setting in which the statements were made? Does it include understanding the cultural differences between a 1st century Eastern culture and a 21st century Western culture? Does it include understanding the differences in figures of speech in the two different cultures. Does it include understanding the language barrier issues presented and the different ways the cultures communicate? Does 2000 years of time difference have any role? Does two different mindsets have any role? You see my friend all of these play into a proper understanding of the Scriptures.

On what basis does a 21st century Christian determine what the Bible means? Does one just read it and say, well I understand it this way so that is what it means? That is the way many Christians interpret the Scriptures. That doesn't always work, as a matter of fact that method has probably lead to more error than good. For instance that is the Protestant method, and look where the Protestant church is. It is full of division, over 19,000 different denominations and sects, infighting among the believers, pride etc. there are many issues. Look at what has happened since the Reformation, prior to the Reformation, even with the error it had the church was strong, is it strong today? Look at Europe, for the most part it has rejected the church period. I for the numbers off the top of my head but they are so low that some are considering Europe as a lost continent, and guess what America is following suit. The number of Christians in America is dropping, for many in America the church is just a thorn in their side. why is that? Let me suggest it is because we have adopted a method of hermeneutics that is seriously flawed, we think we can just pick up the Bible and interpret it in a vacuum, without any concern for the historical background, the linguistic issues, the cultural differences, etc. We think we can just interpret it as we think it should read, the 19,000 plus denominations and sects should sow us the flaw in that line of thinking, yet do we look at the evidence and say, hmmm, we have problem? No, we just gone telling everyone that it is they who are wrong, when we have no basis ourselves for what we believe because we have used a flawed hermeneutic and decided the Bible means this because that is how I understand it.

You know, is see quite a few Christians in post in thread about context that we should understand the Scriptures the way the intended audience would understand them, yet when they are shown how the intended audience did in fact understand them, many reject the evidence. You asked,


Is obeying God's word reading your own personal and completely unbiblical meaning into the commandments or is obeying God's word trusting it as what it means?

It seems you are implying my position is Unbiblical, however, I have almost 300 years and thousands of Christians to show as evidence. Many of these Christians had direct contact with Jesus and the apostles. In order to dismiss this evidence one must explain how thousands and thousands of Christians, filled with the Holy Spirit could completely misunderstand what they were taught by Jesus and the apostles and come the complete opposite of what they were supposedly being taught. Can you explain this? I have given a multitude of quotes from the early writers, over a period of almost the "First" three hundred years of Christianity and the quotes are from all over the region of the time.




I trust myself because God tells me I should trust myself. And since I'm trusting him I'm doing what we're told about self-defense.

Where is this taught by Jesus or the Apostles?



If God wanted to stop the attack he could have done so. However, he doesn't. Are you saying God isn't powerful enough to have prevented it? You're acting like God is reactionary instead of proactive. "Oh, he broke in! I guess I better wake up from my nap to do something about that!"
It also seems to me that the disciples were constantly standing in opposition to Satan, even to the point of Christ rebuking him himself.

The context of those questions was in regard to Slug1's post.

Butch5
Jul 31st 2010, 03:29 PM
I understand, and I personally know several "stories" on both "sides" with opposite results, as well. I know a missionary whose husband was killed by natives they were ministering to. She stayed with them after his death and ultimately the whole tribe was won to Christ. I also know a missionary whose wife was savagely gang-raped by rebels to get them to leave. Their sponsors recalled them and their work collapsed. They have never been able to return to the field, and they're still struggling in many ways.

I'm 47, and by faith I've never had health insurance; but I don't necessarily think insurance is a lack of faith or trust, either. I simply don't see the absolutes in scripture regarding state-war (not holy war), law enforcement, or extreme self-defense. I don't see the hard line that killing is murder in those cases.

Like most on this board, I live very peacably and would suffer loss in virtually every way before having even verbal conflict with someone. I've never struck another human, even responsively; and I bite my tongue on the occasions when criticism or conflict arise. My father was the meekest man I've known, and I pray for that in my own life.

I trust God for many things, and take delegated stewardship responsibility for many others under obedience and guidance of the Word and the leading of the Spirit. For the most part, insurance and locks and such are a stewardship issue, including liability for others. I keep my garage locked because I have a bazillion motorcycles, many of which are realistically irreplaceable; I generally wear a helmet and gear; I always wear a seatbelt. Stewardship doesn't mean a lack of trust in God; it's wisdom and prudence.

I have no desire to initiate any violence nor respond violently. If it's just me, I could consider giving no resistance to a violent life-threatening attack; for others, I am certainly compelled to be an agent of protection.

The Word is interpretational. I see no command being violated. I pray God moves upon my heart by His grace to change that if I am wrong.

Hi PPS,

That's a great testimony, and I don't know that self defense is murder, that is not what I am saying. For me the command to love my enemies is the command that prohibits violence. If I am doing violence to someone I am not loving him, this is the main command that I see one that is being broken. Christ did not resist those who would kill Him, now I know there are going to be those who say, well, He had to fulfill the Scriptures or it was God's will. But let's really look at it, He was giving up His life so that "HIS" enemies could be saved, are we called to anything less.

Butch5
Jul 31st 2010, 03:35 PM
A good question. There is not reference that the other disciples defended Paul when he was stoned.

No there isn't, with all of the persecution they underwent, we see nothing recorded of anyone using force.

inn
Jul 31st 2010, 03:37 PM
Hi Dugdeep,
I must ask this and I hope I am not breaking rules here by going off of the OP, but here goes.

A scenario for you...
If a person was standing there with a gun to your child (or any loved one's) head and had already killed several people, would you want my police officer husband to lay down his gun and pick up his Bible and start preaching to this person?

My answer would be, and judging by what Dug said, maybe he'll say some thing like;'Yes, I'd prefer your husband to preach to the criminal than to kill him.'

We as christians need have NO fear of death. I personaly have faced guns before unarmed, and God has protected me 100%.
Do you believe His promises for your life, and do you believe any criminal can take even a hair from any childs head without it being His will? Have you read the other thread in bible chat;'Does Romans 13 give the christian permission to kill in war'? Some things are better stated in there.

Love and peace

Butch5
Jul 31st 2010, 03:37 PM
Hi Dugdeep,
I must ask this and I hope I am not breaking rules here by going off of the OP, but here goes.

A scenario for you...
If a person was standing there with a gun to your child (or any loved one's) head and had already killed several people, would you want my police officer husband to lay down his gun and pick up his Bible and start preaching to this person?

Crystal,

Do you realize what you question implies?

Crystal911
Jul 31st 2010, 04:00 PM
Hello Inn
I have no fear of death. I truly believe that God can and will protect me, does that mean I am going to go stand in the middle of a busy road at night. No, why because in Proverbs 14:16 A wise man feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth, and is confident. And in Matthew 4:7, It says the scriptures say Not to test the Lord.

Yes, I TOTALLY agree with the promises He has for my life, one of my favorite verses is Jeremiah 29:11.

I have not read the entire thread on Romans 13, but I will.

Hello Butch5,
What does my question imply to you?

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jul 31st 2010, 04:04 PM
Absolutly inn. Beware of those who add other teaching to the gospel, and say it is
the gospel.
Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Okay, (removed personal insult)* (inn/Dugdeep)

Your individual judgement and condemnation toward others is wrong, but THIS garbage of accusing everyone of sharing a false Gospel is beyond any physical attack upon brothers and sisters in Christ.

You are "accusing the brethren" (hmmmmmmm!) of adding to the Gospel, when nobody is doing any such thing. This is a matter of Christian conduct, not of vital saving faith. Nobody here is YOUR servant; you have no right to judge anyone. To their own Master, they stand or fall (Hebrews 14:all).

Stop setting at naught the brethren over these extreme-circumstance issues. Every one of us will give an account of OURSELF to GOD. Your whiney wholesale slander of all those who may not agree AT THIS EXTREME LEVEL OF APPLICATION OF INDIRECT AND INTERPRETATIONAL PASSAGES, is neither peaceable nor edifying. "Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God."

"Whatsoever is not of faith is sin."

inn
Jul 31st 2010, 04:10 PM
Hello Inn
I have no fear of death. I truly believe that God can and will protect me, does that mean I am going to go stand in the middle of a busy road at night. No, why because in Proverbs 14:16 A wise man feareth, and departeth from evil: but the fool rageth, and is confident. And in Matthew 4:7, It says the scriptures say Not to test the Lord.

Yes, I TOTALLY agree with the promises He has for my life, one of my favorite verses is Jeremiah 29:11.

I have not read the entire thread on Romans 13, but I will.

Hello Butch5,
What does my question imply to you?

Hi
Yes , I agree with you about standing in a busy street, completely, lol, definatly.
Glad you accept God's promise for your life! If you had to answer your own question, killer,gun, to babies head, would you prefer your hubby to kill the killer?
Blessings

inn
Jul 31st 2010, 04:13 PM
Okay, (removed insult)* (inn/Dugdeep)



I take offence in your gross impoliteness! Just because you disagree, you do not need to call me names. You do not know me,
and now you persecute me because I have desire to follow the King of Kings.

You are rude and show extremely un Christ like qualities by this action!

Crystal911
Jul 31st 2010, 04:27 PM
Hi
Yes , I agree with you about standing in a busy street, completely, lol, definatly.
Glad you accept God's promise for your life! If you had to answer your own question, killer,gun, to babies head, would you prefer your hubby to kill the killer?
Blessings


I prefer that the Lord strike down the person with the gun with blinding pain and my loved one runs free and my hubby handcuffs him and leads him away to jail.....but, if that isn't God's will....then I want him to do what he has been trained to....that is to serve and protect. If that involves taking the killer down, then, yes I would want him to do whatever necessary to protect the person who DIDN'T choose to be in this situation from the killer with gun that DID choose to be in this situation.

Amos_with_goats
Jul 31st 2010, 04:33 PM
Please refrain from the personal insults in this thread.

There need not be agreement, but this discussion must be conducted in accordance with out guidelines folks.

Thanks,

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jul 31st 2010, 04:36 PM
I take offence in your gross impoliteness! Just because you disagree, you do not need to call me names. You do not know me,
and now you persecute me because I have desire to follow the King of Kings.

You are rude and show extremely un Christ like qualities by this action!

It was sarcasm aimed at your forum-rule-breaking multiple screen names. You have been very impolite in this and previous threads.

Persecution? You call this persecution? You have slanderously accused others on an individual and wholesale basis of presenting a false Gospel and you whine about rude unChristlike qualities?!!!!

You've been "picking off" responses like a self-righteous "sniper" and then you cry to mommy about persecution...puh-lease!

BTW... A TRUE Pacifist would have uttered not a word in retaliation and wouldn't have declared "persecution". Where's your peace?

(This post was a flush-out to elicit a specific response. You responded with the victim mentality I was anticipating. Do as you say, or don't say.)

Edify the body toward such a view (like Butch); don't try to browbeat fellow believers with it.

inn
Jul 31st 2010, 04:44 PM
I prefer that the Lord strike down the person with the gun with blinding pain and my loved one runs free and my hubby handcuffs him and leads him away to jail.....but, if that isn't God's will....then I want him to do what he has been trained to....that is to serve and protect. If that involves taking the killer down, then, yes I would want him to do whatever necessary to protect the person who DIDN'T choose to be in this situation from the killer with gun that DID choose to be in this situation.

I like the way you reason, and that you put the blinding pain first before the blam of the gun. I wish more in here would think along a more calmer line as you do.
Thanks for the chat, and please feel free to ask more. Did you find the thread; 'Does Romans 13 give the christian permission to kill in war'?The Mods said it was back, but someone is hiding it from public eye.

Many blessings

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jul 31st 2010, 04:45 PM
OPEN APOLOGY TO THE BOARD for those who were offended at my directness, etc.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jul 31st 2010, 04:52 PM
I like the way you reason, and that you put the blinding pain first before the blam of the gun. I wish more in here would think along a more calmer line as you do.
Thanks for the chat, and please feel free to ask more. Did you find the thread; 'Does Romans 13 give the christian permission to kill in war'?The Mods said it was back, but someone is hiding it from public eye.

Many blessings

I think you grossly misunderstand everyone on here. We basically share this view of action. You're not the only one striving for the truth, even though you evidently think you are.

Crystal911
Jul 31st 2010, 04:53 PM
I like the way you reason, and that you put the blinding pain first before the blam of the gun. I wish more in here would think along a more calmer line as you do.
Thanks for the chat, and please feel free to ask more. Did you find the thread; 'Does Romans 13 give the christian permission to kill in war'?The Mods said it was back, but someone is hiding it from public eye.

Many blessings

Thank you and yes I did a search for Romans 13 and found it. I will read it through.

inn
Jul 31st 2010, 04:57 PM
If you are unhappy with my postings, please feel free to ignore them, and just read God's word. I am not expecting all to agree with me, however I will give it my best shot.[no pun intended]!

At the end of the day, probly find Slug and I praying for the souls in purgatory[only joking], I don't believe in purgatory, trying to lighten this up a bit, but seriously, at the end of the day, probably find Slug and I praying and fighting a spiritual battle in the heavenlies for his glory, Who knows, but i love you all, and forgive me if I come across hard and self righteous and challenging at times. I need His grace as much as you do.

No matter what, let's try keep polite, Slug and I are learning if you read his last post to me in 'Does Romans 13 give the christian permission to kill in war'?, and mine to him, so I trust there'll be growth for us all.

All for His peace and glory
inn

inn
Jul 31st 2010, 06:41 PM
OPEN APOLOGY TO THE BOARD for those who were offended at my directness, etc.

Who is the board? Did you sin against the board? I personaly am not offended by your directness at all, but for bad manners and rudeness and impolitness. Is this fruit of seeking for the truth, that you need to call those you disagree with horrible names?

inn
Jul 31st 2010, 06:48 PM
I think you grossly misunderstand everyone on here. We basically share this view of action. You're not the only one striving for the truth, even though you evidently think you are.
Perhaps it's better you speak for yourself. You obviously have an blunt axe to grind with me, the sooner you get over it and get along with what we're in here for the better. As a 47 year old I expect a little more from you.
God bless you

inn
Jul 31st 2010, 06:55 PM
Edify the body toward such a view (like Butch); don't try to browbeat fellow believers with it.

Perhaps you feel brow beaten by the truth, perhaps it is not me that is doing the beating. Perhaps you are trying to take the speck out of my eye, while there's a plank in yours?

It's not easy to call those in the body who believe that violence is an option, to repentence. Perhaps you can help me by paraphrasing my writtings, so as to give me an example. I'd be open to that!

I am sorry if I offend you in what I say. I truly believe in non violence, and if I've put it in the wrong way, forgive me please.

Amos_with_goats
Jul 31st 2010, 07:10 PM
Perhaps it would be more productive to focus on the issue, rather then on the other person.

There is irony in going to 'war' with one another in discussing prohibitions against using force in one's defense... no? :o

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jul 31st 2010, 07:13 PM
EDITED. No more.

TexUs
Jul 31st 2010, 07:32 PM
Why do you need to kill the criminal to stop him? Do you not believe it is possible to stop him by the preaching of the gospel? This worked in Jesus time
Oh, yea... Absolutely. Hence the murder of Paul, etc.


You position is based on Cornelius, nothing is said about what happened to him after the account in Acts. We don't know if he stayed in or left the military. You have assumed he stayed, but there is nothing to support that assumption. It seems to me your argument is based on an assumption.
Seems to me like your argument is based on assumption that he left.


Not so Slug1, calling 911 does not break any of Christ's commands. Paul said that the ministers of God were there to keep order. However, as I have pointed out numerous times, the ministers of God that he spoke of, were not Christians.
Nonsense.
Romans 13 doesn't rule out Christians at all. It doesn't mean they were, either.
Again, I'd assume within context (which I'll speak of next) that Christians are by no means ruled out of this. You can assume otherwise.
However making absolute statements not grounded Biblically is not correct at all, and is reading unbiblical statements into a text that do not exist.


However, no one yet has shown me anything from the NT were Christians are called to, or allowed to administer that justice.
First worldly governance was Adam and Eve. It seems to me that fact alone destroys your idea.
We were put on this earth and were intended to be caretakers of this earth, we're to follow Christ in all areas of our lives. "Excluding the political and state realm" isn't found in scripture, Christ should permeate every area of our lives and this world- that is found in scripture. Christ is in all things. You can't PROVE a command for Christians to be in government, and you CERTAINLY can't prove that they shouldn't be. However given the fact Christ is in all things, we're to rule Christ with all areas... I'd say it leans closer to the side of favoring them in government where possible.
Would you rather a judge founded in Christian principles or a secular judge? If there were no Christians in the state, as you're alluding to, Christianity wouldn't be able to really "make disciples of all nations" quite well, would it? If Nero's tradition were to carry on. Christianity came close to being destroyed until Christian men led by God stood in the face of it- and this follows through many events of history. If there were to be no Christians in government, you would not be here today without the actions of certain Christian men that were involved in liberation of the innocent.
How would you like speaking German today knowing you'll be killed by secular rulers if Christians wouldn't have stood to face Germany? Taking a stand furthered our spread of the gospel, did it not?

We're to take a stand against evil. We see Christ did this himself continually, and if he's the model for our lives, as you are saying he should be... Then would it not make sense we do the same? He dealt with many demons. Notable examples are Peter, the temptation, and the guy in the cemetery.
Why would he grant his disciples power over demons (Matt 10:1) if we're to be submissive to them? Even better than that, it specifically says they were to engage demons to cast them out.
We have been given a spirit of power, not of timidity (2 Tim 1:7).

And as both you, I, and everyone else here knows: nowhere is killing forbidden. Neither are we explicitly told about killing, either, save for the old commands.
Nowhere are we told we're allowed to drive a vehicle, either. That doesn't mean it's forbidden.

All this flies in the face of pacifism.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jul 31st 2010, 07:52 PM
I greatly appreciate Butch's contributions on this subject. He is thorough and consistent, and has volumes of credibility on many other subjects. The effort to include many references from the Early Fathers is appreciated. I can see his convictions are hard-won personal battles of yielding himself to that which he is convicted is greater truth.

Thank you, Brother, for exemplifying Jesus. I know it is from your heart.

inn
Jul 31st 2010, 08:21 PM
Perhaps it would be more productive to focus on the issue, rather then on the other person.

There is irony in going to 'war' with one another in discussing prohibitions against using force in one's defense... no? :o

You have a good point. Battling with words, is definatly better than with guns and bombs.

inn
Jul 31st 2010, 08:31 PM
Nonsense.
Romans 13 doesn't rule out Christians at all. It doesn't mean they were, either.


You misunderstand Butch. He is saying 'ministers' in Rom 13 were NOT christians. Read Rom 13 and you'll see what he meant.

inn
Jul 31st 2010, 08:41 PM
First worldly governance was Adam and Eve. It seems to me that fact alone destroys your idea.
We were put on this earth and were intended to be caretakers of this earth,

Just after Butch says;' However, no one yet has shown me anything from the NT were Christians are called to, or allowed to administer that justice.' you post the above. He's talking of NT, and you are arguing with him from the OT.

inn
Jul 31st 2010, 08:45 PM
Seems to me like your argument is based on assumption that he left.


Butch didn't even nearly say this. Are you sure you are not just arguing for the sake of arguing?

inn
Jul 31st 2010, 08:50 PM
we're to follow Christ in all areas of our lives.


Didn't you leave out; 'except to love our enemies.'?

inn
Jul 31st 2010, 09:00 PM
"Excluding the political and state realm" isn't found in scripture, Christ should permeate every area of our lives and this world- that is found in scripture.
(Matt 10:1) (2 Tim 1:7).

And as both you, I, and everyone else here knows: nowhere is killing forbidden.

In your answer to Butch's statement;'However, no one yet has shown me anything from the NT were Christians are called to, or allowed to administer that justice.' you use 2 verses[above] that have nothing to do with governance.

Was Jesus a political leader?

Jesus did not say, 'Do not kill your enemy.', you are right, but He did say;' love your enemy'. If you reason that this means killing your enemy, well this says a lot about how you reason, but I'd say loving my enemy is certainly NOT putting a bullet through her/him.

inn
Jul 31st 2010, 09:13 PM
How would you like speaking German today knowing you'll be killed by secular rulers if Christians wouldn't have stood to face Germany? Taking a stand furthered our spread of the gospel, did it not?

We're to take a stand against evil. We see Christ did this himself continually, and if he's the model for our lives,


I'd be happy speaking german, God does not favour 1 language above another.
Killing in the war definatly did not aide the spread of the gospel, unless you mean that now there were less people to preach to, and thus an 'easier' task regarding the great commission.

You contradict yourself here arguing against pacifism by saying,'We're to take a stand against evil. We see Christ did this himself continually, and if he's the model for our lives...' Well if Christ was [is] the model and He loved his enemies and offered no war like resistance, why don't you just get on with following Him in this way?

PneumaPsucheSoma
Jul 31st 2010, 09:55 PM
I think I will belatedly be simply conformed to the Word:

"Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than themselves." -Phil. 2:3

"But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another." -Gal. 5:15

Butch5
Jul 31st 2010, 10:31 PM
Crystal911

Hello Butch5,
What does my question imply to you?


Here is the scenario you posted.


A scenario for you...
If a person was standing there with a gun to your child (or any loved one's) head and had already killed several people, would you want my police officer husband to lay down his gun and pick up his Bible and start preaching to this person?

This seems to me to imply that prayer and preaching would be useless. Can you explain why a Christians would think this way?

On the other hand, if breaking Christ's command excluded one from eternal life, would you want your husband to shoot that person?

Butch5
Jul 31st 2010, 10:35 PM
OPEN APOLOGY TO THE BOARD for those who were offended at my directness, etc.

No offense taken here. Personally I like your being direct, it gets to the heart of the issue without a bunch of game playing. So many times if find when dealing with Christians on certain issues one first has to play the "beat around the bush" game. Actually it is refreshing, thanks.

Butch5
Jul 31st 2010, 11:51 PM
[QUOTE]Seems to me like your argument is based on assumption that he left.

My argument is not based on Cornelius at all. My argument is based in the commands of Christ and the apostles. What Cornelius did or did not do has no effect whatsoever on my argument.



Nonsense.
Romans 13 doesn't rule out Christians at all. It doesn't mean they were, either.
Again, I'd assume within context (which I'll speak of next) that Christians are by no means ruled out of this. You can assume otherwise.
However making absolute statements not grounded Biblically is not correct at all, and is reading unbiblical statements into a text that do not exist.

It's not non-sense my friend, Christians didn't participate in government until around the year 325 A.D. When Paul wrote Romans 13, the minister of God that he was referring to was the government of Rome. The government of Rome was "NOT" Christian. Christians were not in the government until almost 300 years later. So, Paul did not include Christians in his statement "The minister of God". Unless you can provide other Scripture showing Christians were to be included I don't think you have any basis to make that claim, Paul never did.

You keep saying I am assuming and making unbilbical statements, yet I am the one providing all of the evidence, can you supply some evidence to support some of the claims you have made?

First worldly governance was Adam and Eve. It seems to me that fact alone destroys your idea.
We were put on this earth and were intended to be caretakers of this earth, we're to follow Christ in all areas of our lives. "Excluding the political and state realm" isn't found in scripture, Christ should permeate every area of our lives and this world- that is found in scripture.

On the contrary my friend it is. Do you belong to the kingdom of God?

John 18:36 ( KJV )
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Two things to notice here, one if you are in Christ's kingdom you are not in the kingdoms of this world, two if you are in Christ's kingdom you do not fight. If the disciples were not permitted to fight for their king who else would be more worthy?


2 Corinthians 6:14-18 ( NKJV )
Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?
And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?
And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will dwell in them And walk among them. I will be their God, And they shall be My people.”
Therefore “Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you.”
“I will be a Father to you, And you shall be My sons and daughters, Says the Lord Almighty.”

Paul's words are pretty clear, one cannot be in government without being yoked with unbelievers. We are either in the kingdom of God or the kingdom of darkness.


Colossians 1:13 ( KJV )
Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

If one is a Christian they have been translated (past tense) out of the kingdom of darkness, why would a Christian have any desire to return to the kingdom of darkness. We cannot be in two kingdom, we must choose one or the other, Christ will not settle fro second best. Paul tells us to come out from among them. Notice what God said in this quote, come out from among them and be separate and do not touch what is unclean "AND" I will receive you. Notice when God says he will receive them, when they have come out from among them (unbelievers) and are separate from the unbelievers. So again, one cannot be yoked with unbelievers in government and be separate at the same time.


Christ is in all things. You can't PROVE a command for Christians to be in government, and you CERTAINLY can't prove that they shouldn't be.

I believe what I posted above shows that Christians shouldn't be in government. And, as I said Christians didn't participate in government for about the first 300 years of Christianity.



However given the fact Christ is in all things, we're to rule Christ with all areas... I'd say it leans closer to the side of favoring them in government where possible.

If that were the case then it seems Jesus would gladly have accepted when they were about to make Him king by force, yet when they did, He slipped away. Think of all the good Christ could have done as king yet He chose to reject the government.


Would you rather a judge founded in Christian principles or a secular judge?
If there were no Christians in the state, as you're alluding to, Christianity wouldn't be able to really "make disciples of all nations" quite well, would it?

Why not? It flourished in the first 300 years without anyone in the government. As a matter of fact that was probably the greatest time in the church.


If Nero's tradition were to carry on. Christianity came close to being destroyed until Christian men led by God stood in the face of it- and this follows through many events of history.

Christian men stood against Nero? Can you elaborate on this?



If there were to be no Christians in government, you would not be here today without the actions of certain Christian men that were involved in liberation of the innocent.
How would you like speaking German today knowing you'll be killed by secular rulers if Christians wouldn't have stood to face Germany?

That has no bearing on whether or not a Christian is to defend themselves.



Taking a stand furthered our spread of the gospel, did it not?

Did it? As I posted in the other post, most of Europe has rejected the church and America is headed in the same direction. Look at the places in the world where the Church is flourishing, Africa, China, etc. places that for the most part had no part in WW2.

Is it OK to break Christ's commands in order to further the Gospel? Do they ends justify the means.




We're to take a stand against evil. We see Christ did this himself continually, and if he's the model for our lives, as you are saying he should be... Then would it not make sense we do the same? He dealt with many demons. Notable examples are Peter, the temptation, and the guy in the cemetery.
Why would he grant his disciples power over demons (Matt 10:1) if we're to be submissive to them? Even better than that, it specifically says they were to engage demons to cast them out.
We have been given a spirit of power, not of timidity (2 Tim 1:7).

Yes, Christ dealt with evil and demons, yet killed no one. I never said we not to confront evil, I said we are not to harm our enemies, by all means confront evil. However, how many Christians in America really confront evil? How many would stand in the face of a demon?

You see this have no bearing on the conversation were are discussing demons we are discussing people.


And as both you, I, and everyone else here knows: nowhere is killing forbidden. Neither are we explicitly told about killing, either, save for the old commands.
Nowhere are we told we're allowed to drive a vehicle, either. That doesn't mean it's forbidden.

All this flies in the face of pacifism.

On the contrary, I given you the Scriptures that show that Christ brought a new law, I gave you Scripture that showed when the priesthood was changed the law also was changed and that the old law had been annulled. That leaves us bound by the new law, in the new law Christ said, "love your enemies" and He gave us the perfect example of that. We have the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, we have the example of the first church who were taught by Jesus and the apostles, what more evidence do we need.

I have given quite a bit of evidence, now it is your turn to supply some evidence for your claims.

You also did not answer my question in regard to those who were taught by Christ and the apostles.

Butch5
Jul 31st 2010, 11:57 PM
I greatly appreciate Butch's contributions on this subject. He is thorough and consistent, and has volumes of credibility on many other subjects. The effort to include many references from the Early Fathers is appreciated. I can see his convictions are hard-won personal battles of yielding himself to that which he is convicted is greater truth.

Thank you, Brother, for exemplifying Jesus. I know it is from your heart.

Thanks PPS for the kind words, as I said this was the most difficult issue for me to change my mind on. I still find myself getting angry when I hear of some innocent person being murdered or someone being hurt. That is one reason I have stopped watching the news so much. I know I should be praying for both the attacker and the victim, and sometimes I do but it is rather difficult. I find it hard to pray for someone who has injured an innocent person, however, I believe that is what Jesus would do. But again, it goes back to my search for the truth, I cannot turn a blind eye to something I don't particularly like, if I am seeking the truth then I must accept it whatever it is.

dan
Aug 1st 2010, 01:10 AM
In your answer to Butch's statement;'However, no one yet has shown me anything from the NT were Christians are called to, or allowed to administer that justice.' you use 2 verses[above] that have nothing to do with governance.

...Jesus told you to buy a sword, to confront evil, and that murderers are worthy to be killed by the sword.

Of course, you needn't take His Word for it.:lol:


Jesus did not say, 'Do not kill your enemy.', you are right, but He did say;' love your enemy'. If you reason that this means killing your enemy, well this says a lot about how you reason, but I'd say loving my enemy is certainly NOT putting a bullet through her/him.

But, to love your neighbor, and keep the murderer from harming him or his family, what will you do?

Preach to him, pray for him?

And if those don't work, have you loved your neighbor as yourself?

Yes, you have. But you have not tried to prevent evil from being triumphant, as Jesus said.

And you have also shown little regard for the life that God has given you, IMO.

Perhaps God has given you great insight, but, I think not.

Maybe it will be comforting to you when the weapons are taken away from most of the world, but the carnage that will follow will take that away.

TexUs
Aug 1st 2010, 04:05 AM
For one thing, nothing against what you're saying, but inn- you're going on the ignore list. Everyone else has the etiquette to multi-quote instead of wading through an endless stream of replies...


This seems to me to imply that prayer and preaching would be useless. Can you explain why a Christians would think this way?
I question the need for prayer if it's a Biblical concept. Prayer is for us to seek God's will, when we pray on a Biblical concept we're trying to pray ourselves out. God's will for us in the Bible won't change if we pray for it.
Praying for strength to do what's in the Bible and whatnot, sure. Praying about that which we've already been TOLD? We won't get a different result.


My argument is not based on Cornelius at all. My argument is based in the commands of Christ and the apostles. What Cornelius did or did not do has no effect whatsoever on my argument.
So you're arguing for the sake of argument. OK. I think we're done here.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Aug 1st 2010, 06:00 AM
For one thing, nothing against what you're saying, but inn- you're going on the ignore list. Everyone else has the etiquette to multi-quote instead of wading through an endless stream of replies...
I question the need for prayer if it's a Biblical concept. Prayer is for us to seek God's will, when we pray on a Biblical concept we're trying to pray ourselves out. God's will for us in the Bible won't change if we pray for it.
Praying for strength to do what's in the Bible and whatnot, sure. Praying about that which we've already been TOLD? We won't get a different result.

So you're arguing for the sake of argument. OK. I think we're done here.

Good general point about prayer and the Word. That would make a great thread or blog topic.

As for Butch arguing, I don't think he was doing that at all just to do it. He has shown his good character, even if I don't always agree with him. He's saying that Cornelius is a moot point because the Word is silent in this regard.

inn
Aug 1st 2010, 07:58 AM
...Jesus told you to buy a sword, to confront evil, and that murderers are worthy to be killed by the sword.
Of course, you needn't take His Word for it.
Maybe it will be comforting to you when the weapons are taken away from most of the world, but the carnage that will follow will take that away.

Dan, this has been pointed out to you so many times, but I am patient with you. Jesus told the disciples to get 2 small swords used for cutting, and He DID NOT tell them to go and kill with them!

You are the one that shows you ignore His command to love your enemy.

Your seem have a fear by what you said in your last sentence. I wouldn't worry for one second about any carnage, perhaps those who live by the sword will die by the sword, and there may be a fraction more peace with out them.

inn
Aug 1st 2010, 08:06 AM
I question the need for prayer if it's a Biblical concept. Prayer is for us to seek God's will, when we pray on a Biblical concept we're trying to pray ourselves out.
Praying about that which we've already been TOLD?


Prayer is the first way, and second is ,...'that which we've already been TOLD?' If we love our enemies and those who do evil as we have been TOLD, we will have a LOT less mess here. Jesus said ask anything in my Name and it WILL be given, but most of us are not anywhere near His name if we are not obeying Him.

inn
Aug 1st 2010, 08:08 AM
As for Butch arguing, I don't think he was doing that at all just to do it. He has shown his good character, even if I don't always agree with him. He's saying that Cornelius is a moot point because the Word is silent in this regard.

Glad that one person has understood him right. Keep it up!

Butch5
Aug 1st 2010, 12:18 PM
I question the need for prayer if it's a Biblical concept. Prayer is for us to seek God's will, when we pray on a Biblical concept we're trying to pray ourselves out. God's will for us in the Bible won't change if we pray for it.

Praying for strength to do what's in the Bible and whatnot, sure. Praying about that which we've already been TOLD? We won't get a different result.

Not so, Nowhere in the NT are we told to do use force, so one is not praying for something the Bible tells us to do.



So you're arguing for the sake of argument. OK. I think we're done here.

Come on Texus, we can be done if you like, but please, I think it is quite clear that I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. I have given you passage after passage in the Bible on this issue that have not been responded to, I have asked multiple questions that have gone unanswered. I think I presented a fairly strong case which you did not dissect. If my argument is in error it should fairly easy to refute it with Scripture.

What I meant was my argument is not based on Cornelius, I didn't claim that Cornelius left the military, I said we don't know. You will not find any post of mine in this thread that uses Cornelius as evidence of the point I am making. That is why I said what he did has no bearing on my argument, I simple did not use that event to support any claim I have made in this thread.

Butch5
Aug 1st 2010, 12:22 PM
Dan, this has been pointed out to you so many times, but I am patient with you. Jesus told the disciples to get 2 small swords used for cutting, and He DID NOT tell them to go and kill with them!

You are the one that shows you ignore His command to love your enemy.

Your seem have a fear by what you said in your last sentence. I wouldn't worry for one second about any carnage, perhaps those who live by the sword will die by the sword, and there may be a fraction more peace with out them.

I Inn,

I think the qustion is answered in Jesus telling them that two was enough, surely two swords would not be enough to protect Jesus and 11 Apostles from a legion of Roman soldiers armed and clad with armor.

inn
Aug 1st 2010, 12:25 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10822923

May this be a lesson to us all

inn
Aug 1st 2010, 12:27 PM
I Inn,

I think the qustion is answered in Jesus telling them that two was enough, surely two swords would not be enough to protect Jesus and 11 Apostles from a legion of Roman soldiers armed and clad with armor.

Hi!
I fully agree with you, two small swords used for general cutting, and with no instruction from Jesus to use them for killing.

TexUs
Aug 1st 2010, 02:31 PM
As for Butch arguing, I don't think he was doing that at all just to do it. He has shown his good character, even if I don't always agree with him. He's saying that Cornelius is a moot point because the Word is silent in this regard.
If it's not part of the argument then why bring it up at all, unless for the sake of argument? I'm not discussing anything with someone if it comes down to that.

PneumaPsucheSoma
Aug 1st 2010, 02:37 PM
Dan, this has been pointed out to you so many times, but I am patient with you. Jesus told the disciples to get 2 small swords used for cutting, and He DID NOT tell them to go and kill with them!

You are the one that shows you ignore His command to love your enemy.

Your seem have a fear by what you said in your last sentence. I wouldn't worry for one second about any carnage, perhaps those who live by the sword will die by the sword, and there may be a fraction more peace with out them.

Just a side note: longsuffering (makrothumeo G3114) is forbearance toward a person; patience (hupomeno G5278) is endurance toward things or circumstances.

After prayer, I've come to understand you are not trying to be as haughty and condescending as you seem; but you don't seem to realize how arrogant and judgemental you sound.

Most of the examples in this thread are moot for both "sides"; the Word simply doesn't tell us directly, so everybody is grabbing at certain examples. The swords (knives) issue is ridiculous if someone knows what a machaira (G3162) is; it's a dagger-type knife-sword used only for close combat or utility purposes. Cornelius' post-conversion occupation is unaddressed in scripture.

I've never contended for these and other examples as "proof" of us being commanded to use violence or kill. The Word doesn't tell us to do so. The Word addresses everything from the standpoint of love. Love is the first commandment. Love is the fulfillment of the law (Romans 13:10).

We are not to war with our government. We are not to wage a holy war. We are not to resist government as the ordinance of God. We are not to take vengeance. We are not to return evil for evil (a word-study will show this is not what you think it is).

Nobody's looking for an excuse to "blow someone away" or even to have an exchange of fist punches. We are/I am simply saying it is not clearly defined that believers are prohibited from military or law enforcement duty roles. And extreme defensive situations are a huge dilemna of love v. action. Most believers I've known had better shoot, because they don't have enough Word and prayer to be of much spiritual effect in such a situation.

I've been in deliverance services and been part of casting out demons. If the person is unwilling to let that spirit go, it does no good to cast it out. We can command those spirits. We can pray and those spirits can be subdued. I would do that in most cases. If my family's lives were threatened beyond that, I would use non-violent, non-vengeful force.

Please stop judging and convicting. That is for the Holy Spirit.

Butch5
Aug 1st 2010, 10:42 PM
If it's not part of the argument then why bring it up at all, unless for the sake of argument? I'm not discussing anything with someone if it comes down to that.

Texus,

You broguth it up in our discussion. I was speaking to Slug1 when I made the statement about Cornelius. You replied to my post to Slug1. I was discussing his argument which he bases on Corneliius, my argument however, does not rest of Cornelius.

dan
Aug 2nd 2010, 05:18 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10822923

May this be a lesson to us all

Preachers, pastors, and deacons that didn't, "suffer their house to be broken". Just like Jesus said.

The Daily News-Miner, Fairbanks, AK, 4/19/90
State: AK
American Rifleman Issue: 7/1/1990
The Rev. Richard McCaffrey was awakened by the sound of breaking glass in his Bethel, Alaska, church. Upon opening his bedroom door in the rectory, the Jesuit priest was struck on the head with a pipe wrench and knocked to the floor. McCaffrey managed to fire a shot from his revolver, hitting the culprit and causing him to flee. Responding police followed a blood trail from the church to the wounded man and arrested him.

Review, E. Liverpool, OH
State: OH
American Rifleman Issue: 9/1/1968
A Catholic priest wounded 2 robbers, one disguised as a priest, when the pair broke into the rectory of St. Patrick's Church, Lisbon, Ohio. In an exchange of gunfire in the rectory kitchen, the priest, Fr. Thomas Beldue, was slightly wounded. In passing sentence on the robbers, the judge said, "I glory in Fr. Beldue's defense of his person and the money of his church, and it would be much better if more householders were armed and resisted burglars the way he did. I am proud of him." * Editor's Note: We are indebted to Columbiana County Proscutor J. Warren Bettis and Special Investigator James R. Gause, both of Lisbon, Ohio, for this item.--A.H.

Daily News, Chicago, IL
State: IL
American Rifleman Issue: 3/1/1963
Rev. Father O'Donnell, rector of St. Patrick's Roman Catholic Church, in Chicago, Ill., was awakened by the screams of his housekeeper and cook. Obtaining a .45 automatic, O'Donnell and another priest rushed downstairs to find an intruder, armed with two knives, ransacking the living room. O'Donnell fired once hitting the burglar in the leg. He held the man until police arrived. It was then that the priest learned that his housekeeper had been fatally stabbed and that his cook was seriously wounded.

Associated Press, IL
State: IL
American Rifleman Issue: 6/1/1961
Rt. Rev. Msgr. D.A. Lemieux, a skilled hunter, reached for a 12-ga. shotgun and a cal. .32 revolver after hearing glass break in his Chicago, Ill., rectory. He surprised two men rifling a buffet. As they advanced on him, Msgr. Lemiuex warned them to stand fast. The men persisted, the priest warned them again and then felled one, a convicted felon, with a shotgun blast in the abdomen.

Tulsa World, Tulsa, OK, 6/26/07
State: OK
American Rifleman Issue: 9/1/2007
A pastor and a 17-year-old boy were guarding their church's fireworks stand late at night when a group of suspicious juveniles approached. According to police, the suspects tried to enter the stand and concocted a phony story when confronted. They returned thirty minutes later. This time, two or three suspects attempted to distract the pastor while the others went around and again tried to sneak inside the stand."When the 17-year-old confronted them, they began assaulting him" said Muskogee, OK, Deputy Police Chief Johnny Teehee. "The boy was screaming for help .... " The pastor answered his cries, shooting one of the assailants, who will be arrested after his release from the hospital. Four other juveniles were also arrested. The 17-year-old was treated at the hospital and released.

The Times Daily, Florence, AL, 7/19/96
State: AL
American Rifleman Issue: 10/1/1996
Pastor Frank McClung of First Southern Baptist Church in Muscle Shoals, Alabama, shudders at the thought of what might have happened had a shotgun-wielding bandit been allowed to make his way into the church during choir practice. Thanks to an armed citizen, he never got that far. Police said the suspect approached one of two parishioners waiting outside the church for their wives and demanded they come with him. The men refused, one going for his car, the other for the church. After the assailant fired into the one man's car, the parishioner retrieved his own gun and returned two fatal shots. "I'm very glad that the church member defended himself and his fellow church members, but I'm sorry that the man with the shotgun died," McClung said.

The News- Sentinel, Knoxville, TN, 11/30/95
State: TN
American Rifleman Issue: 4/1/1996
"Even the Lord's house isn't holy anymore for these people. If they're crazy enough to do something like this to a holy place, there's no telling what they'd do," said Knoxville, Tennessee, pastor Ted Padgett after using a handgun to capture a man burglarizing the church office. Alerted by a church custodian, Rev. Padgett retrieved his .22 from the trunk of his car and entered the church where he came face to face with the stunned intruder, a parolee. He then stood the criminal against a wall and patted him down as the two waited for police.

The Mountain Press, Prather, CA, 12/13/95
State: CA
American Rifleman Issue: 4/1/1996
When a young Prather, California, woman ran to a local church for protection after being threatened by a violent family member, the pastor unhesitatingly offered her sanctuary. When the woman's tormentor arrived with a firearm at the pastor's door, he exchanged words with the minister and shot him in the hand. Wounded, the pastor slammed the door shut. His assailant managed to kick it open, but not before the pastor was able to retrieve his own firearm. Forced to defend himself, the pastor fired a single point-blank shot, killing his attacker.

The Times, Seattle, WA, 8/19/89
State: WA
American Rifleman Issue: 11/1/1989
Three youths who may have thought the Grace Baptist Church in Port Angeles, Wash., was easy pickings thought wrong when they broke into the house of worship. The Rev. Steve Ragland awoke when he heard noises, told his wife to call police and took his shotgun along to investigate. Two escaped, but the pastor held the gun on the third teenager until authorities arrived.

The Independent, Anderson, SC
State: SC
American Rifleman Issue: 8/1/1975
When a church secretary screamed as an intruder advanced toward her, Rev. Walter Hudson got his pistol and rushed into the office of his Anderson, S.C., church. The intruder "Looked into the gun and kinda melted away," the pastor said. He kept the man covered until the sheriff arrived.

The Democrat-Gazette, Little Rock, AR, 1/6/96
State: AR
American Rifleman Issue: 4/1/1996
A prison minister from Little Rock, Arkansas, Jack Seaver was used to dealing with tough men. So when one of three teenaged bandits turned angrily toward Seaver after robbing him in his home and approached with knife in hand, the minister understood he had to defend himself. Quickly, he grabbed his .22-caliber rifle and began firing, striking his aggressor. Police later arrested the wounded suspect and one of his accomplices. "I wasn't going to shoot anybody at all until I felt threatened," the minister said.

The Inquirer, Philadelphia, PA, 2/18/94
State: PA
American Rifleman Issue: 5/1/1995
He would have preferred another way, but Philadelphia minister David A. Venable, 73, had to send a violent intruder to meet his Maker. The robber burst into Venable's kitchen, attacked him with a knife and burned him with hot grease from a frying pan. Pretending to retrieve money, Venable reached for and emptied his five-shot .38, killing the criminal, a repeat offender. "God was definitely with him," said a family friend of the Baptist preacher.

The Commercial Appeal, Memphis, TN, 2/7/92
State: TN
American Rifleman Issue: 4/1/1992
Asleep at home one morning, Rev. Joel Yarber, a Baptist minister in Memphis, Tenn., awoke to someone knocking on the door and then heard sounds inside the house. Picking up a pistol and investigating, Yarber found a man attempting to steal a VCR. When threatened with a tire iron, Yarber fired four shots, mortally wounding the intruder. Police said the man entered the home by kicking in a door, and got there in a stolen car.

The Californian, Bakersfield, CA, 10/25/89
State: CA
American Rifleman Issue: 1/1/1990
Bill Hazen was in his cabin near Bakersfield, Calif., shortly after midnight when an intruder forced a sliding glass door. The Los Angeles minister was armed and ordered the man outside. During an ensuing scuffle the attacker ran, but an accomplice appeared in a pickup truck and tried to run down Hazen. The minister fired at the advancing truck and when the vehicle stopped, its occupant got out and said, "I counted six shots; you're out and now I'm going to get you." Hazen fired his large-capacity semi-automatic once more, dropping his adversary. Both men were taken into custody by sheriff's deputies.

Rocky Mountain News, Denver, CO, 5/10/89
State: CO
American Rifleman Issue: 7/1/1989
Hearing screams in the alley behind his Denver, Colo., home, architect Norman Cable rushed to investigate, finding his neighbor being mauled by a pit bull terrier. Cable repeatedly struck the dog with a 2x4 to no avail. He ran back to his house and came out armed with a shotgun. Cable fired once, killing the dog and halting the attack. The dog-bite victim, a 58-year-old minister, had both legs broken in the attack, according to authorities, who said the animal had attacked three other people in the past several years.

The Bee, Sacramento, CA, 10/3/87
State: CA
American Rifleman Issue: 1/1/1988
After four burglaries had stripped his Stockton, Calif., church of most of its valuables, the Rev. John Folmer decided to stand guard nights with his shotgun. When a burglar tripped over some chairs, the 69-year-old minister confronted the intruder and ordered him to lie on the floor while he telephoned police. Authorities said the suspect would be charged with attempted burglary.

The Daily News-Miner, Fairbanks, AK, 12/12/86
State: AK
American Rifleman Issue: 3/1/1987
A Fairbanks, Alaska, minister and his wife returned unexpectedly to their home and surprised an intruder. The man, armed with a shotgun, threatened the Rev. Raymond Nelson and his wife, but Nelson grabbed a gun and shot the armed man. The man fled a short distance, but a wounded suspect was later taken to a local hospital.

The Tribune-Review, Greensburg, PA, 5/30/82
State: PA
American Rifleman Issue: 8/1/1982
Rev. Charles White was offering counseling at his Philadelphia church, but a man who entered wanted cash instead. He drew a gun and tried to rob the minister, who drew his own .25 automatic and opened fire, killing the would-be robber.

The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, LA
State: LA
American Rifleman Issue: 6/1/1978
The Rev. Frank Lewis of New Orleans, La., had gone upstairs to get some record books when two gun-toting intruders entered the house. They tied up his bookkeeper and took a safe from the bedroom into the hallway. Starting upstairs, one of the burglars encountered an armed Lewis, standing at the top. The minister fired twice and the hoodlums fled empty-handed.

The Tribune, Mesa, AZ, 3/19/97
State: AZ
American Rifleman Issue: 6/1/1997
Deacon Bob McMillan grew suspicious of the man who had asked him to pray with him following services at a church in Apache Junction, Arizona. During a break in prayer, McMillan retrieved the .32-cal. pistol he kept in his car. Upon returning, his suspicions were confirmed as he found the stranger waving a handgun at his wife's head and at his two best friends and demanding the weekly offerings. McMillan pushed his wife out of the way and quickly shot the man, wounding him. He then called police. McMillan said later, "I felt I only had a split second to live."

They, as well as some of the rest of us, think you are wrong.

dan
Aug 2nd 2010, 06:58 AM
Dan, this has been pointed out to you so many times, but I am patient with you. Jesus told the disciples to get 2 small swords used for cutting, and He DID NOT tell them to go and kill with them!

You are the one that shows you ignore His command to love your enemy.

Your seem have a fear by what you said in your last sentence. I wouldn't worry for one second about any carnage, perhaps those who live by the sword will die by the sword, and there may be a fraction more peace with out them.

...My feelings were the same as yours.

But, I listened to someone wiser and learned the truth.

Let me give you a living example.

In June, 2008, Washington D.C. had it's handgun ban removed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

That city was known as the murder capitol for several years after the ban was begun.

You'd think, by your logic, that the murder rate would grow when you add more handguns, wouldn't you?

But it doesn't work that way.

In only one year, the murder rate dropped 21 percent.

Look and see:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2009prelimsem/table_4co-id.html

The normal, insignificant, fluctuation is three percent.

Also, violent crime was down seven percent overall.

When a good man, armed, watches his home, all his possessions are at peace.

Really.

So, try to remember it is the men that own weapons and confront evil that lower the crime level, and raise the "peace" level.

Not the other way around.

I would have thought that anyone familiar with London would have heard.

inn
Aug 2nd 2010, 10:26 AM
DAN, YOU MISS THE POINT.

I am not talking crime stats. I am talking commandments in the NT.
You say Jesus says we must buy guns[weapons] for killing by Lk22, when I[and butch] point out that you missed it a bit, you start with crime stats.

Can you stick to the point and realise your use of Lk22 to use weapons to kill is missing the point, and if you disagree, go back to where we wrote on this and tell us where you disagree.

I appreciate your comments.
God bless

inn
Aug 2nd 2010, 10:35 AM
Preachers, pastors, and deacons that didn't, "suffer their house to be broken". Just like Jesus said.


1]Dan, can you see that this use of Jesus words is not talking about a literal thief at all?

2]Can you see that no where in this passage does Jesus tell His disciples to kill anyone?

The false teachers and the devil come to steal, kill and destroy,
"I have come so that you may have life, and take it from others."

TexUs
Aug 2nd 2010, 03:00 PM
In June, 2008, Washington D.C. had it's handgun ban removed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

That city was known as the murder capitol for several years after the ban was begun.

You'd think, by your logic that the murder rate would grow when you add more handguns, wouldn't you?

But it doesn't work that way.

In only one year, the murder rate dropped 21 percent.
You forgot the best part, it dropped to it's lowest level in 30-40 years within a year.

Don't pacifists fight for peace?
Would it not make sense to fight for what brings peace? If that means arming people, well, it's a proven thing that guns bring about lower crime rates. So arming people equates to peace.

Does that not run completely contrary to the pacifist argument?

Butch5
Aug 2nd 2010, 05:35 PM
Preachers, pastors, and deacons that didn't, "suffer their house to be broken". Just like Jesus said.

The Daily News-Miner, Fairbanks, AK, 4/19/90
State: AK
American Rifleman Issue: 7/1/1990
The Rev. Richard McCaffrey was awakened by the sound of breaking glass in his Bethel, Alaska, church. Upon opening his bedroom door in the rectory, the Jesuit priest was struck on the head with a pipe wrench and knocked to the floor. McCaffrey managed to fire a shot from his revolver, hitting the culprit and causing him to flee. Responding police followed a blood trail from the church to the wounded man and arrested him.

Review, E. Liverpool, OH
State: OH
American Rifleman Issue: 9/1/1968
A Catholic priest wounded 2 robbers, one disguised as a priest, when the pair broke into the rectory of St. Patrick's Church, Lisbon, Ohio. In an exchange of gunfire in the rectory kitchen, the priest, Fr. Thomas Beldue, was slightly wounded. In passing sentence on the robbers, the judge said, "I glory in Fr. Beldue's defense of his person and the money of his church, and it would be much better if more householders were armed and resisted burglars the way he did. I am proud of him." * Editor's Note: We are indebted to Columbiana County Proscutor J. Warren Bettis and Special Investigator James R. Gause, both of Lisbon, Ohio, for this item.--A.H.

Daily News, Chicago, IL
State: IL
American Rifleman Issue: 3/1/1963
Rev. Father O'Donnell, rector of St. Patrick's Roman Catholic Church, in Chicago, Ill., was awakened by the screams of his housekeeper and cook. Obtaining a .45 automatic, O'Donnell and another priest rushed downstairs to find an intruder, armed with two knives, ransacking the living room. O'Donnell fired once hitting the burglar in the leg. He held the man until police arrived. It was then that the priest learned that his housekeeper had been fatally stabbed and that his cook was seriously wounded.

Associated Press, IL
State: IL
American Rifleman Issue: 6/1/1961
Rt. Rev. Msgr. D.A. Lemieux, a skilled hunter, reached for a 12-ga. shotgun and a cal. .32 revolver after hearing glass break in his Chicago, Ill., rectory. He surprised two men rifling a buffet. As they advanced on him, Msgr. Lemiuex warned them to stand fast. The men persisted, the priest warned them again and then felled one, a convicted felon, with a shotgun blast in the abdomen.

Tulsa World, Tulsa, OK, 6/26/07
State: OK
American Rifleman Issue: 9/1/2007
A pastor and a 17-year-old boy were guarding their church's fireworks stand late at night when a group of suspicious juveniles approached. According to police, the suspects tried to enter the stand and concocted a phony story when confronted. They returned thirty minutes later. This time, two or three suspects attempted to distract the pastor while the others went around and again tried to sneak inside the stand."When the 17-year-old confronted them, they began assaulting him" said Muskogee, OK, Deputy Police Chief Johnny Teehee. "The boy was screaming for help .... " The pastor answered his cries, shooting one of the assailants, who will be arrested after his release from the hospital. Four other juveniles were also arrested. The 17-year-old was treated at the hospital and released.

The Times Daily, Florence, AL, 7/19/96
State: AL
American Rifleman Issue: 10/1/1996
Pastor Frank McClung of First Southern Baptist Church in Muscle Shoals, Alabama, shudders at the thought of what might have happened had a shotgun-wielding bandit been allowed to make his way into the church during choir practice. Thanks to an armed citizen, he never got that far. Police said the suspect approached one of two parishioners waiting outside the church for their wives and demanded they come with him. The men refused, one going for his car, the other for the church. After the assailant fired into the one man's car, the parishioner retrieved his own gun and returned two fatal shots. "I'm very glad that the church member defended himself and his fellow church members, but I'm sorry that the man with the shotgun died," McClung said.

The News- Sentinel, Knoxville, TN, 11/30/95
State: TN
American Rifleman Issue: 4/1/1996
"Even the Lord's house isn't holy anymore for these people. If they're crazy enough to do something like this to a holy place, there's no telling what they'd do," said Knoxville, Tennessee, pastor Ted Padgett after using a handgun to capture a man burglarizing the church office. Alerted by a church custodian, Rev. Padgett retrieved his .22 from the trunk of his car and entered the church where he came face to face with the stunned intruder, a parolee. He then stood the criminal against a wall and patted him down as the two waited for police.

The Mountain Press, Prather, CA, 12/13/95
State: CA
American Rifleman Issue: 4/1/1996
When a young Prather, California, woman ran to a local church for protection after being threatened by a violent family member, the pastor unhesitatingly offered her sanctuary. When the woman's tormentor arrived with a firearm at the pastor's door, he exchanged words with the minister and shot him in the hand. Wounded, the pastor slammed the door shut. His assailant managed to kick it open, but not before the pastor was able to retrieve his own firearm. Forced to defend himself, the pastor fired a single point-blank shot, killing his attacker.

The Times, Seattle, WA, 8/19/89
State: WA
American Rifleman Issue: 11/1/1989
Three youths who may have thought the Grace Baptist Church in Port Angeles, Wash., was easy pickings thought wrong when they broke into the house of worship. The Rev. Steve Ragland awoke when he heard noises, told his wife to call police and took his shotgun along to investigate. Two escaped, but the pastor held the gun on the third teenager until authorities arrived.

The Independent, Anderson, SC
State: SC
American Rifleman Issue: 8/1/1975
When a church secretary screamed as an intruder advanced toward her, Rev. Walter Hudson got his pistol and rushed into the office of his Anderson, S.C., church. The intruder "Looked into the gun and kinda melted away," the pastor said. He kept the man covered until the sheriff arrived.

The Democrat-Gazette, Little Rock, AR, 1/6/96
State: AR
American Rifleman Issue: 4/1/1996
A prison minister from Little Rock, Arkansas, Jack Seaver was used to dealing with tough men. So when one of three teenaged bandits turned angrily toward Seaver after robbing him in his home and approached with knife in hand, the minister understood he had to defend himself. Quickly, he grabbed his .22-caliber rifle and began firing, striking his aggressor. Police later arrested the wounded suspect and one of his accomplices. "I wasn't going to shoot anybody at all until I felt threatened," the minister said.

The Inquirer, Philadelphia, PA, 2/18/94
State: PA
American Rifleman Issue: 5/1/1995
He would have preferred another way, but Philadelphia minister David A. Venable, 73, had to send a violent intruder to meet his Maker. The robber burst into Venable's kitchen, attacked him with a knife and burned him with hot grease from a frying pan. Pretending to retrieve money, Venable reached for and emptied his five-shot .38, killing the criminal, a repeat offender. "God was definitely with him," said a family friend of the Baptist preacher.

The Commercial Appeal, Memphis, TN, 2/7/92
State: TN
American Rifleman Issue: 4/1/1992
Asleep at home one morning, Rev. Joel Yarber, a Baptist minister in Memphis, Tenn., awoke to someone knocking on the door and then heard sounds inside the house. Picking up a pistol and investigating, Yarber found a man attempting to steal a VCR. When threatened with a tire iron, Yarber fired four shots, mortally wounding the intruder. Police said the man entered the home by kicking in a door, and got there in a stolen car.

The Californian, Bakersfield, CA, 10/25/89
State: CA
American Rifleman Issue: 1/1/1990
Bill Hazen was in his cabin near Bakersfield, Calif., shortly after midnight when an intruder forced a sliding glass door. The Los Angeles minister was armed and ordered the man outside. During an ensuing scuffle the attacker ran, but an accomplice appeared in a pickup truck and tried to run down Hazen. The minister fired at the advancing truck and when the vehicle stopped, its occupant got out and said, "I counted six shots; you're out and now I'm going to get you." Hazen fired his large-capacity semi-automatic once more, dropping his adversary. Both men were taken into custody by sheriff's deputies.

Rocky Mountain News, Denver, CO, 5/10/89
State: CO
American Rifleman Issue: 7/1/1989
Hearing screams in the alley behind his Denver, Colo., home, architect Norman Cable rushed to investigate, finding his neighbor being mauled by a pit bull terrier. Cable repeatedly struck the dog with a 2x4 to no avail. He ran back to his house and came out armed with a shotgun. Cable fired once, killing the dog and halting the attack. The dog-bite victim, a 58-year-old minister, had both legs broken in the attack, according to authorities, who said the animal had attacked three other people in the past several years.

The Bee, Sacramento, CA, 10/3/87
State: CA
American Rifleman Issue: 1/1/1988
After four burglaries had stripped his Stockton, Calif., church of most of its valuables, the Rev. John Folmer decided to stand guard nights with his shotgun. When a burglar tripped over some chairs, the 69-year-old minister confronted the intruder and ordered him to lie on the floor while he telephoned police. Authorities said the suspect would be charged with attempted burglary.

The Daily News-Miner, Fairbanks, AK, 12/12/86
State: AK
American Rifleman Issue: 3/1/1987
A Fairbanks, Alaska, minister and his wife returned unexpectedly to their home and surprised an intruder. The man, armed with a shotgun, threatened the Rev. Raymond Nelson and his wife, but Nelson grabbed a gun and shot the armed man. The man fled a short distance, but a wounded suspect was later taken to a local hospital.

The Tribune-Review, Greensburg, PA, 5/30/82
State: PA
American Rifleman Issue: 8/1/1982
Rev. Charles White was offering counseling at his Philadelphia church, but a man who entered wanted cash instead. He drew a gun and tried to rob the minister, who drew his own .25 automatic and opened fire, killing the would-be robber.

The Times-Picayune, New Orleans, LA
State: LA
American Rifleman Issue: 6/1/1978
The Rev. Frank Lewis of New Orleans, La., had gone upstairs to get some record books when two gun-toting intruders entered the house. They tied up his bookkeeper and took a safe from the bedroom into the hallway. Starting upstairs, one of the burglars encountered an armed Lewis, standing at the top. The minister fired twice and the hoodlums fled empty-handed.

The Tribune, Mesa, AZ, 3/19/97
State: AZ
American Rifleman Issue: 6/1/1997
Deacon Bob McMillan grew suspicious of the man who had asked him to pray with him following services at a church in Apache Junction, Arizona. During a break in prayer, McMillan retrieved the .32-cal. pistol he kept in his car. Upon returning, his suspicions were confirmed as he found the stranger waving a handgun at his wife's head and at his two best friends and demanding the weekly offerings. McMillan pushed his wife out of the way and quickly shot the man, wounding him. He then called police. McMillan said later, "I felt I only had a split second to live."

They, as well as some of the rest of us, think you are wrong.


That doesn't matter, what matters is what Jesus said, please explain how these were "loving their enemies". How were they doing good to them? This also seems to go against Paul's teaching, they are returning evil for evil.

TexUs
Aug 2nd 2010, 05:52 PM
That doesn't matter, what matters is what Jesus said, please explain how these were "loving their enemies". How were they doing good to them? This also seems to go against Paul's teaching, they are returning evil for evil.
You have never proved that killing someone in self-defense is evil.
It seems that is your hingepin and fact of the matter is there's no scripture about it. I CAN, however, reference historical (OT) beliefs in the historical context that say it is not evil.

Butch5
Aug 2nd 2010, 06:04 PM
You have never proved that killing someone in self-defense is evil.
It seems that is your hingepin and fact of the matter is there's no scripture about it. I CAN, however, reference historical (OT) beliefs in the historical context that say it is not evil.

So can I, however, as I have "REPEATEDLY" poiinted out, Christ brought a "NEW LAW" and nullified the old one. So, the question is can you show one from the NT? I guess if one is a Jew still living under the Old Law one could justify the use of violence, however, the Christian "Isn't" now nor "Has ever been" under the Old Law.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my other question, how is it possible that so many thousands of Christians who were taught directly by Christ and the apostles completely misunderstand what they were taught and completely misunderstand it the exact same way?

Slug1
Aug 2nd 2010, 06:05 PM
That doesn't matter, what matters is what Jesus said, please explain how these were "loving their enemies". How were they doing good to them? This also seems to go against Paul's teaching, they are returning evil for evil.Butch... God said that murder is a sin... not killing. They were not attempting to murder those who threatened them, thus no evil intent.

Reynolds357
Aug 2nd 2010, 06:07 PM
Butch... God said that murder is a sin... not killing.

Slug, your refusal to disregard such minor details is just too inconvenient to those trying to draw a flawed conclusion.

TexUs
Aug 2nd 2010, 06:09 PM
You've repeatedly failed to prove for killing in self-defense being evil.

Repeatedly.

And you now fall back to non-inspired works to prove your claim, which you said is scriptural? Did God almighty forget to include this in the NT? Or could it be that you might be wrong?

Slug1
Aug 2nd 2010, 06:10 PM
Slug, your refusal to disregard such minor details is just too inconvenient to those trying to draw a flawed conclusion.Hooah... if a criminal trys to murder (evil act) you or me, I'm not gonna murder him back... I'm just gonna kill him in self-defense... NO EVIL is repayed back. I'm told in the Bible, not to repay evil with evil. Killing is not wrong, nor evil, nor sinful... ONLY murder is sinful or evil, concerning death of another.

dan
Aug 2nd 2010, 06:40 PM
1]Dan, can you see that this use of Jesus words is not talking about a literal thief at all?

When I was younger, I often wondered why God would use analogies that He didn't believe in, this kept me from belief for a long time.

I came to the conclusion that He DOESN'T use analogies that are against His Righteousness.

Everything is in the Bible for a reason.

If there is a part of the Bible that seems vague or out of place it's because of our inability to see the word and the world as God sees it.


2]Can you see that no where in this passage does Jesus tell His disciples to kill anyone?

Yes, or, at least, not very clearly.

But you cannot show the opposite, either.

And you cannot see that to stop a man from murdering, even if you kill him in the process, IS loving his soul, and hence, loving him.

This is one of our stumblingblocks from Jeremiah's time.

Even though the Law is viewed as lessened in value by most Christians, God's Righteousness is in that Law.

God could not motivate even a people as holy as the Jews to obey it enough to insure their salvation.

So, He gave salvation to all as a gift for believing in His Son. Praise God!

But, that does not diminish the Law.

It just shows the inadequacy of mankind.

To allow a murderer to live still pollutes the earth.

NUM 35:31 You shall not take money of him that is guilty of blood, but he shall die forthwith.
NUM 35:32 The banished and fugitives before the death of the high priest may by no means return into their own cities.
NUM 35:33 Defile not the land of your habitation, which is stained with the blood of the innocent: neither can it otherwise be expiated, but by his blood that hath shed the blood of another.
NUM 35:34 And thus shall your possession he cleansed, myself abiding with you. For I am the Lord that dwell among the children of Israel.

The pollution that results still disinclines God's Ear to our plights and pleas.

Believe what you will.

DAN 11:22 And the arms of the fighter shall be overcome before his face, and shall be broken; yea also the prince of the covenant. (Douay)

DAN 11:31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

DAN 11:32 And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.
DAN 11:33 And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.
DAN 11:34 Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries.
DAN 11:35 And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.

Butch5
Aug 2nd 2010, 06:55 PM
Butch... God said that murder is a sin... not killing. They were not attempting to murder those who threatened them, thus no evil intent.

Slug1,

The word means murder or kill.

Butch5
Aug 2nd 2010, 06:59 PM
You've repeatedly failed to prove for killing in self-defense being evil.

Repeatedly.

And you now fall back to non-inspired works to prove your claim, which you said is scriptural? Did God almighty forget to include this in the NT? Or could it be that you might be wrong?

Is this post to me?

Slug1
Aug 2nd 2010, 07:02 PM
Slug1,

The word means murder or kill.
The command is "thou shalt not murder". So murder is evil, not killing.

Butch5
Aug 2nd 2010, 07:04 PM
Hooah... if a criminal trys to murder (evil act) you or me, I'm not gonna murder him back... I'm just gonna kill him in self-defense... NO EVIL is repayed back. I'm told in the Bible, not to repay evil with evil. Killing is not wrong, nor evil, nor sinful... ONLY murder is sinful or evil, concerning death of another.

Jesus said, 'You have heard that it was said an eye for an eye, but I say to you". Jesus changed this law, so, if someone strikes you and you strike him back, you are executing an eye for an eye. IF someone comes in your window and shoots at you and you shoot back at him you are executing an eye for an eye. This is self defense and Jesus changed this law and said to do good to them.

Slug1
Aug 2nd 2010, 07:07 PM
Jesus said, 'You have heard that it was said an eye for an eye, but I say to you". Jesus changed this law, so, if someone strikes you and you strike him back, you are executing an eye for an eye. IF someone comes in your window and shoots at you and you shoot back at him you are executing an eye for an eye. This is self defense and Jesus changed this law and said to do good to them.Explain to me how to do good to them when satan just used them to kill you and stole from you, your purpose in life?

Eye for an eye and all that is about revenge, not self defense.

Butch5
Aug 2nd 2010, 07:17 PM
The command is "thou shalt not murder". So murder is evil, not killing.

That's the way you choose to interpret it. The Hebrew word means murder or kill.

Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries
H7523 רָצַח râtsach raw-tsakh' A primitive root; properly to dash in pieces, that is, kill (a human being), especially to murder:—put to death, kill, (man-) slay (-er), murder (-er).

Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions
H7523 רָצַח râtsach BDB Definition: 1) to murder, slay, kill 1a) (Qal) to murder, slay 1a1) premeditated 1a2) accidental 1a3) as avenger 1a4) slayer (intentional) (participle) 1b) (Niphal) to be slain 1c) (Piel) 1c1) to murder, assassinate 1c2) murderer, assassin (participle) (substantive) 1d) (Pual) to be killed

Thayer’s Greek Definitions
G5407 φονεύω phoneuō Thayer Definition: 1) to kill, slay, murder 2) to commit murder


This is moot point however, As I said Jesus brought the new law which changed things.

Instead of giving your interpretation, how about answering a few questions? How about the one no one seems to want to address? Please explain how thousands and thousands of Christians who were taught directly by Jesus and the apostles could have completely misunderstood what they were taught and how they all could completely misunderstand it i n the exact same way

Butch5
Aug 2nd 2010, 07:18 PM
Explain to me how to do good to them when satan just used them to kill you and stole from you, your purpose in life?

Satan cannot do anything unless God allows it. Look at Job.


Eye for an eye and all that is about revenge, not self defense.

Can you show that from Scripture?

dan
Aug 2nd 2010, 07:20 PM
You forgot the best part, it dropped to it's lowest level in 30-40 years within a year.

Don't pacifists fight for peace?
Would it not make sense to fight for what brings peace? If that means arming people, well, it's a proven thing that guns bring about lower crime rates. So arming people equates to peace.

Does that not run completely contrary to the pacifist argument?

...That it's against the Christian Argument as well, IMO:

ROM 14:16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
ROM 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
ROM 14:18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
ROM 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.

TexUs
Aug 2nd 2010, 07:32 PM
Slug1,

The word means murder or kill.
Tell me, do you enjoy steak?
It seems to me that you're violating the ten commandments by killing that poor creature, when you're specifically told not to kill.

I guess you won't have blessings in heaven now, since you aren't obeying.

"But, that's different!" you say... Ahhh so there's a difference between killing for good and killing for evil.


Is this post to me?
Yes, it was.



...That it's against the Christian Argument as well, IMO:

ROM 14:16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
ROM 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
ROM 14:18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
ROM 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
My point was that if armament brings peace should we not argue for it?

Reynolds357
Aug 2nd 2010, 07:36 PM
Satan cannot do anything unless God allows it. Look at Job.



Can you show that from Scripture?

You remember Jesus telling his disciples the time would come when they would need a sword?
Might want to re-read that when you get time.

God will allow me to go to hell, but I have no intention of going there.

Reynolds357
Aug 2nd 2010, 07:39 PM
...That it's against the Christian Argument as well, IMO:

ROM 14:16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
ROM 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
ROM 14:18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
ROM 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.

If that is your view of Christianity, go hide in a corner somewhere singing Kumbuyah and have a holy huddle. If the rest of us did the same, your holy huddle would get broken up when the un-Godly attacked you. When you fail to fight for righteousness, un-righteousness prevails. If our forefahters thought like you, we would have been overrun by un-godly nations decades ago.

TexUs
Aug 2nd 2010, 07:52 PM
If that is your view of Christianity, go hide in a corner somewhere singing Kumbuyah and have a holy huddle. If the rest of us did the same, your holy huddle would get broken up when the un-Godly attacked you. When you fail to fight for righteousness, un-righteousness prevails. If our forefahters thought like you, we would have been overrun by un-godly nations decades ago.
Yup. LOL... That's why I said earlier we would all be speaking German today, or heck we probably wouldn't have made it to WW2... If it weren't for Christians willing to stand in opposition to Evil.

Reynolds357
Aug 2nd 2010, 08:09 PM
Yup. LOL... That's why I said earlier we would all be speaking German today, or heck we probably wouldn't have made it to WW2... If it weren't for Christians willing to stand in opposition to Evil.

It amazes me how these naieve people have their grand idea of how man is good and we can have peace if we all just act nice and listen to our kindergarten teachers and share our crayons. Man is fallen. Man is evil. Without Christ living in a man, a man is evil. I work in Law Enforcement. I have worked Drugs and vice, in addition to SWAT fof many years. I have also worked the streets in uniform. I can assure you that if all I had done was prayed for and shown love to everyone, I would have been dead 15 years ago. I wish that I did know who all the peace lovers who are unwilling to use force to protect themselves or other were. Whenever I responded to a call where someone was trying to murder, rape, or rob them; I would just tell them to "pray for your enemy and love him. God will work it out."

Slug1
Aug 2nd 2010, 08:14 PM
I wish that I did know who all the peace lovers who are unwilling to use force to protect themselves or other were. Whenever I responded to a call where someone was trying to murder, rape, or rob them; I would just tell them to "pray for your enemy and love him. God will work it out."Ya know, this bondage that satan sets up in those who will blindly love the evil doers... the reason satan sets this up is so he can do as he pleases to devour, kill, and steal.

Many don't fall for this, praise God. Only a few do... we need to protect them from the evil doers too.

RabbiKnife
Aug 2nd 2010, 08:15 PM
I don't know, Slug. I'm pretty sure that you, me, HisLeast, Reynolds, UM, and AngelAuthor are going to hell.

But, we wouldn't be going alone, now then, would we...

Reynolds357
Aug 2nd 2010, 08:17 PM
I don't know, Slug. I'm pretty sure that you, me, HisLeast, Reynolds, UM, and AngelAuthor are going to hell.

But, we wouldn't be going alone, now then, would we...

There are a lot of holy hypocrites who have told me I was going straight to hell over the past 20 years of my life.:lol:

Slug1
Aug 2nd 2010, 08:18 PM
I don't know, Slug. I'm pretty sure that you, me, HisLeast, Reynolds, UM, and AngelAuthor are going to hell.

But, we wouldn't be going alone, now then, would we...Ha... maybe all of us PUT evil doers into hell.

Butch5
Aug 2nd 2010, 08:18 PM
You remember Jesus telling his disciples the time would come when they would need a sword?
Might want to re-read that when you get time.

God will allow me to go to hell, but I have no intention of going there.

Why would I need to re-read that? You are welcome to address the question also.

Reynolds357
Aug 2nd 2010, 08:20 PM
Why would I need to re-read that? You are welcome to address the question also.

You need to read it because you seem to have forgotten it.
I guess they were going to need the sword to pick their teeth with.

RabbiKnife
Aug 2nd 2010, 08:23 PM
You need to read it because you seem to have forgotten it.
I guess they were going to need the sword to pick their teeth with.

Ah, the Texas Toothpick...

:)

Butch5
Aug 2nd 2010, 08:23 PM
You've repeatedly failed to prove for killing in self-defense being evil.

Repeatedly.

And you now fall back to non-inspired works to prove your claim, which you said is scriptural? Did God almighty forget to include this in the NT? Or could it be that you might be wrong?

Well, my friend it seems I am the one posting Scripture, not opinion. I have asked for evidence from the NT, you have not provided it, no one has.

You can accuse me of being wrong many times over that does not make it so.

I will ask yet again, Please explain how thousands and thousands of Christians who ere directly taught by Jesus and his apostles could "ALL" completely misunderstand what they were being taught, and how they could "ALL" misunderstand it the exact same way.

Could it possibly be the you are wrong rather than those thousands?

Butch5
Aug 2nd 2010, 08:24 PM
You need to read it because you seem to have forgotten it.
I guess they were going to need the sword to pick their teeth with.

You didn't answer the question.

TexUs
Aug 2nd 2010, 08:50 PM
Well, my friend it seems I am the one posting Scripture, not opinion.
Clearly, due to the lack of Scriptures in your post that was directly asked for.
:rolleyes:

dan
Aug 2nd 2010, 09:02 PM
If that is your view of Christianity, go hide in a corner somewhere singing Kumbuyah and have a holy huddle. If the rest of us did the same, your holy huddle would get broken up when the un-Godly attacked you. When you fail to fight for righteousness, un-righteousness prevails. If our forefahters thought like you, we would have been overrun by un-godly nations decades ago.

:lol:

We are supposed to be all about the things that make for peace.

Good men armed make peace.

Or, did you not read before you cocked that computer?:)

TexUs
Aug 2nd 2010, 09:18 PM
I will ask yet again, Please explain how thousands and thousands of Christians who ere directly taught by Jesus and his apostles could "ALL" completely misunderstand what they were being taught, and how they could "ALL" misunderstand it the exact same way.

Could it possibly be the you are wrong rather than those thousands?
"Thousands", eh? I think there were only three semi-pacifist advocates. I really didn't want to get into non-Biblical arguments but if it helps stop the spread of misinformation...


Did you know there are Christians buried with military status and rank from those same periods? Now, if the churches were all pacifist and it was so clear, why would the family, even if they disagreed with his military action, inscribe rank and such on his tombstone?
In fact the arguments from around 300AD show strong support that the armies of the east were largely Christian.
Eusebius recorded a list of many Christians who died in battle. He recorded that the Christians would kneel and pray before going into battle. A well-recorded incident (not just by Eusebius but also Roman secular historians) says their army was thirsty, and the Christians prayed for water. God sent rain, refreshed them, and they won the battle because of it.
Armenia became the first Christian nation, did you know that? Did you know Maxminus tried to force them to renounce Christ? What did the first Christian nation do but take up arms and defeated the Roman army.
Why, in the Apocryphal works, is Jesus striking people dead because of their evil works, if the church was so clear-cut pacifist?

Clearly, this is not Biblical accounts and could be discounted (as I could also do with your writings). However my point is that the early church was not so pacifist and you vastly overstate your case for it.

inn
Aug 2nd 2010, 09:37 PM
from post 199
Yes, or, at least, not very clearly.

Hi Dan, this is my question;'Can you see that no where in this passage does Jesus tell His disciples to kill anyone?'
And you answer you can,[above] but you don't, you only quote OT passages. Please don't be angry with me when I tell you, this IS dishonest. I have to call a spade a spade. You either can, or you cannot, if you say you can show where Jesus tells His disciples to kill, then do so.

No offence intended, but please, let's debate in honesty and truth.
Thanks

inn
Aug 2nd 2010, 09:45 PM
TexUs,
You ignore passages like Mt 5:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

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;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven

It is ONLY as you do these things that you will be called sons of your Father in heaven.

God bless you as you seek to follow His instructions.

inn
Aug 2nd 2010, 09:47 PM
Good men armed make peace.


Jesus never did it armed. If you do it this way, you are not following His example.

inn
Aug 2nd 2010, 09:54 PM
If someone is burried with a military rank, does not mean s/he killed by that rank. I know of thousands of people in the military with rank who never killed anyone!

Reynolds357
Aug 3rd 2010, 01:08 AM
You didn't answer the question.

I answered it. You seem to just not like the answer. What do you do with a sword? Jesus told his disciples that after He was gone the time would come when they would need swords. I really do not see how you are missing that one.

On a side note, looking at your avatar has me wanting to go get my squirrel dog out and go hunting.

Reynolds357
Aug 3rd 2010, 01:11 AM
Jesus never did it armed. If you do it this way, you are not following His example.

He came to Earth to die.

HisLeast
Aug 3rd 2010, 01:18 AM
If someone wants to throw themselves upon the swords of the wicked, or offer his daughters and wives as living sacrifices, that's absolutely fine with me.
I just don't know why they have to get so uppity if I elect not to suffer wicked to destroy my family.

Slug1
Aug 3rd 2010, 01:27 AM
Jesus never did it armed. If you do it this way, you are not following His example.You do realize that Jesus in context of the entire Bible is a warrior... you know that, don't you?

For a single example, He's called the Commander of the Army of God in Joshua 5 and He orders Joshua to take down the city of Jericho and kill everyone living in the city, to include animals.

You do understand that Jesus must be viewed eternally, a KING... not as JUSTthe lamb for His three years in human form. You have to know ALL of Jesus, in context of the entire Bible.

His first act upon setting His feet upon the earth once again... He will be glorifying Himself as the KING that He is and will kill all who oppose Him.

Reynolds357
Aug 3rd 2010, 02:18 AM
You do realize that Jesus in context of the entire Bible is a warrior... you know that, don't you?

For a single example, He's called the Commander of the Army of God in Joshua 5 and He orders Joshua to take down the city of Jericho and kill everyone living in the city, to include animals.

You do understand that Jesus must be viewed eternally, a KING... not as JUSTthe lamb for His three years in human form. You have to know ALL of Jesus, in context of the entire Bible.

His first act upon setting His feet upon the earth once again... He will be glorifying Himself as the KING that He is and will kill all who oppose Him.
:lol:
Slug, that all happens in the book at the end of the Bible that the peace lovers believe is metaphorical.

Slug1
Aug 3rd 2010, 02:52 AM
:lol:
Slug, that all happens in the book at the end of the Bible that the peace lovers believe is metaphorical.Don't get me started on the word... metaphorical :P

I can go through the Bible and have so many EXAMPLES of Jesus using or commanding the use of a sword...

dan
Aug 3rd 2010, 05:05 AM
Hi Dan, this is my question;'Can you see that no where in this passage does Jesus tell His disciples to kill anyone?'
And you answer you can,[above] but you don't, you only quote OT passages. Please don't be angry with me when I tell you, this IS dishonest. I have to call a spade a spade. You either can, or you cannot, if you say you can show where Jesus tells His disciples to kill, then do so.

No offence intended, but please, let's debate in honesty and truth.
Thanks

Now, I know your from England and you have no idea about violence except what you hear from The Times or some such drivel.

But, I know that even fisticuffs can result in death, as I was in the medical field for ten years.

I was also in the military for ten years.

What I'm saying is not dishonest.

You have no experience at all, do you?:lol:

Are you even 18 years old?

As such, you need an education that you are not willing to accept.

That's ok with me, but don't think that lying is my game, I've been there.

You, obviously haven't.

If it weren't my obligation to edify and love my brother, I'd leave you with your beliefs and not even attempt to change your mind.

Alas, such is not the case.

inn
Aug 3rd 2010, 10:32 AM
If it weren't my obligation to edify and love my brother, I'd leave you with your beliefs and not even attempt to change your mind.

Hi Dan,
As the reader can see, you do not answer my post above. I can't see that's trying to edify me. Edification is done by telling the truth. My age has nothing to do with the truth that stands secure in the gopsel of peace. I am probably a little older than you are, how old are you Dan?

Had you not tried to ridicule me by your post regarding my age and experience, I would not have said this, but now it is set in stone.

I am an ex marine. Something I am ashamed of. Had I known Christ, I would never have even done one minute training. It is 100% demonic as it taught me completely opposite to what the gospel teaches, I've seen more death than most, and do know what I am talking about on this subject. I wish to enter no longer into my shameful past, as Phil 3:8 'I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,'

Rather answer the question. Where does Jesus teach His disciples to kill?

inn
Aug 3rd 2010, 11:13 AM
I can go through the Bible and have so many EXAMPLES of Jesus using or commanding the use of a sword...

Are you sure there are so many verses where Jesus commanded them to use the sword to kill ?

No where did Jesus say go kill with the swords, and he said the opposite to Peter Mt 26:52 'Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. '

Do you believe that Jesus contradicts His own teaching then, as He never told the disciple to kill with a sword?
This is what He told them;'38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

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;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven' Mt5

No where in the NT does He teach the opposite. Yes even when you take the context into deep account. He is not trying to play games with your mind.

If you are not carrying out His commands, you are not following Him.

Slug1
Aug 3rd 2010, 11:48 AM
Are you sure there are so many verses where Jesus commanded them to use the sword to kill ?

No where did Jesus say go kill with the swords, and he said the opposite to Peter Mt 26:52 'Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. You are talking about Jesus of the entire Bible... right? Jesus in context, Jesus as He is eternally?

I posted the scripture already in another post and before you ask which one, and before you deny what He ordered Joshua to do to all the people living in the city of Jericho... go read Joshua 5 and 6. Joshua was obedient to what the Commander of the Army of God told him to do... slay all in that city by the sword.

Now, when you read that and then come back and deny what Jesus ordered Joshua to do... you can take your denial up with God, not all of us here on this board.

Frecs
Aug 3rd 2010, 11:52 AM
I don't know that I can give scriptural support for my answer but I answered "lethal weapon force".

Firefighter
Aug 3rd 2010, 12:12 PM
God commanded people throughout the Bible to kill. David said it was GOD that taught his hands to make war. That is without dispute, so I have only one question... Does God change?

Firefighter
Aug 3rd 2010, 12:16 PM
I would never have even done one minute training. It is 100% demonic as it taught me completely opposite to what the gospel teaches.

Psalms 18:34 He trains my hands for battle; my arms can bend a bow of bronze.

Reynolds357
Aug 3rd 2010, 01:16 PM
God commanded people throughout the Bible to kill. David said it was GOD that taught his hands to make war. That is without dispute, so I have only one question... Does God change?

It amazes me that so many people forget that God does not change. The God of the Gospels is the Same God who ordered Men, women, Children, and Babies killed in the O.T. and got real steamed up when his order was not 100% carried out.

Reynolds357
Aug 3rd 2010, 01:20 PM
Are you sure there are so many verses where Jesus commanded them to use the sword to kill ?

No where did Jesus say go kill with the swords, and he said the opposite to Peter Mt 26:52 'Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. '

Do you believe that Jesus contradicts His own teaching then, as He never told the disciple to kill with a sword?
This is what He told them;'38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

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;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven' Mt5


No where in the NT does He teach the opposite. Yes even when you take the context into deep account. He is not trying to play games with your mind.

If you are not carrying out His commands, you are not following Him.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding that Jesus purpose at first advent was to die for man, not set up a military kingdom.

Slug1
Aug 3rd 2010, 01:21 PM
It amazes me that so many people forget that God does not change. The God of the Gospels is the Same God who ordered Men, women, Children, and Babies killed in the O.T. and got real steamed up when his order was not 100% carried out.Yeah, that's another point not really discussed... when anything was left alive, God did get upset at those who didn't obediently follow through with His orders to kill.

Butch5
Aug 3rd 2010, 01:22 PM
I answered it. You seem to just not like the answer. What do you do with a sword? Jesus told his disciples that after He was gone the time would come when they would need swords. I really do not see how you are missing that one.

On a side note, looking at your avatar has me wanting to go get my squirrel dog out and go hunting.

No friend, you did not answer the question, no one has. No one has even attempted to answer it. However, I will answer yours, the "Sword" the were told to get was actually a "Large knife or small sword". Do you really think that two small swords would be sufficient to defend Jesus and the 11 apostles from a Romans garrison, armed and clad with armor? I am sure that in that day a large knife would come it quite handy for many purposes. Now, will you answer my question.

Thayer’s Greek Definitions
G3162 μάχαιρα machaira Thayer Definition: 1) a large knife, used for killing animals and cutting up flesh 2) a small sword, as distinguished from a large sword 2a) curved sword, for a cutting stroke 2b) a straight sword, for thrusting


Luke 22:47 ( KJV )
And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.

Two small swords???

By the way, I don't use a dog when I squirrel hunt. However, my avatar is one of my photos.

Butch5
Aug 3rd 2010, 01:26 PM
:lol:
Slug, that all happens in the book at the end of the Bible that the peace lovers believe is metaphorical.

Peace lovers? My friend if it was up to me there would not be criminal in America. However, it is not up to me, it is up to Christ.

Slug1
Aug 3rd 2010, 01:28 PM
Peace lovers? My friend if it was up to me there would not be criminal in America. However, it is not up to me, it is up to Christ.And His Ministers of God in the mean time till He returns. If society allowed the Ministers of God to operate as God would lead them... there wouldn't be many criminals.

Reynolds357
Aug 3rd 2010, 01:38 PM
No friend, you did not answer the question, no one has. No one has even attempted to answer it. However, I will answer yours, the "Sword" the were told to get was actually a "Large knife or small sword". Do you really think that two small swords would be sufficient to defend Jesus and the 11 apostles from a Romans garrison, armed and clad with armor? I am sure that in that day a large knife would come it quite handy for many purposes. Now, will you answer my question.

Thayer’s Greek Definitions
G3162 μάχαιρα machaira Thayer Definition: 1) a large knife, used for killing animals and cutting up flesh 2) a small sword, as distinguished from a large sword 2a) curved sword, for a cutting stroke 2b) a straight sword, for thrusting


Luke 22:47 ( KJV )
And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.

Two small swords???

By the way, I don't use a dog when I squirrel hunt. However, my avatar is one of my photos.

It is a self explanatory passage. I love it when one pulls out Greek reference text. What they usually find upon intensive study is that the translators of the Bible have a better command of Greek than the casual user of the dictionary. I can kind of read Spanish. I can use an English to Spanish dictionary. I can kind of write Spanish. I do not kid myself into thinking I am a Spanish expert who knows more than a scholar who has studied English and Spanish for their entire adult life.

I had Luke 22:36 in mind. The time for the disciples to fight was not then, but Jesus plainly told them that the time to fight would come.

definition 2b "a straight sword for thrusting." The primary combat weapon of the Roman soldier was the short sword.
The Roman soldier did not use these massive barbarian swords you see in the movies. The Roman use for the long sword was primarily limited to the Colliseum.

Reynolds357
Aug 3rd 2010, 01:40 PM
Peace lovers? My friend if it was up to me there would not be criminal in America. However, it is not up to me, it is up to Christ.

If everything is up to Christ and we have no role to play in it, why do we even care?

Dugdeep
Aug 3rd 2010, 02:01 PM
Psalms 18:34 He trains my hands for battle; my arms can bend a bow of bronze.

Jesus changed the OT STUFF, TO THE NEW!! His teaching is way superior to the OT.