Raise your hand and say "Aye"!

[ZiSunka]

Everyone who thinks violence is the answer to violence, raise your hand and say "aye!"

[TwinCrier]

Let me guess, a pscifist extremist that lives in lala land where everyone is all nice and shares flowers and hugs their teddy bears thinks everyone who supports the use of force in defense of self, family or country is a big green meanie. Lord only knows how such people will fare in armegeddon.

Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

[ZiSunka]

Let me guess, a pscifist extremist that lives in lala land where everyone is all nice and shares flowers and hugs their teddy bears thinks everyone who supports the use of force in defense of self, family or country is a big green meanie. Lord only knows how such people will fare in armegeddon.

Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

^_^

[JPPT1974]

Jesus came to send peace
And to make sure the world was peaceful
In Him!

[TheUltimateWarrior]

Jesus came to send peace
And to make sure the world was peaceful
In Him!

Actually Jesus Said "Dont think I have come to bring peace, but a sword".

[ZiSunka]

Actually Jesus Said "Dont think I have come to bring peace, but a sword".

So then, violence is the solution to violence, in the words of Jesus?

[TheUltimateWarrior]

So then, violence is the solution to violence, in the words of Jesus?

You really need to stop changing what I say, if you have no arguement against my words thats fine, but dont put words in my mouth when you lack a better arguement.

[ZiSunka]

You really need to stop changing what I say, if you have no arguement against my words thats fine, but dont put words in my mouth when you lack a better arguement.

Then what ARE you saying?

[TheUltimateWarrior]

Then what ARE you saying?

That to say Jesus came to bring Peace on earth is Scripturally untrue and that Jesus said he came not to bring peace but a Sword. I thought i made it pretty clear, especially since I quoted someone.

[ZiSunka]

That to say Jesus came to bring Peace on earth is Scripturally untrue and that Jesus said he came not to bring peace but a Sword. I thought i made it pretty clear, especially since I quoted someone.

But what does that mean, specifically?

How does that take form in the real world?

[TheUltimateWarrior]

But what does that mean, specifically?

How does that take form in the real world?

It means that Jesus did not come to bring peace on the earth but a sword. I think it spretty simple.

A sword cuts and is used to kill in battle. Dont bait me, go ahead and say what you are waiting to say and we can save three pages of the run-around.

[aReformedPatriot]

Everyone who thinks violence is the answer to violence, raise your hand and say "aye!"

I do, but to a limited extent. The Federal Government and other world Gov't have the right to wage war. I suppose the difference for me is when violence just becomes gratuitous but as such not all violence is gratuitous in nature.

But in real simple terms: Kill the other guy and the immediate violence ends. ;)

That being said, I think that all diplomatic efforts resemble the cycle that a battered woman and her batterer enter into:

1. Everything is Fine
2. Tension mounts
3. Violence Occurs
4. The Honeymoon stage occurs (I love you; I am sorry; It will never happen again; Flowery Language; Restoration of the relationship)
1. Everything is Fine
2. Tension mounts
3. Violence Occurs
4. The Honeymoon stage occurs (I love you; I am sorry; It will never happen again; Flowery Language; Restoration of the relationship)
1. Everything is Fine

Tis a vicious cycle that on the global scale with regard to governments is not going to cease, nor are they commanded to in scripture.

Edit: On a more personal level between say, me and Roy, I don't think violence is useful. Roy hits me, I beat the snot out of him, we assail each other constantly with threats forever and a day.. Ain't nobody benefiting from that at all.

[ZiSunka]

It means that Jesus did not come to bring peace on the earth but a sword. I think it spretty simple.

A sword cuts and is used to kill in battle. Dont bait me, go ahead and say what you are waiting to say and we can save three pages of the run-around.

What do you mean by a sword?

I'm not baiting you, I'm trying to figure out what you are saying. What does it mean in the real world? What is a sword in terms of today's world?

Did Jesus mean for Christians to raise a sword or is that something that is his domain only?

[aReformedPatriot]

I don't think the verse that says Jesus brought a sword not peace has anything to do with violence per se. It's more of an illustration that when one embraces the Gospel it makes one an enemy of the world. We are now hostile to the world, whether it be our family who are without Christ or the against the Government. I don't think that verse on its own is ground for violence to be shed. :P

[ZiSunka]

But in real simple terms: Kill the other guy and the immediate violence ends. ;)


It does? :confused:

When did that ever happen?

I think in real life it works this way:

You kill me.
My family/nation/gang kills you.
Your family/nation/gang kills someone in your family/nation/gang.
Your family/nation/gang kills someone in my family/nation/gang.
Repeat...
1000 years later...
My family/nation/gang kills someone in your family/nation/gang.

The whole war in Bosnia was started in 1000 AD between two warring religious factions. It's still going on today, in a more subdued and less reported-on way.

Killing only propagates killing.

[seebs]

Jesus said multiple things on the topic of peace. The "not peace but a sword" line gets hauled out every time this comes up, but there are many more statements where Jesus affirms and praises both peace and peacemakers.

The question of what to make of this is one I have not personally entirely resolved. I do think it is clearly in error to completely disregard either passage. I am open to the notion that there may be context to them.

[ZiSunka]

I don't think the verse that says Jesus brought a sword not peace has anything to do with violence per se. It's more of an illustration that when one embraces the Gospel it makes one an enemy of the world. We are now hostile to the world, whether it be our family who are without Christ or the against the Government. I don't think that verse on its own is ground for violence to be shed. :P

Aw, were's your rep button?

I really want to rep you for this post. :amen:

[seebs]

It means that Jesus did not come to bring peace on the earth but a sword. I think it spretty simple.

A sword cuts and is used to kill in battle. Dont bait me, go ahead and say what you are waiting to say and we can save three pages of the run-around.

Honestly, I have no idea what you think this means.

Do you mean that Christians should be physically violent? That Christians may be physically violent some of the time? That Jesus is bringing an actual bladed implement which we can touch with our hands?

I have no idea at all. Everyone seems to be quite sure they know what this verse means, but no one agrees on it.

[seebs]

I don't think the verse that says Jesus brought a sword not peace has anything to do with violence per se. It's more of an illustration that when one embraces the Gospel it makes one an enemy of the world. We are now hostile to the world, whether it be our family who are without Christ or the against the Government. I don't think that verse on its own is ground for violence to be shed. :P

I actually basically agree.

The question is how we can best express this "hostility". I think it may clarify issues to use a more concrete word; "enmity".

How, then, should we treat these enemies?

[Tenken07]

I thought that verse "not peace but a sword" was to have everyone go against each other, to put christ first. Well, maybe not against each other, but certainly to put christ first.

[arunma]

Everyone who thinks violence is the answer to violence, raise your hand and say "aye!"

I'm not quite the pacifist that you are, Sister Lambslove, since I agree with Saint Augustine's just war theology. That said, I am no fan of war, and I think that governments and nations should make every effort to avoid it. The Lord's will is peace rather than war, otherwise he would not be the God of peace, and he would not have turned the nation of Israel into a multinational church with no central government or army. So I will simply say that if we must resist violence with more violence, then we ought to do so with sorrow and unceasing anguish.

But let me add one more qualification. As C.S. Lewis taught, we ought not to require soldiers to do their duties sorrowfully. When I say that we should engage in violence as a last resort, "we" refers to governments. People who serve in the military can certainly do their duty with joy in the Lord, as if serving the Lord.

What do you mean by a sword?

I'm not baiting you, I'm trying to figure out what you are saying. What does it mean in the real world? What is a sword in terms of today's world?

Did Jesus mean for Christians to raise a sword or is that something that is his domain only?


Perhaps the Lord Christ was referring to this:From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. (Revelation 19:15)
You will of course remember our earlier discussion on the Hammer of Jeremiah. Because "the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12), this is most likely the word about which Christ was speaking.

[RajunCajun86]

Everyone who thinks violence is the answer to violence, raise your hand and say "aye!""aye!"
as punishment dictated by our court system
as a retaliation of our military force
oh and parents correcting their children
"aye!"

[TwinCrier]

It does? :confused:

When did that ever happen?

I think in real life it works this way:

You kill me.
My family/nation/gang kills you.
Your family/nation/gang kills someone in your family/nation/gang.
Your family/nation/gang kills someone in my family/nation/gang.
Repeat...
1000 years later...
My family/nation/gang kills someone in your family/nation/gang.

The whole war in Bosnia was started in 1000 AD between two warring religious factions. It's still going on today, in a more subdued and less reported-on way.

Killing only propagates killing.True, but the way it SHOULD work in real life is:
Someone kills someone
they are given a trial and proven guilty
They are put to death
they kill no more
others give more careful thought before comitting murder.

[IisJustMe]

The Lord's will is peace rather than war, otherwise he would not be the God of peace, and he would not have turned the nation of Israel into a multinational church with no central government or army. [emphasis added, obviously]Replacement Theology is unbiblical. The church has not "replaced" Israel, but joined her as the beneficiary of God's promises, though ours are to be found in heaven, and Israel's on earth in the Thousand Year Reign. God is not a liar, and His promises to Israel stand. There was no requirement on Israel for fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. In fact, when God sealed the covenant by walking among the severed sacrificial animals, He had put Abraham into a deep sleep, thus putting no onus on Abraham or the great nation he fathered for the covenant to be fulfilled. At Christ's return, it will be.
So I will simply say that if we must resist violence with more violence, then we ought to do so with sorrow and unceasing anguish. But let me add one more qualification. As C.S. Lewis taught, we ought not to require soldiers to do their duties sorrowfully. When I say that we should engage in violence as a last resort, "we" refers to governments. People who serve in the military can certainly do their duty with joy in the Lord, as if serving the Lord.Amen. Do not revel in the violence, but pray for those who have forced us to do violence on them by their own acts of violence toward us.
What do you mean by a sword? ... I'm not baiting you, I'm trying to figure out what you are saying. What does it mean in the real world? What is a sword in terms of today's world? ... Did Jesus mean for Christians to raise a sword or is that something that is his domain only?Since Arunma addressed this in his post as an extension of the issue I just took issue with (did everyone follow that? Sorry for being so confounding here ...) I'd just like to add this thought.

Jesus came in peace for His earthly ministry. His intent was obedience to the Father, and through that obedience, to put an end to the enmity between man and God created by man's sin. God still loved us completely, but our sin prevented us from truly enjoying His fellowship, the rare exception being such men as Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, Josiah, Hezekiah, Isaiah, and others. I'm sure there were many unnamed men of Israel who enjoyed that fellowship also, but the text of the Bible seems to indicate most of Israel was a stiffnecked and obstinate bunch. Still, they were individually separated from God, not the nation, because God does not renege on his Promises.

Jesus came for the rest of us, those who could not peer through the fogs and mists of Christ Concealed (as the Old Testament can be described) to see God's purpose. Jesus declared peace, and way to surrender in the war of sin and death. That message has gone worldwide in the ensuing 1,976 years since the cross. When Jesus comes again, He will come in judgment of those who have refused the message. The failure of the church to complete (as of now, anyway) the work of the Great Commission is one reason the Lord is tarrying. The other is, despite the statements of many evangelicals that "all prophecy necessary for Christ to return is fulfilled," is erroneous. In Ezekiel 39, a prophecy of an air and ground attack on Israel that is miraculously struck down by the hand of God, requiring the nation seven months' of clean up, is before the Tribulation, and has obviously not yet occurred.

All this to say, Jesus is coming in judgment, with a sword, which is His word, but will be just as sharp and two-edged as any Paul saw the Romans carry strapped to their sides, and even more deadly. God's word is deadly to those who reject it as the truth. It is that sword that Christ will wield to bring judgment and death on an unbelieving world.

[TwinCrier]

"aye!"
as punishment dictated by our court system
as a retaliation of our military force
oh and parents correcting their children
"aye!"Good point. I wonder if those that oppose taking action against attack and justly executing criminals also throw out all the scripture about beating disobedient children. How much scripture must a pacifist delete in order to uphold their doctrine?

[RajunCajun86]

The failure of the church to complete (as of now, anyway) the work of the Great Commission is one reason the Lord is tarryingamen, lets saddle up and GO

[seebs]

FWIW, given that violence towards children doesn't actually seem to work nearly as well as other forms of discipline, I guess I don't think of it as much of a loss.

One World War II Quaker conscientious objector had been a professional wrestler. Once when he and some other inmates of the Coshocton CPS camp in Ohio made a trip into town, they were hassled about their pacifism by some local youths, who insisted that only force could change the German's views.

In response, the ex-wrestler took off his coat, challenged one of the local boys to a match, and promptly threw the townie across the room.
He then asked the youth,

"Now do you believe that force won't change people's views?"

"Heck no!" the local boy hollered back.


"That's exactly my point," said the Quaker, who put on his coat and left.

[RED that's ME]

There will never be anything such as world peace. If you study the end times in the Bible it only gets worse. The only *peace* we have is an internal peace with God. :) Jesus is called the *Prince of Peace* cause of the what he done on Calvary to reconcile us with God.
We should try and live peaceable with others but sometimes war is necessary.

World Peace/ Biblically (http://www.av1611.org/jmelton/worldpeace.html)

[ZiSunka]

True, but the way it SHOULD work in real life is:
Someone kills someone
they are given a trial and proven guilty
They are put to death
they kill no more
others give more careful thought before comitting murder.

If only real people would cooperate with your plan.

[ZiSunka]

The failure of the church to complete (as of now, anyway) the work of the Great Commission is one reason the Lord is tarrying.

What is your Biblical basis for saying that?

[aReformedPatriot]

What is your Biblical basis for saying that?

I agree, there is none. The fact that the Lord is tarrying is not in the least contingent upon man's failure. God is soveriegn and acts according to his inclinations alone without coerecion from the outside.

[ZiSunka]

Perhaps the Lord Christ was referring to this:From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. (Revelation 19:15)

You will of course remember our earlier discussion on the Hammer of Jeremiah. Because "the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12), this is most likely the word about which Christ was speaking.
But that's about the final judgment, and has nothing to do with Christians taking up weapons and going to war.

[ZiSunka]

I'm not quite the pacifist that you are, Sister Lambslove, since I agree with Saint Augustine's just war theology.

I wasn't just speaking specifically about war.

When someone is violent against you personally, is the best course of action to respond with violence?

[Razorbuck]

When someone is violent against you personally, is the best course of action to respond with violence?

I know this is directed at brother arunma, but if I might chime in...

It depends on the level of violence. If smitten on one cheek, I'll turn to my antagonist the other also. (This has actually happened to me while street-preaching) If he's about to make my wife a widow and my children fatherless, then I am going to act to remove the threat in the most expedient way available, up to and including violence upon his person.

To deprive my family of it's provider by neglecting to defend my own life would be folly.

[arunma]

I wasn't just speaking specifically about war.

When someone is violent against you personally, is the best course of action to respond with violence?

I see you're discussing personal violence. I would say that in most cases, it is not prudent to respond to violence with violence.

[Joykins]

Here's some of that context that seebs is open to:

32Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

33But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
37He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
39He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. 40He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

Based on this context, I believe that the "sword" is what is wielded against believers, by the world. Certainly the early persecutions and martyrdoms support that as well.

[ZiSunka]

I know this is directed at brother arunma, but if I might chime in...

It depends on the level of violence. If smitten on one cheek, I'll turn to my antagonist the other also. (This has actually happened to me while street-preaching) If he's about to make my wife a widow and my children fatherless, then I am going to act to remove the threat in the most expedient way available, up to and including violence upon his person.

To deprive my family of it's provider by neglecting to defend my own life would be folly.

Have you ever just gotten yourself out of there before it can turn deadly?

And, is violence the BEST way to react to violence?

[ZiSunka]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Joykins again.

[IisJustMe]

Have you ever just gotten yourself out of there before it can turn deadly?It isn't predictable or obvious in many cases. A guy on PCP can be walking down the street acting mostly normal and suddenly "snap" and render violence on anyone he chose. It's not likely anyone is going to subdue a PCP addict on a freak-out, but if he's on top of you before you can even react, I'd suggest violence over pleading with him to stop.
And, is violence the BEST way to react to violence?No. Compromise, discussion, give-and-take diplomacy is always preferrable. If none of those work, just leaving is also a good choice. But sometimes, none of these things are options. No offense, but if you've never experienced such a situation, it is no wonder you can't conceive of being unable to talk or run instead of striking back. You really need to understand the context in which Jesus spoke of "turning the other cheek," because He spoke of just such a situation in offering it.

If a man struck you on the right cheek, he either struck you with his left (non-sword) hand, or backhanded you with his sword hand. In either case, it was considered an emotional reaction that may or may not be followed by a more severe attack. The purpose in "offering the other cheek" as Jesus preached was to determine if, in fact, deadly intent was in the heart of the attacker. It required the attacker to either strike with a closed fist or his sword, (a clear indication of intent to do bodily harm if not murder) and suggested self-defnese was certainly in order. One can see how this entire process could take less than two full seconds, which is not enough to time to engage in diplomacy or run away.

Of course, turning the other cheek also gave the attacker an opportunity to consider just how seriously he wanted his follow-up to be. Hesitation, or reluctance to follow up the first blow, would indicate that first blow was a rash decision, and while the right cheek would sting for a few minutes or a couple days, the ensuing engagement in discussion that should result from that hestiation would save both men a lifetime of pain and sorrow -- even if otherwise one of them would experience that "lifetime" for just a few more seconds.

Jesus was not saying "Never engage in violence." He was using the example out of real life to show how and when it might be necessary.

[arunma]

Replacement Theology is unbiblical. The church has not "replaced" Israel, but joined her as the beneficiary of God's promises, though ours are to be found in heaven, and Israel's on earth in the Thousand Year Reign. God is not a liar, and His promises to Israel stand. There was no requirement on Israel for fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. In fact, when God sealed the covenant by walking among the severed sacrificial animals, He had put Abraham into a deep sleep, thus putting no onus on Abraham or the great nation he fathered for the covenant to be fulfilled. At Christ's return, it will be.

This is far off topic, but I certainly do believe that the church is the Israel of God. In fact, this is the position that the church fathers took, so it is by no means a new theology. If you'd like to start a new thread and discuss this, I'd be interested.

[IisJustMe]

The only One we answer to is Christ, not some long dead sinner saved by grace.
This is far off topic, but I certainly do believe that the church is the Israel of God. In fact, this is the position that the church fathers took, so it is by no means a new theology. If you'd like to start a new thread and discuss this, I'd be interested.You're right, it is far off topic, and you should have kept it out of this thread. You menioned it, I didn't, but when false doctrine or misconceptions are stated, it has to be addressed. And I've said everything that needs to be said to refute the concept of replacement theology. To believe God is going to renege on His promises to Israel by "making" the church "a new Israel" is heresy.

[arunma]

You're right, it is far off topic, and you should have kept it out of this thread. You menioned it, I didn't, but when false doctrine or misconceptions are stated, it has to be addressed. And I've said everything that needs to be said to refute the concept of replacement theology. To believe God is going to renege on His promises to Israel by "making" the church "a new Israel" is heresy.

If I might make a small correction, people of my theological persuasion do not believe that the church "replaced" Israel. Rather we believe that the church always was the true Israel. So from our point of view, God has never reneged on his promises to Israel.

Anyway, I'll shut up before I deviate this thread too far.

[HypoTypoSis]

Here's some of that context that seebs is open to:

34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Based on this context, I believe that the "sword" is what is wielded against believers, by the world. Certainly the early persecutions and martyrdoms support that as well.

Jesus meant no actual physical sword as the world normally understands.

12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

HypoTypoSis

[HypoTypoSis]

"And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be? And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand."

[Flynmonkie]

I believe in protection, but only when there is no other option for peace. (There is no walking away) I do not consider this to be violence?

[TwinCrier]

I say it's fine to turn the other cheek.... if you're prepared to duck and use a high hand block to counter attack.
My kids are learning karate now and believe me, the way they are taught to handle a stranger trying to adbuct them is not to make peace with him. ;)

I know this is directed at brother arunma, but if I might chime in...

It depends on the level of violence. If smitten on one cheek, I'll turn to my antagonist the other also. (This has actually happened to me while street-preaching) If he's about to make my wife a widow and my children fatherless, then I am going to act to remove the threat in the most expedient way available, up to and including violence upon his person.

To deprive my family of it's provider by neglecting to defend my own life would be folly.

[seebs]

I say it's fine to turn the other cheek.... if you're prepared to duck and use a high hand block to counter attack.

Are there any circumstances under which you would take a more conventional approach to turning the other cheek? I mean, the above is witty, but it's fairly far from traditional understandings of that teaching.

[TwinCrier]

Are there any circumstances under which you would take a more conventional approach to turning the other cheek? I mean, the above is witty, but it's fairly far from traditional understandings of that teaching.So the understanding is that Christians should accept abuse?

[seebs]

So the understanding is that Christians should accept abuse?

I don't know about "accept". Retaliate for? Definitely not.

The historical debate has been on the degree and method to which abuse may be opposed; the notion that it could be directly fought is comparatively modern. Wink, for instance, argues at length for the need for active opposition to evil, but without any hint of retaliation, coercion, or use of force.

But the historical understanding is that, when Jesus says "when someone hits you, turn the other cheek", it does not mean "hit him back". Considering that the immediate context was a discussion of the Mosaic Law's use of retaliation as a standard of justice, the contrast is generally seen as fairly clear.

Now, being a bit of a modernist, I'm open to suggestions that this passage needs to be revisited in light of modern thought. Still, I'm having a hard time seeing how to get to an apparent policy of always retaliating.

[AJ]

I wasn't just speaking specifically about war.

When someone is violent against you personally, is the best course of action to respond with violence?
Greetings Lambslove,

I am curious what your response to this is... If, for example, you have children and an intruder has broken into your house and is physically attacking your child... Should you respond with physical violence to defend your child?

I believe that most would attempt to defend themselves and their family against an attack. Or at the very least, call for help... So if a police officer responds and defends you, should that be allowed? Should the government use it's agents (law enforcement, military) to defend it's citizens? Or are you just saying that we shouldn't have Christian's filling this role? We should leave that stuff for the non-believers.

I believe that Christ came to bring peace to the believers and conviction to the non-believers. He was very clear about the decisions that we all have to make regarding salvation and the consequences of those decisions. I too believe in the Just War Theory. Our government should do everything possible to work within diplomatic channels, but when that fails and our citizens are being attacked or there is a credible threat then the government must respond. War is at times the only response left... As a last resort.

The world will continue to become more and more violent until the end of times. True peace will only be obtained when our Lord returns.

[Razorbuck]

Have you ever just gotten yourself out of there before it can turn deadly?

I was speaking hypothetically about defending my family or my life, I've never been in that position since trusting Christ. If flight were an option I would probably take it under most circumstances. If it wasn't, I suppose I would respond with the amount of force necessary to diffuse the situation, but if my life or the life of one of my family members is truly in danger, all bets are off.


And, is violence the BEST way to react to violence?

Again, it depends entirely on the circumstances.

Speaking in general terms the answer is of course, no. I can better demonstrate the character of my loving and mighty Saviour by not resisting evil in the face of the most common violent acts. For instance in 1983 I was walking through a rather unsavory part of Los Angeles when an ol' boy tripped me, stuck a knife at my chin, and demanded my money. (I had 13 bucks) When the dust settled I had a stab wound in the thigh, the would-be robber had an awful headache, and I had my thirteen bucks. If this incident were to be repeated today I would have given him the thirteen dollars, offered to get him more if he truly needed it, and told him about the One who could deliver him from such nonsense.

But this in no way negates my ministry to my family. I am to love my wife as Christ loves His church, to provide for my children, raise them in the nurture and admonition of the LORD, etc. It in no sense detracts from my Saviour or His precious purpose to defend my family, violently if necessary.

[MadFingerPainter]

Matthew 5
9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
--
If the will of God is to come about then we will never see peace on earth. But that doesn't mean we should respond to violence with violence. The Beattitudes teaches peace. When God speaks of turning the other cheek...He is teaching peace.

[Razorbuck]

Matthew 5
9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
--
If the will of God is to come about then we will never see peace on earth. But that doesn't mean we should respond to violence with violence. The Beattitudes teaches peace. When God speaks of turning the other cheek...He is teaching peace.

I agree wholeheartedly that our Saviour teaches peace, how could any heir to His promise think otherwise? That doesn't mean that violence is NEVER appropriate for a Christian. Scripture is replete with examples of our LORD defending His own by violent means when necessary, and sanctioning His children to do so as well.

It is because of the value I place on the gifts my LORD has given me (read my family or my country) that I would defend them with force when necessary.

[RajunCajun86]

I agree wholeheartedly that our Saviour teaches peace, how could any heir to His promise think otherwise? That doesn't mean that violence is NEVER appropriate for a Christian. Scripture is replete with examples of our LORD defending His own by violent means when necessary, and sanctioning His children to do so as well.

It is because of the value I place on the gifts my LORD has given me (read my family or my country) that I would defend them with force when necessary.this is sound Biblical advice

[MadFingerPainter]

I agree wholeheartedly that our Saviour teaches peace, how could any heir to His promise think otherwise? That doesn't mean that violence is NEVER appropriate for a Christian. Scripture is replete with examples of our LORD defending His own by violent means when necessary, and sanctioning His children to do so as well.

It is because of the value I place on the gifts my LORD has given me (read my family or my country) that I would defend them with force when necessary.
Would you please be kind enough to point me to some of these Scriptures?

[j2vlha]

Everyone who thinks violence is the answer to violence, raise your hand and say "aye!"

Story of Mary Magdalene: How Jesus told the stone throwers, 'If any of you do not have a sin, cast the first stone.' Peace, brother.:)

[IisJustMe]

Story of Mary Magdalene: How Jesus told the stone throwers, 'If any of you do not have a sin, cast the first stone.' Peace, brother.:)That wasn't Mary Magdalene. We don't know that woman's name. Mary Magdaline wasn't an adulterous, or a prostitute. She had been demon possessed, and Jesus cast out the demons.

[JPPT1974]

Mary Magadalene really got her
Life straight and forever changed
Once she met Jesus!

[Razorbuck]

Would you please be kind enough to point me to some of these Scriptures?

No problem! Start with Genesis 14:12-20, and 1 Samuel 30:1-19, and while you're checking those out I'll get you some more. :thumbsup:

[Flynmonkie]

That wasn't Mary Magdalene. We don't know that woman's name. Mary Magdaline wasn't an adulterous, or a prostitute. She had been demon possessed, and Jesus cast out the demons.
This is true. There are several Marys in the Bible that get confused. The only reference to Mary Magdalene was that she was filled with evil spirits or crazy. (Mad Mary)

But I understand your point j2vlha, we should be humbling ourselves before any aim at another, if be it at all possible.

It is a common misconception that this was Mary Magdalene, and the "Passion of the Christ" helped this misinformation along.

[HumbleMan]

Violence is never the perfect answer but sometimes it is the best. I don't like confrontation, but I would respond as necessary to any threat to my family.

One thing we shouldn't ever do, though, is glorify the violence, or the taking of one's life. There are times when it is necessary, but we should always grieve at using it.

[ZiSunka]

Violence is never the perfect answer but sometimes it is the best. I don't like confrontation, but I would respond as necessary to any threat to my family.

One thing we shouldn't ever do, though, is glorify the violence, or the taking of one's life. There are times when it is necessary, but we should always grieve at using it.

It should always be the last resort, not the first reflex.

[mlqurgw]

Everyone who thinks violence is the answer to violence, raise your hand and say "aye!"LL, before I make any comments I do want you to understand they aren't intended to offend nor are they said in any way of contentiousness. They are just showing what I see.

The statement is loaded and has no right response other than the one you are looking for. It is the very definition of rhetoric. Rhetoric is what causes contention. It is like saying you either agree with me or you are stupid. You poison the well before you begin.
You are a very intelligent person and I am convinced that you are more than capable of making a convincing argument without the use of rhetoric.

[seebs]

Violence is never the perfect answer but sometimes it is the best. I don't like confrontation, but I would respond as necessary to any threat to my family.

One thing we shouldn't ever do, though, is glorify the violence, or the taking of one's life. There are times when it is necessary, but we should always grieve at using it.

I think this is a significant point. What scares me about willingness to violence is not that someone might, after careful consideration, come to believe an act of violence justified. What scares me is the tendency to glory in it.

[j2vlha]

This is true. There are several Marys in the Bible that get confused. The only reference to Mary Magdalene was that she was filled with evil spirits or crazy. (Mad Mary)

But I understand your point j2vlha, we should be humbling ourselves before any aim at another, if be it at all possible.

It is a common misconception that this was Mary Magdalene, and the "Passion of the Christ" helped this misinformation along.


Still you got my point. :amen: to that.

[Razorbuck]

It should always be the last resort, not the first reflex.

Has anyone stated otherwise? If so I missed it.

[ZiSunka]

LL, before I make any comments I do want you to understand they aren't intended to offend nor are they said in any way of contentiousness. They are just showing what I see.

The statement is loaded and has no right response other than the one you are looking for. It is the very definition of rhetoric. Rhetoric is what causes contention. It is like saying you either agree with me or you are stupid. You poison the well before you begin.
You are a very intelligent person and I am convinced that you are more than capable of making a convincing argument without the use of rhetoric.

The statement isn't loaded. It was my attempt to figure out who is and who isn't of the belief that violence is best answered with violence.

There were many threads in which I was finding out that people I believed to be opposed to violence were in fact in favor of it when it was in response to violence initiated by the other party, such as in the Israel/Hezbollah case. That some people saw the question as flaming partly gave me my answer. That some people thought this thread was worth splitting the forum over--inconceivable.

The question is what it is--no hidden motive was involved. :(

You probably ought to look up the definition of rhetoric, too.

[mesue]

Moved at the request of the OP :)

[ZiSunka]

Yikes!

I didn't ask for it to be moved, I asked for it to be closed! :eek:

[mesue]

Yikes!

I didn't ask for it to be moved, I asked for it to be closed! :eek:
Now, you know what you did ;)
Will close at the OPs request.