Christians and violence

[TexasSky]

I hate sin - That question you attribute to me is actually my quoting someone else's question.

I also believe that Christ means for us to love our enemies, but I don't think that means God views all war as wrong.

Matthew 10:34-36 is Christ stating, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - a man's enemies will be the members of his own household. "

The NIV says, regarding that passage: "At first glance this saying sounds like a contradiction of Isa 9:6 ("Prince of Peace") Luke 2:14 ("on earth peace to men") and John 14:27 ("Peace I leave you"). It is true that Christ came to bring peace-peace between the believer and God, and peace among men. Yet, the inevitable results of Christ's coming is conflict - between Christ and the anti-Christ, between light and darkness, between Christ's children and the devil's chilcdren. This conflict can occure even between members of the same family. (vv35-36)"

 

[I hate sin]

TexasSky

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hate sin - That question you attribute to me is actually my quoting someone else's question.
-------------------------------------------------

I apologise for what I did TexasSky.

I hope to reply about the above; I will have more time to do so later today if the Lord wills.

 

[I hate sin]

TexasSky

I also believe that Christ means for us to love our enemies, but I don't think that means God views all war as wrong.


--------------------------------------------

Thankyou friend in Christ.

The context of what I have written about is the Christian involving theirself or supporting other Christians going to physical war (where people are commanded sometimes to murder people by those in charge).

The warfare God delights in New Testament saints being active in is spiritual.

2Co 10:3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
2Co 10:4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds
2Co 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Fighting the fight of faith may often result in what is spoken of by Christ in Matthew 10:34-36.

Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Mat 10:35 For 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.
Mat 10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
Mat 10:37 He 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.

PS. God uses the wicked to perform his will.

Pro 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

An example of this in a different dispensation than the age we live in is God using Nebuchadnezzer to perform His will.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
Matthew 10:34-36 is Christ stating, "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - a man's enemies will be the members of his own household. "

Yes, a very pertinent passage. I think it's just as wrong to use this passage to justify physical violence as using it to justify children disrespecting their parents. Jesus is describing what will happen, not prescribing what he wants his followers to do. When a believer is surrounded by unbelieving family members and countryfolk, he may indeed face a sword or disrespect and insolence from his family, but hopefully the believer isn't the one using the sword and disrespecting others.

This passage does tell us what we can expect, though, so we can count the cost before following Jesus. Jesus' teaching on violence is counterintuitive and unnatural and will indeed bring personal cost to those who follow it. But, nobody reading a gospel account to its conclusion would think that Jesus' way was without cost.

 

[BibleMaMa]

This is something I have some knowledge on actually!

I believe in my own opinion that we are to protect ourselves from harm. In whatever means we must.

I was recently percecuted for #1 being a christain. I had violence thrown upon me, spatting of my face not once but 3 times. All the while trying to "Talk" my attacker down. When that was not conceivable, it was then that I lashed out with words. (Not cusses) That was when I was physically hit. At that point I decided that I needed to defend myself and did.


Now, how about a poll within a poll...... Who do you think was in the wrong in the eye of the law? Who do you think was arrested?

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by BibleMaMa:
I was recently percecuted for #1 being a christain. I had violence thrown upon me, spatting of my face not once but 3 times. All the while trying to "Talk" my attacker down. When that was not conceivable, it was then that I lashed out with words. (Not cusses) That was when I was physically hit. At that point I decided that I needed to defend myself and did.

Now, how about a poll within a poll...... Who do you think was in the wrong in the eye of the law? Who do you think was arrested?

I don't have an opinion about who was right in the eye of the law. I also don't know how you defended yourself, whether by protecting yourself from blows or by fighting back. Regardless, I can't be certain that I'd act differently in a similar situation, especially since I also have a temper and like to verbally lash out, and I don't blame you for acting that way. But, I do think that Jesus both taught and demonstrated a higher way to respond to violence and persecution.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by BibleMaMa:
This is something I have some knowledge on actually!

I believe in my own opinion that we are to protect ourselves from harm. In whatever means we must.

I was recently percecuted for #1 being a christain. I had violence thrown upon me, spatting of my face not once but 3 times. All the while trying to "Talk" my attacker down. When that was not conceivable, it was then that I lashed out with words. (Not cusses) That was when I was physically hit. At that point I decided that I needed to defend myself and did.


Now, how about a poll within a poll...... Who do you think was in the wrong in the eye of the law? Who do you think was arrested?

You want us to answer based on this account???

I would need more info before answering. Ideally, I would also want the view of a witness, and of the other person.

What were you doing when you were attacked???? You say you had "violence" thrown down on you but what does that mean exactly?

Why did they spit on you? Why did you lash out with words (which apparently triggered the person to hit you)? This is obviously an unusual situation and we would need more details.

Do you think you were partly at fault for lashing out with words since that caused the person to hit you? Did you call them a name or what did you say? You are only givine a very vague picture here.