This Guy: Mark Keith Robinson

[John of Japan]

For those who wish to stick to Scripture instead of church history, note that John the Baptist was certainly not a pacifist. When approached about how a soldier should act, he did not recommend leaving the army, but instead regulated how they should act while in the army (Luke 3:14). Later, Jesus Himself praised a centurion whose son He had healed, but did not tell him to leave the military, instead praising the man's faith (Luke 7:8-9).

Responding to my own post!

I am reminded of the story of the 40 Roman soldiers, the "Martyrs of Sevaste," who froze to death on an ice-covered lake rather than renounce their faith. This was after the Edict of Milan--the relevance of which I still have not figured out. Anyway, their story proves that Christians of the 4th century were not universally opposed to military service and thus, violence.

See a version of the story here: 40 Martyrs of Sevaste

 

[1689Dave]

So now you are comparing us "thugs?" You just don't learn, do you?

If I call you a thug, It would not be true. You obviously are not a thug. But your position on violence is closer to the violent mindset than it is to the Jesus mindset, who taught non violence.

 

[1689Dave]

There you go again. So according to you, if I defend my wife from being raped and murdered, I'm a thug. Do you really read what you write? Do you know what a thug is? He's a criminal. Yet all 50 states (and Japan where I lived and other countries I've visited) allow for defending one's self and family in one's own home.

You cannot change words ("thug") to mean what you want them to mean. I'm a linguist. I can tell you that the term "thug" has never been used in the history of the English language to mean "one who defends his home and family." Once again, you are committing verbal violence by applying "thug" to me.

There is a motto in Karate, attributed to Gichin Funakoshi, who took the art from Okinawa to Honshu: 空手に先手なし ("There is no first blow in karate.") Thugs strike first. Defending one's self means to strike second.

I would do anything short of killing an enemy to stop the rape or murder of my wife too. Only I would not use violence nor kill the enemy I'm supposed to love. So if you are a thug, count me as one too.

 

[1689Dave]

For those who wish to stick to Scripture instead of church history, note that John the Baptist was certainly not a pacifist. When approached about how a soldier should act, he did not recommend leaving the army, but instead regulated how they should act while in the army (Luke 3:14). Later, Jesus Himself praised a centurion whose son He had healed, but did not tell him to leave the military, instead praising the man's faith (Luke 7:8-9).

Please remember this all happened under the Old Covenant when violence prevailed. But no so under the New Covenant.

 

[John of Japan]

I would do anything short of killing an enemy to stop the rape or murder of my wife too. Only I would not use violence nor kill the enemy I'm supposed to love. So if you are a thug, count me as one too.

Sorry, you would not be able to stop a thug from raping and/or murdering your wife without using violence. I've examined a multitude of such events in my avocation, and if a thug is intent on immediate violence, only violence will stop him.

An old but dumb aphorism is, "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" (ostensibly from a character in a novel by atheist Isaac Asimov). I amend that to say, "Violence is the last refuge of the competent."

 

[TCassidy]

But your position on violence is closer to the violent mindset than it is to the Jesus mindset, who taught non violence.

Really? My position against violence (I avoid it whenever possible) is really a pro violence mind set, so I am not close to Jesus?

How did you figure that?

Is this one of those "opposite" games?

 

[John of Japan]

Please remember this all happened under the Old Covenant when violence prevailed. But no so under the New Covenant.

Surely you are not like the hyper dispensationalists who teach that nothing before Acts 16 is relevant for the present age. That is extremely poor theology. In fact, you've already quoted Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount saying that we should turn the other cheek. So now, when I quote John the Baptist and the same Jesus from the same time period you object? How does that work?

Under your logic, the teachings of Christ against violence were in the Old Covenant, so they are not valid for the New Covenant age.

 

[1689Dave]

Sorry, you would not be able to stop a thug from raping and/or murdering your wife without using violence. I've examined a multitude of such events in my avocation, and if a thug is intent on immediate violence, only violence will stop him.

An old but dumb aphorism is, "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" (ostensibly from a character in a novel by atheist Isaac Asimov). I amend that to say, "Violence is the last refuge of the competent."

What you say is true. But it only amplifies the courage it takes to deal with it as Jesus would. In view of this, the disciples and Apostles are the true heroes of the world, not those who kill to keep from being killed.

 

[1689Dave]

Really? My position against violence (I avoid it whenever possible) is really a pro violence mind set, so I am not close to Jesus?

How did you figure that?

Is this one of those "opposite" games?

I cannot correlate your position with Jesus or any NT believer.

 

[TCassidy]

I cannot correlate your position with Jesus or any NT believer.

That seems obvious. You are undoubtedly the most confused person I have ever encountered on the Baptist Board. You seem to have a huge problem understanding rather simple concepts.

 

[1689Dave]

Surely you are not like the hyper dispensationalists who teach that nothing before Acts 16 is relevant for the present age. That is extremely poor theology. In fact, you've already quoted Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount saying that we should turn the other cheek. So now, when I quote John the Baptist and the same Jesus from the same time period you object? How does that work?

Under your logic, the teachings of Christ against violence were in the Old Covenant, so they are not valid for the New Covenant age.

All I'm saying is that Jeremiah said the NT would replace the OT.

 

[1689Dave]

That seems obvious. You are undoubtedly the most confused person I have ever encountered on the Baptist Board. You seem to have a huge problem understanding rather simple concepts.

Opinions do not count. But if you can produce examples of believers in the NT upholding your convictions it would help solve the problem. I offer that not one believer practiced violent self defence as I believe.

 

[TCassidy]

All I'm saying is that Jeremiah said the NT would replace the OT.

The heresy of hyper-dispensationalism?

 

[TCassidy]

Opinions do not count. But if you can produce examples of believers in the NT upholding your convictions it would help solve the problem. I offer that not one believer practiced violent self defence as I believe.

You have been shown several and you rejected them all. If you don't believe the scriptures already given to you why should we bother to give you more?

 

[1689Dave]

“But showing its fault, God says to them, “Look, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will complete a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. “It will not be like the covenant that I made with their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not continue in my covenant and I had no regard for them, says the Lord. “For this is the covenant that I will establish with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and I will inscribe them on their hearts. And I will be their God and they will be my people. “And there will be no need at all for each one to teach his countryman or each one to teach his brother saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ since they will all know me, from the least to the greatest. “For I will be merciful toward their evil deeds, and their sins I will remember no longer.” When he speaks of a new covenant, he makes the first obsolete. Now what is growing obsolete and aging is about to disappear.” (Hebrews 8:8–13) (NET)

 

[1689Dave]

You have been shown several and you rejected them all. If you don't believe the scriptures already given to you why should we bother to give you more?

You cannot produce one example of christians using violent self-defence (without being rebuked for it - Peter). If you could, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[TCassidy]

See posts 106 and 109.

 

[John of Japan]

All I'm saying is that Jeremiah said the NT would replace the OT.

So then, my comments on Jesus speaking to soldiers are relevant, are they not? You denied their relevance before, even thought they were from the NT. You can't have it both ways. I've produced many quotes from the NT, and you really haven't answered any of them.

Answer this: did Jesus use violence in casting the money changers out of the temple, or did He not? It's a simple question.

 

[1689Dave]

So then, my comments on Jesus speaking to soldiers are relevant, are they not? You denied their relevance before, even thought they were from the NT. You can't have it both ways. I've produced many quotes from the NT, and you really haven't answered any of them.

Answer this: did Jesus use violence in casting the money changers out of the temple, or did He not? It's a simple question.

John the Baptist was the last OT prophet. So all of this was in accord to OT Law. In the NT Cornelius was a soldier who became the first gentile convert baptised in the Holy Spirit. Did he continue as a soldier?

 

[John of Japan]

John the Baptist was the last OT prophet. So all of this was in accord to OT Law.

Tut tut. John the Baptist was the forerunner of Jesus, in the NT, nor part of the OT, and he did not preach the law. His message was, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 3:2). Then Jesus preached the exact same message (Matt. 4:17). Since Jesus preached the exact same message as John, tell me again how John was in line with the OT law.

In the NT Cornelius was a soldier who became the first gentile convert baptised in the Holy Spirit. Did he continue as a soldier?

Of course he continued as a soldier, since Peter did not tell him not to! And when Jesus healed the servant of a centurion in Matt. 8, He also did not tell the man to quit the army.

Now answer my question: did Jesus use violence when he drove the money changers out of the temple?