Featured Violence

.

That's not "dealing with it," Bos, it is ignoring it. Your answer begs the quesiton, which I already asked, why would Jesus not then advise His disciples to "throw away" their swords, rather than simply "put away," and why would He want to them to own a sword if He never intended for them to use it?

You miss the point. Strife is anathema to your viewpoint, yet Jesus specifically states that strife is all that He will bring. "Peace" is not just the absence of violence, it is also the absence of strife, and yet He identifies circumstances in which families will be in conflict. That's not the pacifist way, now is it?

That makes the mistake of codifying everything from the Old Testament as being part of the Law. Obviously it was not. Jesus did not command war as an ordinance or rite, but He definitely commanded it in response to the enemies of God and of Israel who would work violence against the people. And the fallacy that the covenants between God and Israel and God and Christians is disproven in that faith is always the deciding factor in salvation. It was not by the Law, but by faith, that justification has always occurred. He never gave the Law to justify. He gave the Law to condemn. That pretty much renders your chart ...

... irrelevant to the thread.

If what you say is true, then making what you call "the new covenant" with the church also defies God's immutability. Your error lies in your perception of salvation being different for Old Testament saints than it is for New Testament saints. It is not.

2 Corinthians 10:3-5 does not deal with actual warfare, but spiritual warfare, against which weapons such as swords and slings are not effective. Your passage doesn't deal with the issue of pacifism and non-violence.

 

I never said you were loving them by killing them, I said you were loving them while killing them. There's a HUGE difference there, and it's not semantics.

You've said this, or something like this, in several posts now. Protecting yourself or someone else is not vengeance. Vengeance is a desire to get even for a real or imagined harm done to you. This is forbidden. Protection is an act of preventing harm to yourself or others, and so being a good steward of what God has given you. As I stated before, you don't have to hate someone to incapacitate them, even if it means using lethal force.

I am glad of that. I know that some would have said it in a mean spirited way, and I am glad that you recognized that I did not mean it in that way.

I won't belabor the point, but just point out that Jesus never said the opposite either. He never said that loving your enemy is superior (while a greater reward is given, yes. But not a greater commandment) to loving your neighbor. In an equal love to both, you stop one from hurting the other. He has brought the consequences on himself.

Think of the man that stopped the consequences of the Ark falling. He was killed. He didn't allow others' consequences to come to fruition, and instead bore the brunt of the consequences. Sometimes you have to let the Ark fall. In this case, it's allowing the consequences of their decision to break and enter and threaten, instead of shielding them from the consequences, and allowing yourself or others you love to bear them.

On this I agree. A last resort should be lethal force. Only use as much force as is necessary to subdue the opponent.

It may not be your intention, but this is coming off as a contradiction. You say that even self defense is vengeance. You say that we shouldn't hurt the attacker, because that would be violent, yet you say that you wouldn't remain inactive. I guess I'm a little confused as to what you mean. Can I get a little more clarification?

 

Nehemiah 4:14 NAS77
When I saw their fear, I rose and spoke to the nobles, the officials, and the rest of the people: "Do not be afraid of them; remember the Lord who is great and awesome, and fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your houses."

 

Sgt. York certainly came to mind in this discussion. And, yes, it does seem that God strengthened his hand in combat.

He seems to be an appropriate intersection between the two basic positions. But I hesitated to mention him. Aside from wanting to keep the points of discussion top-level (Biblical), York's story is not as compelling at a closer look IMO.

York was a pretty interesting individual. He is mostly admirable for his WW1 exploits and his later endeavors to build and maintain his school. I also admire his not willing to so quickly cash in on his fame, though he did cave somewhat in the 40s when the Cooper film was made.

Less known - certainly not to me - were his occasional distinctly non-pacifist comments. Your source said that York "questioned the failure of United Nations forces to use the atomic bomb in Korea." These were the generals who wanted to unleash on Korea - and old Manchuria, the very section of China where I live now - an "atomic necklace". Incredible overkill! Millions of innocent civilians, many of them quite pro-Western - would have been annihilated. Such a beastly response, and yet one advocated by ones held up as examples (MacArthur and York) in our Christian schools.

And also, pushing for the US to nuke Russia in the late 40s, York said:

"If they can't find anyone else to push the button, I will."

This is hardly the Sgt. York from the A Beka textbook I taught from back in 00s. I wish I would have known this.

We both know bottom line is that the best proofs for or against a view is Scripture. I still believe that Christians as a whole - especially American Christendom - is less on the side of the angels than we think. Both as a nation and as individuals we tend to equate non-violence with mere pacifism, cowardice, fatalism - unbelief, even.

But I believe that non-violence is part of the very nature of the spiritual Kingdom of God, and the earnest proof of our faith.

The point about John the Baptist, especially, is well taken. I can't say I've arrived at a fixed position on all of this. My answer now would be that John was speaking from within the dispensation that was still current. Also, I believe his allowing comment to the soldiers was perhaps one of indulgent permission, not of advocation.

Concerning Ecc: This doesn't necessarily teach that all of these "times" were not to have an end. In fact, I believe that we are now in the time of "beating swords into plowshares".

But I can't bring myself to say that we do not need soldiers or armies at all. Like I said, I still need to work parts of this equation out.

This is all I have time for now.

 

Uh oh. I inadvertantly left out a phrase. I meant to write:
"But I believe that non-violence is part of the very nature of the spiritual Kingdom of God, and should be an integral part of our faith." (The "earnest proof" sentence I had deleted.)

Sorry for the confusion. I don't at all mean that those who disagree with me on this are not spiritual.

 

The one who wields the sword is a minister of God.

It's the effect of what you're saying. It's corban.

 

Sheesh Tom, never mind about York! He came to mind solely because of the movie I remember from my youth. I was willing to overlook him being a brawler in his younger days but I should've read the entire article before posting the link.

What do you think about Aaron's application of 'corban' on this topic?

 

I disagree. Don't pontificate, debate. It's not debate until you actually answer your opponent's points.

I completely disagree. Violent self defense is not vengeance in any way, shape or form. It is about opposing and stopping evil. Vengeance implies forethought, but self-defense is for the moment. In fact, to a trained martial artist, self-defense occurs without thought at all, due to the training taking over.

You keep making statements without proving them. That's not debate. I'm sorry, but I do not accept you as a teacher.

That's an illogical position. Insult that does not harm physically does not equal a violent attack that may cause harm. If you want to make this point, don't just state it, go on to prove it. You've not proven this point. Give examples, give other Scripture.

This is the first point you've made that I believe is valid. It is a good point. However, note that Jesus did not literally follow this when he was struck in Luke 22:64 (same Greek word). So the striking in Luke 6:29 must be of a just sort--in other words, did one deserve being slapped or struck?

If a nation can fight, an individual can fight. A nation's wars are not yet fought by robots, but by individuals.

First of all, stop referring to self defense as revenge. If you think it is, prove your point, don't just pontificate as if your saying so made it so.

Secondly, I don't believe in a "universal church," so your point here is a non-starter with me. If I on my own defend my family, that is not ergo, my local church committing violence (something I would oppose).

Yes, I get it. You get to decide what I am or am not offended by in your posts. And if I object to your statement, I am ergo, "mean-spirited."

But your first paragraphs in your OP remainsoffensive in that you compared self defense to fornication, etc. And then you think yourself righteous for mocking my posts and saying they are not worth answering. That makes you above me, more righteous and intelligent than I am, right?

If you didn't mean such, you should not have used the term "harm" in your definition. And once again, you mock my post by calling it silly, so you yourself look more intelligent and righteous.

Once again, you assume too much. The Bible teaches that if you love your son you will spank him (Prov. 13:24), which is an act of violence. Again, God chastens us because He loves us (Prov. 3:12), sometimes violently, as when God chastened me with a knee injury and surgery when I was in Bible college.

 

One interesting thing on this thread is that we who are posting against non-violence are using quite different arguments (all equally valid). My point here is that if non-violence were valid, why would there be so many different Biblical and logical ways to argue against it?

 

If one chooses to be "non-violent" under ANY circumstances, that is their prerogative. "Getting even", is, I agree, an act of vengeance, and prohibited by scripture; but defending self and/or others is not "vengeance".

If "YOU" (whoever that may be) are so against "violence", and I am aware of it, I will consciously refrain from intervening should the occasion arise, in accordance with "YOUR" beliefs.

However, "YOUR" refusal to physically protect your own family will not dictate my action if/when necessary.

If a man will not protect his family, well, I'll let you create your own adjective for such!!!! :tear:

Oh, getting a perp to focus on "YOU", in no way guarantees that future violence against your wife/daughter or other family members is negated; it could be merely delayed for a few minutes, in which case what have you accomplished????

Also one must STRONGLY consider whether the impetus to reject violence en toto is coming from God, self, or satan.

 

In no way construe what I've posted to be 'against' non-violence, I am very much for non-violence as far as it is possible and rational.

Anyone so far mention the violence done to others through words, or speech? You know, as in young children not physically but verbally abused, or ridiculed, made fun of, mocked, etc.. Verbal violence can have lifelong effects on another human.

 

A man that does not protect his family by any and all means needs to be taken out back of the wood shed. I have no use for them. Shameful

 

I posted this a few pages back. I believe it supports what you are saying

Nehemiah 4:14 NAS77
When I saw their fear, I rose and spoke to the nobles, the officials, and the rest of the people: "Do not be afraid of them; remember the Lord who is great and awesome, and fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your houses."