Violence

[Revmitchell]

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."

A man who does not do that is a coward and I have no respect for him. He is the same as a man who abuses his family.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

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."

Fight: The Hebrew lacham. "To fight, do battle, make war."

What say you now, you who advocate taking no action even against those who do you violence?

 

[kyredneck]

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."

A man who does not do that is a coward and I have no respect for him. He is the same as a man who abuses his family.

Fight: The Hebrew lacham. "To fight, do battle, make war."

What say you now, you who advocate taking no action even against those who do you violence?

So, do you all believe RLB is deserving of this gang mentality violence you're doing to him now? How much more will you pile on?

 

[kyredneck]

A man who does not do that is a coward and I have no respect for him. He is the same as a man who abuses his family.

There's something cowardly with you hiding behind that computer delivering your routine hateful jerk insults every day, very cowardly. Maybe you're the one that needs to be taken out behind the wood shed.

 

[Yeshua1]

First, already dealt with it here
Second, where does Jesus tells the disciples to use the swords "to defend themselves". I'll be waiting.



Well that's kind of the point of this thread. If you have an actual argument in your favor I'd love to hear it.


We don't know. In what was recorded no he doesn't - unless you are reading the KJV. Regardless, Jesus was after John the Baptist. So his ethical teachings came later.



I never said God is "always against the use of force" Yes God commanded war in the OT, also I believe Jesus himself will come with violence. That doesn't change that Christians are prohibited from it.



Nope.

Where under the new Covenant did God plainly state to us trhat while Christians, we are NOT showing others the love of jesus if we try to defend ourselves and others?

Should we have not liberated the Nazi death camps, and just let "God deal with it?"

What If God had ordained that by taking up force against Nazi germany, that was his way to deal with it?

What God still gas the reaping what you sow in effect, and that when one xhooses to commit violent acts, they can expect to be resisted and smacked back down?
That their own conduct brings about the forceful response, and that that God put that into how He expects us to react?

And jesus NEVER stated that the swords were for just show, as he plainly wanted them to defend themselves...

 

[RLBosley]

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

Speaking of the government, not Christians.
Read all of Romans 12 and 13 together. Paul sandwiches his teaching on the government as a minister of God to execute judgment, between two of the clearest passages on loving our enemies.

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

Keep repeating yourself all you want, it's not.

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.

Just emotionalism and a backhanded questioning of my salvation.

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

A man who does not do that is a coward and I have no respect for him. He is the same as a man who abuses his family.

No real argumentation here. Not even an attempt. Simply mischaracterize everything I've said and then determine that I should be ttreated with violence, because I am against violence. I think there's some irony there...

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."

Again, Old Covenant. I have agreed, repeatedly, that the Old Covenant saints were permitted to use violence. They were even commanded to on occasion. But that isn't us.

Let me quote Tertullian here:

One soul cannot be servant to two lords:
God and Caesar. And yet [Tertullian adds, referring to the rod, buckle, and belt of
the soldier] Moses carried a rod, Aaron wore a buckle, and John Baptist was girt
with leather. Joshua, the son of Nun, led a line of soldiers and the people warred
– if it pleases you to sport with the subject. But how will a Christian man make
war? How will he serve even in peace, without a sword, which the Lord has taken
away?

The immediate context of Tertullian's discussion is military service, but the point remains that there is a fundamental distinction between what was permitted in the Old Covenant compared to the New.

 

[RLBosley]

Fight: The Hebrew lacham. "To fight, do battle, make war."

What say you now, you who advocate taking no action even against those who do you violence?

See above. Also, AGAIN, where have I ever "advocate(d) taking no action?" Stop misrepresenting my position.

Also you ignored everything I said to you in response to your last post.

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.

Yes, often times our words need to be watched more carefully than our actions.

James 3:7-12 HCSB Every sea creature, reptile, bird, or animal is tamed and has been tamed by man, but no man can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. We praise our Lord and Father with it, and we curse men who are made in God’s likeness with it. Praising and cursing come out of the same mouth. My brothers, these things should not be this way. Does a spring pour out sweet and bitter water from the same opening? Can a fig tree produce olives, my brothers, or a grapevine produce figs? Neither can a saltwater spring yield fresh water.​

Where under the new Covenant did God plainly state to us trhat while Christians, we are NOT showing others the love of jesus if we try to defend ourselves and others?

Can you love your enemy by killing him?

Should we have not liberated the Nazi death camps, and just let "God deal with it?"

What If God had ordained that by taking up force against Nazi germany, that was his way to deal with it?

Again, the government can go to war, Romans 13 is clear.

Also, if the church actually loved it's enemies as it should, the death camps would have never existed.

What God still gas the reaping what you sow in effect, and that when one xhooses to commit violent acts, they can expect to be resisted and smacked back down?

That their own conduct brings about the forceful response, and that that God put that into how He expects us to react?

Smacking down criminals for Jesus! Somehow I doubt that's what the Lord and the Apostles expected of believers.

Man, I don't even have to rebut you, you're a parody of yourself.

And jesus NEVER stated that the swords were for just show, as he plainly wanted them to defend themselves...

I never said they were for show either. They had a purpose. The burden is on you to prove that their purpose was for self-defense.

 

[asterisktom]

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.

I wasn't trying to make a big deal about York but, the more I read and thought about his story, the more I realized how he (the later Col. York) personified much of modern "Americanity", a profession of faith coupled with a violent nationalism. I didn't mean to imply that you were relying on him as a main proof for any position.

BTW, I also see that there are more than two postions in this thread, however much some people here have tried to force it into a mere polarity of two.

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

The Internet is slow here. I couldn't get to all the comments. Did the application touch upon Romans 13?

Power will be out here on campus in a few hours. And - they assured us - just for a few hours. But last time it lasted for a day or two. Ah... life in China. But in a week I will be back in Kansas (for about a month) so it will be good to have fairly good connectivity again.

 

[Gina B]

Prove a sword is for self defense? This is getting too weird.
What else is carrying a sword for? Instead of being mysterious and saying there is some burden to prove the 99.9% logical answer, why not just enlighten everyone with what your alternative answer is, since it's the one you seem to believe is truth? If it's truth, don't be coy with it. Put it in the light.

 

[asterisktom]

.

Let me quote Tertullian here:
----

The immediate context of Tertullian's discussion is military service, but the point remains that there is a fundamental distinction between what was permitted in the Old Covenant compared to the New.

This is close to the essential point. There are things allowed or advocated in the OT that are proscribed in the NT. There are some pronouncements even in the NT that are still part of the OT system, some from John the Baptist, some even from Jesus and from Paul.

To understand just where to draw the line between Christian non-violence and mere pacifism, and even apathy and cowardice, we cannot just quote a verse, but we must also understand the context.

I like discussions like these because they help me in coming to better conclusions. But they can also be harmful to some, because the expected polarizing badgerers come in ("So, you will do nothing if your wife...etc.?"). The harm is that it causes some opponents to crystalize into an opposite view they haven't sufficiently thought out, forgetting that there are more than two sides to most discussions.

 

[RLBosley]

Prove a sword is for self defense? This is getting too weird.
What else is carrying a sword for? Instead of being mysterious and saying there is some burden to prove the 99.9% logical answer, why not just enlighten everyone with what your alternative answer is, since it's the one you seem to believe is truth? If it's truth, don't be coy with it. Put it in the light.

Have you read any of my other posts in this thread? I'm serious, because I have already answered this. I've put it out there in this thread (twice I think) and in one or two others. It's not like I'm hiding or being "coy" as you want to say. I'm just tired of repeating myself.

 

[RLBosley]

This is close to the essential point. There are things allowed or advocated in the OT that are proscribed in the NT. There are some pronouncements even in the NT that are still part of the OT system, some from John the Baptist, some even from Jesus and from Paul.

To understand just where to draw the line between Christian non-violence and mere pacifism, and even apathy and cowardice, we cannot just quote a verse, but we must also understand the context.

I like discussions like these because they help me in coming to better conclusions. But they can also be harmful to some, because the expected polarizing badgerers come in ("So, you will do nothing if your wife...etc.?"). The harm is that it causes some opponents to crystalize into an opposite view they haven't sufficiently thought out, forgetting that there are more than two sides to most discussions.

Exactly. Thank you.

 

[RLBosley]

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

What point of yours, or anyone, have I not answered? I've answered everything as far as I've seen. If I missed something please point it out. Those verses are specifically dealing with violence. You can try and differentiate vengeance from self-defense if you like but that doesn't change the fact those verses speak of violence.

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.

And you say I'm the one who is redefining words? Since when does vengeance imply forethought? Let's look at some definitions:

Vengeance - the act of doing something to hurt someone because that person did something that hurt you or someone else. : punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense.

There is nothing there about a necessary time between the offense and the vengeance, which you and others require in order to separate self-defense from vengeance. Also there is nothing there about forethought or planning. Vengeance can be, and often is instinctive.

Vengeance - 1.infliction of injury, harm, humiliation, or the like, on a person by another who has been harmed by that person; violent revenge:

Same really.

Of course modern English dictionaries may not always be the best to determine what the biblical terms mean. Regardless:

I admit, I don't know Greek so I am going off of the dictionaries that I can find online.

Looking at vengeance/revenge from Rom 12:9
G1556 ἐκδικέω

LSJ Gloss:

to avenge, punish

Strong's:

to vindicate, retaliate, punish

Thayer:
1) to vindicate one's right, do one justice
1a) to protect, defend, one person from another
2) to avenge a thing
2a) to punish a person for a thing

So looking at this the word doesn't simply mean taking your own revenge at a later date. It can even include executing justice, vindication, or even defending someone. I think all the definitions are implied in Romans 12, especially when you consider the entire context.

And frankly since when is self-defense about stopping evil? You may say that, but really it is about self preservation. No one who shoots a person breaking into their home thinking "Well this man is doing something evil, I need to stop his crime for the good of the country." Instead it's "Holy crap this dude's in my house, he needs to die!"

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.

I never said it equals a violent attack. I'm just saying it doesn't make sense for Jesus to say that we shouldn't respond to even an insult, but lets us kill someone breaking into our home (granted that's not an example you've used). That doesn't make sense.

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?

What? I'm honestly dumbfounded by this. How can you say that Jesus did not follow his own teaching in Luke 22? He is being beaten and mocked, yet never retaliates; he exemplifies turning the other cheek! Are you saying that simply because the text never says he literally turned his other cheek to them?

And how on earth can you say that the hitting in Luke 6:29 must be just? It is in the context of loving your enemies, doing good to them, giving up what is rightfully yours if asked for it (Maybe sued, the text isn't clear on that point.). There is no way Jesus is telling them that if they are hit for a just reason that they ought to endure it. Of course they should, but the clear context is in regarding those who are your enemy, not those who are enforcing some kind of law or justice.

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

Non sequiter. A nation can fight, but Christians can't. This is so plainly laid out in Romans 12-13.

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).

Dealt with the first above. The second is ironic, because you are arguing against this same distinction above, regarding Christians and nations. You are a Christian, and a group of Christians make up the church therefore if all Christians can use violence, the church can use violence. Yet you oppose that conclusion. However when I say that Christians are forbidden to fight, yet nations can, you take it in reverse and try to say that since the nations can fight Christians can! :laugh: You can't have it both ways.

Now it's not a problem for me, as there are other issues involved regarding Christians and nations ("in the world but not of it", we're ambassadors here not citizens, nations are made up of non-Christians, etc..).

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."

Yes... because that is what I meant.

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?

You are the only person who has been offended. There have been several posters here, none but you have mentioned any offense. Not did I ever think or say I was more righteous or intelligent.

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.

Well if your point wasn't silly...

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.

Again, you're going to say that and yet accuse me of redefining words? Really?

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?

Yes you are all using a variety of arguments, but there have been 1 maybe 2 valid points that may be against non-violence. With not a single one based on a good use of scripture, but logic/philosophy.

 

[Gina B]

Bosley, no, I have not read them all. My computer was set up for my visual issues and died, so I am on a little handheld. Still trying to enjoy the board as I am a bit housebound. Please be patient - I want to understand your position. It just gets confusing. I used to live close to an Amish community and they made sense to me. Their entire lifestyle was apart and separate, for the most.
I'm hoping that at some point, something you say will make your logic click for me and at least I will get it, even if I don't agree. I might ask you something you already answered, or ask you in different ways if I didn't understand your answer - but that's just the pain in the rear of having me on board. Ha! But then again, you can click a button and I disappear. The magic of the Internet.

 

[RLBosley]

Bosley, no, I have not read them all. My computer was set up for my visual issues and died, so I am on a little handheld. Still trying to enjoy the board as I am a bit housebound. Please be patient - I want to understand your position. It just gets confusing. I used to live close to an Amish community and they made sense to me. Their entire lifestyle was apart and separate, for the most.
I'm hoping that at some point, something you say will make your logic click for me and at least I will get it, even if I don't agree. I might ask you something you already answered, or ask you in different ways if I didn't understand your answer - but that's just the pain in the rear of having me on board. Ha! But then again, you can click a button and I disappear. The magic of the Internet.

Fair enough. I understand.

So then, let's look at Luke 22 and see why Jesus had the disciples get swords:

Luk 22:36-38 NASB - And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. "For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS'; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment." They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough."​

In an earlier response I laid out 4 reasons I do not believe that this passages supports the idea that Christians can use violence, particularly lethal force, or that the disciples were to have the sword for self-defense. I'm going to try and elaborate more fully on what I said before, instead of just rehashing what I said.

First, we can't just pull this out of the narrative and forget everything that has come up to this point. Thus far, all of Jesus teachings have been non-violent. He has taught that we need to love our enemies, and that we are to pray for those who abuse us and do good to them. Following this, he will humbly submit to Roman and Jewish authorities who will beat and mock him, blaspheme and torture him then finally execute them. He never responds with violence or threatening. Peter says this is the example we are to follow (1 Pet 2). It would be highly out of character if Jesus was suddenly encouraging the disciples to all go out and arm themselves for violent self-defense, especially in light of what he knows is coming, i.e., the overwhelmingly superior Roman soldiers and Temple guards.

Second, the only time the swords are used in self-defense Jesus harshly condemns it.

Mat 26:51-52 NASB - And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew out his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.​

Some will use the explanation that Jesus gives after these words, that all this must be done to fulfill the scriptures, in order to say that Jesus was only rebuking the use of the sword in this instance. But if that is the case, why doesn't he say that? Why doesn't he say to Peter, "Not now! You can use this again later, but now you can't." Instead, the Lord flatly condemns the use of the sword, period. He says "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword." There isn't a hint here that it is afterwards permissible for the sword to be used by his followers. Again, I'll quote Cecil Cadoux from his book, The Early Christian Attitude to War, because I think he nails it:

When Jesus was being arrested in the garden of Gethsemane, Peter drew a sword on his Master's behalf and attacked one of the High Priest's servants. Jesus, however, checked him: "Put back thy sword into its place : for all who take the sword shall perish by the sword." It is only by an unreal isolation of the events of Jesus' passion from the operation of all the usual moral and spiritual laws which govern humanity, that one can deny some sort of general application to the words here used. The circumstances of the case were of course in a measure special, but so is every incident in actual life : and, inasmuch as the grim truth with which Jesus supported his injunction was perfectly general, one might reasonably argue that the injunction itself was more than an order meant to meet a particular case, and had in it something of the universality of a general principle of conduct

Some also argue that Jesus would have told him to get rid of the sword instead of the specific "put your sword back into its place" if he intended for the disciples to never use the sword. First, I don't think that objection is capable of overturning the rest of the evidence in favor my position. Also, I think Jesus specific words actually support my case! He says to put it back in it's place, in other words the sheath is the place for the sword, it is where the sword belongs. As far as it concerns Christians, the sword is to be put away into it's place, not drawn out inflicting violence.

Third, the sheer impracticality of it prevents these swords being intended for self-defense. Jesus knows what is about to happen, he knows they will be confronted by Roman Legionaries and by Temple guards. But he says that these two swords is "enough" (v38). Enough for what? Certainly not defense against the mob coming to arrest Jesus! It's also certainly not enough for these 11 men to defend themselves in the coming days or years afterwards. 2 swords in the hands of 11 men is a laughably bad defense, especially considering the military occupation Palestine was under. It becomes even more laughable to consider that these men would have likely had no combat training or experience at all. Clearly 2 swords in the hands of 11 men is not "enough" for self-defense.

Fourth, the passage tells us exactly what the swords were "enough" for. Verse 37, "For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS'; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment." The swords were to fulfill this prophecy, that the Messiah be considered as a lawbreaker, giving the Romans the legal grounds to arrest and execute him.

 

[Aaron]

Speaking of the government, not Christians.
Read all of Romans 12 and 13 together. Paul sandwiches his teaching on the government as a minister of God to execute judgment, between two of the clearest passages on loving our enemies.

I know the context well. Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. To be just, the sword must be wielded in obedience to God. The NT is clear, the civil government is the minister of God to execute wrath upon the evildoer and to praise him that does well.

So what you're saying is, it is right and just for the nonchristian to wield the sword, but immoral for the Christian to do so.

Keep repeating yourself all you want, it's not.

Yes it is.

 

[padredurand]

This is close to the essential point. There are things allowed or advocated in the OT that are proscribed in the NT. There are some pronouncements even in the NT that are still part of the OT system, some from John the Baptist, some even from Jesus and from Paul.

To understand just where to draw the line between Christian non-violence and mere pacifism, and even apathy and cowardice, we cannot just quote a verse, but we must also understand the context.

I like discussions like these because they help me in coming to better conclusions. But they can also be harmful to some, because the expected polarizing badgerers come in ("So, you will do nothing if your wife...etc.?"). The harm is that it causes some opponents to crystalize into an opposite view they haven't sufficiently thought out, forgetting that there are more than two sides to most discussions.

The context of Nehemiah is very clear Tom. These are not military folk. These are a close knit community of people who feared attack while they rebuilt their homes. How do you draw a line between protecting your home in the time of Nehemiah and Ezra and today? What is different? Were folk more inclined to protect their families in ancient times than we are today? How, exactly, does the NT negate a man's concern for his loved ones?

But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
1 Timothy 5:8 KJV

Providing for your family is much more than bringing home groceries.

In the Nehemiah passage the people were told to fear not. Their fear would be assuaged in two parts: remember the power and might of God and rise up and defend your families. How do you draw a line between these two realities? In the NT God is still seen as powerful and mighty. How would you be justified in severing this verse? How could you state we believe God is still powerful and mighty but we don't believe the defend your family part?

 

[asterisktom]

How, exactly, does the NT negate a man's concern for his loved ones?

...

Providing for your family is much more than bringing home groceries.

Either you seriously misread my post, or I was not clear in stating my view - or both. At any rate, I am nowhere near saying the above. But it is too late to respond tonight other than these few words.

Please try not to equate espousing non-violence with mere pacifism.

 

[padredurand]

Either you seriously misread my post, or I was not clear in stating my view - or both. At any rate, I am nowhere near saying the above. But it is too late to respond tonight other than these few words.

Please try not to equate espousing non-violence with mere pacifism.

Let's go with both. :thumbs: I suspect we've talked past each other assuming the extremes in position. Like other topics on BB, our definitions vary quite a bit and we end up missing the true idea of what the other was saying. Let me clarify what I meant perhaps to aid our discussion.

My perspective is one of defense. I would not advocate any Christian actively pursuing conflict. If you go out looking for a confrontation you will certainly find it. That would be on the offensive. My point is what to do when the threat comes into your home or person.

We use many forms of passive defenses to guard and protect our person or property. We put locks on our doors and cars. We avoid places known to be dangerous and take precautions to minimize the risk when those places are unavoidable. What do you do when all those precautions are breached?

I believe defense to be among the most primitive of human instinct. If I threw a handful of dirt toward your face you shut your eyes without a moment's worth of thought. If I tried to hit you with a stick your arms move to block the blow. Granted our skills pale compared to John of Japan but we still, instinctively. move to protect ourselves. Equally, we do the same for those we love. How many stories have you read of mother's being found covering their children following a tornado.

To do otherwise, I believe, would be contrary to our natural instinct. I like the old story of the Quaker confronting an intruder. "Friend, he said, "I mean thee no harm but thou standeth where I am about to shoot."

 

[John of Japan]

What point of yours, or anyone, have I not answered? I've answered everything as far as I've seen. If I missed something please point it out. Those verses are specifically dealing with violence. You can try and differentiate vengeance from self-defense if you like but that doesn't change the fact those verses speak of violence.

Try my post #3 + #13, to which you only gave a partial answer. Jesus clearly used violence against intruders in His Father's house especially in John, where He actually used an improvised weapon (something common in self-defense).

There are others, but I'll not take time to go back through and find them. We're on the road for the rest of the month.

And you say I'm the one who is redefining words? Since when does vengeance imply forethought? Let's look at some definitions:

Vengeance - the act of doing something to hurt someone because that person did something that hurt you or someone else. : punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense.

There is nothing there about a necessary time between the offense and the vengeance, which you and others require in order to separate self-defense from vengeance. Also there is nothing there about forethought or planning. Vengeance can be, and often is instinctive.

Vengeance - 1.infliction of injury, harm, humiliation, or the like, on a person by another who has been harmed by that person; violent revenge:

Same really.

And again you miss my point. I wasn't defining vengeance but describing the process. There may only be the reaction (in a few seconds) that says, "He punched me. How dare he! I'll punch him back!" That is vengeance, usually manifesting itself in street fights--which can be seen by the dozen on Youtube.

I know of no self defense instructor (and I know many and have taught many black belts in seminars) who would endorse this kind of revenge thinking. In fact, almost all traditional martial arts schools, especially with Christian instructors and a Christian philosophy, that I know would eject a student for revenge thinking and street fighting.

I suggest here that you know very little of how self defense is taught and the philosophy taught in a Christian self defense class. If you are truly here to learn, and would like to understand genuine self defense thinking (as opposed to MMA, etc.), you can order my pamphlet, A Christian Philosophy of Self Defense, very cheaply at (second from the bottom): http://www.seigibushidoryu.com/resources/publications.asp.
P. S. I make no money from the sale.

Of course modern English dictionaries may not always be the best to determine what the biblical terms mean. Regardless:

I admit, I don't know Greek so I am going off of the dictionaries that I can find online.

Looking at vengeance/revenge from Rom 12:9
G1556 ἐκδικέω

So looking at this the word doesn't simply mean taking your own revenge at a later date. It can even include executing justice, vindication, or even defending someone. I think all the definitions are implied in Romans 12, especially when you consider the entire context.

Again, I wasn't defining the term. Also, the Greek and English words have a different range of meaning. The English word "revenge" does not have the meaning of "defend."

And frankly since when is self-defense about stopping evil? You may say that, but really it is about self preservation. No one who shoots a person breaking into their home thinking "Well this man is doing something evil, I need to stop his crime for the good of the country." Instead it's "Holy crap this dude's in my house, he needs to die!"

Again, you show a complete lack of knowledge of genuine self defense. It's not that way at all. If you read my pamphlet with a genuine desire to learn, you'll see this.

I never said it equals a violent attack. I'm just saying it doesn't make sense for Jesus to say that we shouldn't respond to even an insult, but lets us kill someone breaking into our home (granted that's not an example you've used). That doesn't make sense.

It does to me.

What? I'm honestly dumbfounded by this. How can you say that Jesus did not follow his own teaching in Luke 22? He is being beaten and mocked, yet never retaliates; he exemplifies turning the other cheek! Are you saying that simply because the text never says he literally turned his other cheek to them?

And how on earth can you say that the hitting in Luke 6:29 must be just? It is in the context of loving your enemies, doing good to them, giving up what is rightfully yours if asked for it (Maybe sued, the text isn't clear on that point.). There is no way Jesus is telling them that if they are hit for a just reason that they ought to endure it. Of course they should, but the clear context is in regarding those who are your enemy, not those who are enforcing some kind of law or justice.

Did you actually read the verse I gave you where Jesus rebuked those who were going to kill Him for striking Him (same Greek word tupto) on the cheek? Paul also did this in Acts 23:2-3 (same Greek word) without turning the other cheek.

Neither Jesus nor Paul turned the other cheek, which suggests that Jesus (in the wider context of His complete teaching) did not teach turning the other cheek in all circumstances. Until you explain why Jesus and Paul did not turn the other cheek, you have not properly exegeted Luke 6:29.