Featured Violence

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.

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

Just emotionalism and a backhanded questioning of my salvation.

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...

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:

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.

 

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.

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.​

Can you love your enemy by killing him?

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

 

Exactly. Thank you.

 

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.

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

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!"

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.

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.

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

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... because that is what I meant.

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.

Well if your point wasn't silly...

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

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.

 

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:

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.