To simply say "it's ok to kill your enemies" is an attempt to place the situation in the worst possible light. The use of the word "ok" trivializes the matter. Even when it is necessary it is still not "ok". It is however permissible when protecting your life or others. Taking another's life should never be taken lightly or trivialized. It should be a last resort. Even then it is a sad and sorrowful thing to do.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Was Jesus a Pacifist?
- Thread starter Rebel
- Start date
Granted.
Curtis introduced the word "ok" not me. I said there is no support for Christians killing their enemies, he then went off on an absurd tangent about no one saying that it's "ok" to kill enemies and making false accusations against me. But that's clear if you just read through the exchange.
And how exactly are "permissible" and "ok" not synonymous? "OK" doesn't demand triviality.
This is why these conversations are usually pointless. Most are far too emotionally attached to their presupposition that they can't discuss it like a rational adult. This is a problem on both sides, but it is usually the pro-self defense/pro-just war side that loses their collective mind. It's sad.
I care not who said it.
Explaining the difference is like trying to break down why 1+1=2. Having to do so is very elementary and very frustrating because of that.
And maybe it's you just whining. You haven't won any argument, you have simply tried to frame our position.
I am quite sure that is exactly what you think. Very convenient.
Last edited by a moderator:
You're kidding right?
Weren't you wanting to be done with me? And I never claimed to win anything. You seriously need to work on either your reading comprehension or your honesty.
It is what I think, because I used to be one myself and I've seen it every single time I've been in this conversation.
Careful, Mitch. This isn't your father's OCD forum.
:laugh:
:laugh:
I guess that is all you got. I see this is about winning a debate now rather than discussion. I will leave you to it.
I asked you a simple question. How are the two not synonymous? You are unwilling to answer. Who is not willing to have a discussion again? :BangHead:
My questions are still up if you decide you actually want to discuss instead of making dishonest red herrings.
You've asked me a lot of questions. Which have I not answered ?
Jesus doesn't to have had to have taught it.
A complete illogical stance. You say in one reply that Jesus is for or against something and then in another reply you say it doesn't matter if Jesus taught it or not. Completely illogical. You take the position that is does not matter what Jesus taught, only what you believe is what counts.
Thanks Rev., but I will stand with Jesus teachings on how we should treat others. As I have said in other posts I am against abortion ... but that stance cannot be built on the teachings of Jesus or indeed the Bible. Only one verse vaguely speaks to abortion and it comes down on the side of the safety of the mother.
I didn't say that.
I don't know what that means.
I guess questions wasn't the right word, more like the points that we were discussing. Such as the pacifism, or lack of, of the early church and the biblical support, or lack of, for Christians employing violence. Also the general consensus here that it is OK, or permissible if some prefer, for Christians to kill their enemies. You claimed that no one has said such a thing.
I don't mean to jump into your discussion but what on earth does abortion have to do with pacifism??
ETA: Also, how can someone who seemingly affirms pacifism/non-violence (as you seem to) can also justify abortion in any case?
Last edited by a moderator: