How do you defend yourself against people who will blow themselves up to kill you?

[eider]

In that situation Peter the outcome would have been dire for Peter, who wasn't at that juncture yet. Beyond that, Peter was interfering in God's plan, as surely as when Jesus had to rebuke him.

Thankyou for the time that you took in replying.....
You mention 'God's plan'. You cut through the hatred, the mammon and the violence and go straight for the main objective (probably) of your own whole life and purpose, as well as that group that waited in Gethsemane..... am I right? Any impertence or presumption not intended.
So.... Cephas could carry a sword with him, but Jesus had no intention of anybody using any violence at all?
So Christians should only use force to protect and deter......... and only use violence as the very last resort as an extreme measure not-taken-lightly?

That's what we try and do in the UK. Back in the troubles of N.I. our soldiers had to receive orders to return fire when under attack, and in one incident when a bomber (can't remember which side.... both sides tried to our soldiers at times) ran forward, threw a bomb (intended to kill, but hurting nobody) and then turned and ran away, one of our soldiers (filled with adrenaline, fear and shock) shot at him as he ran, killing him. That incident is still argued to this day. I don't know where you live but that's how fraut a situation can be here and yet no violence is returned..... but if some of our soldiers had raced him down, tripped him to the ground and nicked his nasty murderous backside, that's lots of force, but violence? I don't think so..... Many members here have supported the idea of generalised and extreme violence.... and I say 'No', which I think that you do as well.

It's interesting, but scripture is fairly clear that Jesus didn't finger wag the money changers from the temple. He also didn't chase them with a sword. Neither did he turn a metaphorical cheek to them.

Indeed...... Jesus (and I suspect his disciples and followers) threw down equipment and ejected many many people........ not meaning to be irreverent, but our night club door supervisors do that every friday and most other nights.
There was lots of force........ and no violence reported in the synoptics. Our specialiosts say that Mark was written first because Matthew and Luke copied, and John was written circa 90-110AD; if you believe that John was John BarZebedee then he would have been about 90 years old by then.... I like G-Mark:-
Mark ]{11:15} And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves; {11:16} And would not suffer that any man should carry [any] vessel through the temple.

We differ. Especially when you consider the treatment and prisons of Paul's day.

Depends which and where, and who the prisoner was, I guess. In Idumea, Judea and Samaria any prisons were Roman. In Perea and Galilee they were Antipas's. Decapolis, Gadarenes, Trachonitis, Gaulanitus... Philip. Violence was everwhere in all areas.
Legate Varus sold all the captured women and children into slavery to pay for the costly Zippori incident, and after using all the male prisoners to raze Sepphoris he either crucified or impaled the lot.... had plenty of timber I expect.

Violence back then has nothing to do with Jesus and his way.

I don't agree the death penalty is necessitated and I think Jesus is the reason why, but that's another ball of wax.

Yes. I agree. And another debate......

Here's the problem with that line of thinking...is it defensive or going out if you leave the safety of your home to stop someone from committing an act of evil against your neighbor or his children? Defense can begin to stretch when you consider it.

I believe that the police who shot the three killers dead last Saturday night in London had absolutely no other choice. No other choice. But some members here are either proposing a general attack on all Muslims (because they either do or support killing...crazy) or 'glassing' Mecca and Medina, or casting Muslim citizens out of their homes and countries. That's not defense, it's deliberate violence.

You mention acts that are evil. By all means go and assist anybody who is being robbed, burgled or suffering theft, but if in the UK think they can use unreasonable levels of force then they'll come unstuck. I used to train ciommercial detectives and this section was/is intense. I'm not getting feedback here (from many) that they have any intention of using 'Reasonable force' at all.

You mention 'neighbours or their children'. That is a worrying mindset because it shows some level of emotion linked to any action that might be taken........ If an old pensioner was being car-jacked on a fuel-station forcourt then I expect that you'd want to help. The 18 stone rugby player who stood and watched while you struggled with a car-jacker was later asked 'Why didn't you help?' He replied, 'Nah..... no kiddies in the car, mate'.

 

[eider]

:freak: "The poster" actually wished to not need to consider using force in defense of life or limb at all, that's the preferred wish of "the poster," but you failed to consider that in your rush to judge "the poster," in point of fact.

So your posts proposing extreme violence are all just hot air...... Great. That's sorted., then.

You're a Protestant ......

No, I'm not.

....in deep need of the Catholic supreme pastor, because you're in way over your head in scriptural hermeneutics, theology, and ethical reasoning. The popes are specially for those like you, you overthink simple things like self defense and defending innocent people; you need help with your faith, just like all Christians---you in particular are clearly untrained and unskilled in living with and by your faith.

You have no clue about what I have learned about the life and mission of Jesus.

Who is advocating for that now?
:freak: Heaven only knows how you managed to read into my posts that I was arguing for "internationally going out to inflict "lethal force" upon anybody." :freak:
:freak: ! Who's saying this? Who are you talking to here?
Censored.

Great News! So you, your Church, and yours have absolutely no intention of ever interferring with law-abiding peaceful Muslims anywhere.
That's fine.
Thank goodness we sorted that out.
Excellent.

 

[Town Heretic]

Thankyou for the time that you took in replying.....You mention 'God's plan'. You cut through the hatred, the mammon and the violence and go straight for the main objective (probably) of your own whole life and purpose, as well as that group that waited in Gethsemane..... am I right?

I hope so.

So.... Cephas could carry a sword with him, but Jesus had no intention of anybody using any violence at all?

I can give my son a baseball, but it doesn't follow that he should throw it in church. No, I think the specific point in the garden is something other than what Peter understands. He's in the act of throwing his life away and reducing the meaning of that moment to, "We went to arrest Jesus and they resisted, so we..." Jesus protected Peter from himself while preserving God's plan for that moment.

It doesn't follow that Jesus simply thought Peter would look good with a scary knife to carry about, though if that did the trick (as with people putting home security signs on their lawn to ward off potential thieves) terrific. As with protecting your life or others, there are seasons where violence can be unavoidable and serve the good, and times where failing to act in that way would serve evil. On the whole though and as a rule violence will serve the wrong master.

So Christians should only use force to protect and deter......... and only use violence as the very last resort as an extreme measure not-taken-lightly?

Seems right to me. There's so little room for it in the faith the act is something I believe communities of faith should address and prepare for, understanding the scripturally supportable moment from another. We often talk about the need to resist sin, but how often do we begin to work out the details of how and when?

That's what we try and do in the UK. Back in the troubles of N.I. our soldiers had to receive orders to return fire when under attack, and in one incident when a bomber (can't remember which side.... both sides tried to our soldiers at times) ran forward, threw a bomb (intended to kill, but hurting nobody) and then turned and ran away, one of our soldiers (filled with adrenaline, fear and shock) shot at him as he ran, killing him. That incident is still argued to this day. I don't know where you live but that's how fraut a situation can be here and yet no violence is returned..... but if some of our soldiers had raced him down, tripped him to the ground and nicked his nasty murderous backside, that's lots of force, but violence? I don't think so..... Many members here have supported the idea of generalised and extreme violence.... and I say 'No', which I think that you do as well.

There's certainly an element of subjectivity in terms of setting the line of demarcation on distinguishing violence from something less. To some, any act of will that contravenes another's is a violent act. And so on.

Indeed...... Jesus (and I suspect his disciples and followers) threw down equipment and ejected many many people........ not meaning to be irreverent, but our night club door supervisors do that every friday and most other nights.

Men fleeing other men is hard to reckon without considering the response a response to the perception of threat and actions which can be described as violent, implying peril.

I believe that the police who shot the three killers dead last Saturday night in London had absolutely no other choice. No other choice. But some members here are either proposing a general attack on all Muslims (because they either do or support killing...crazy) or 'glassing' Mecca and Medina, or casting Muslim citizens out of their homes and countries. That's not defense, it's deliberate violence.

It's an expression of a deep seated hostility and fear, to my mind, that wraps the irrational response in the semblance of reason and the service of evil in the appearance of public virtue.

We are commanded not to commit murder. Even if you warned people ahead of time you'd have to understand many would remain to protest, some would never know and lives would be lost, additional violence incited without any real justification. Murder and planting the seeds of murder in that moment. There's no Christ in it.

You mention 'neighbours or their children'. That is a worrying mindset because it shows some level of emotion linked to any action that might be taken.

I don't believe you can love your neighbor and not be emotionally connected to his defense. The easiest way of illustrating the connection that should exist regardless is to bring children into the equation.

 

[DavidK]

What about those in dearborn who stone christians and already practice sharia?

We already have laws for people who try to hurt other people with rocks.

Any community is free to agree with each other on rules, as long as they don't conflict with current US law. Jewish communities have organizations to settle matters under their beliefs without going to a public court. Corporations establish rules within their organizations. This is all fine as long as US law is not broken. When it is, then the justice system gets involved.

 

[DavidK]

It would count as subversive and seditious, because it would be both.

How so? The constitution itself contains the instrument for changing it. If Muslims could get enough states together to convene a convention to remake the constitution to reflect Sharia law, it would be completely... well... constitutional.

Did you see the earlier quote about the judicial decision in favor of the communist? Communists are absolutely within constitutional right to try and remake the US into a communist state as long as they do it within the constitutional system.

 

[DavidK]

Wrong again. The 1952 law was based on those who attempt to over throw the constitution.

Article 4 says:

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.


https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-v

Sharia by its very nature would circumvent the 1st and 4th as high lighted above.

Are you trying to say we are currently in a year prior to 1808?

 

[ok doser]

Islam has been here, but this isn't about being a fan of Islam.


They're 1% of the population. Should be about 2% by 2050.

they're 0.9% of the population

and they account for 14% of terrorist acts committed in america

by 2050, they'll probably account for 28% of all terrorist acts committed in america

 

[ok doser]

clete hacks town's password and posts:

To nudge in a wee bit, when Christ sent some of his men out he told them to buy a sword. Jesus also used violence in his attack on the men who had turned his temple into a den of thieves. And Jesus didn't tell us to free those in prison, but to visit them, though being barred from rights and languishing in prison is in its nature a violence. So the often over used "other cheek" and "die by the sword" scriptural snippets require context, in much the same way that you need context to distinguish between murder and a lawful killing in defense of your own. Christ didn't demand pacifism any more than he expected everyone to sell what they had to give to the poor.

:thumb:

 

[Town Heretic]

they're 0.9% of the population

Just going by the data on hand from Pew.

and they account for 14% of terrorist acts committed in america

The only figure I've seen was the study that had it 11 of 89 and closer to 12%, but either way it's high. Close to 10% of prison populations too, though Protestants comprise 50% of that...which means we should seriously keep an eye on Protestants, eh? And when you factor in the Catholics the majority of criminals are Christian.

That make Christianity a problem? I don't believe that it does.

by 2050, they'll probably account for 28% of all terrorist acts committed in america

No way of knowing. They might not account for any by then. Once upon a time the Red Guard was a huge problem for Italy and the IRA was a violent thorn in Great Britain's side.

Charles Kurzman, Professor of Sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, has been studying and writing on terrorism and had this surprising bit to add to the current discussion (surprising given media coverage):

The sample of Muslim Americans turning to terror is “vanishingly small,” Kurzman tells Danger Room. Measuring the U.S. Muslim population is a famously inexact science, since census data don’t track religion, but rather “country of origin,” which researchers attempt to use as a proxy. There are somewhere between 1.7 million and seven million American Muslims, by most estimates, and Kurzman says he operates off a model that presumes the lower end, a bit over 2 million. That’s a rate of involvement in terrorism of less than 10 per million, down from a 2003 high of 40 per million, as detailed in the chart above.​

 

[ok doser]

No way of knowing. They might not account for any by then.

keep dreaming pollyanna :chuckle:

 

[Town Heretic]

keep dreaming pollyanna :chuckle:

I went back and added an empirical support for the notion (out of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), though I have to say I like the handle. In objective terms, leveling against your tendency to grossly exaggerate, that only means I'm optimistic, which is true.

That said, I hope it's a common optimism and that things play out that way.

 

[eider]

I hope so.

Fair enough. It might surprise you, but if I asked any 100 random persons that same question in my local high-street, I might not get one single 'I hope so' answer. Truly. And so reading posts such as yours is very valuable for me.

I can give my son a baseball, but it doesn't follow that he should throw it in church. No, I think the specific point in the garden is something other than what Peter understands. He's in the act of throwing his life away and reducing the meaning of that moment to, "We went to arrest Jesus and they resisted, so we..." Jesus protected Peter from himself while preserving God's plan for that moment.

Oh, he was a fiery hot-blooded 'in your face' guy, alright. A few reports of his mindset in the NT.
On the side, you and all the world call him Peter. I never shall..... he was Cephas to his, and no translation to Greek or Latin needed. Have you seen the anchors that they've been bringing out of Genessaret's lake bed in recent years? Amazing shaped rocks drilled through for a warp. Rocks. I often wonder if Jesus meant that Simon BarJona was his 'anchorman'.

It doesn't follow that Jesus simply thought Peter would look good with a scary knife to carry about, though if that did the trick (as with people putting home security signs on their lawn to ward off potential thieves) terrific. As with protecting your life or others, there are seasons where violence can be unavoidable and serve the good, and times where failing to act in that way would serve evil. On the whole though and as a rule violence will serve the wrong master.

Fair enough. The whole group of disciples were tough hard men. Working the lake was a very hard existence, with corrupt officials running boat licensing, and publicans charging taxation for landing, selling and hauling catches. There would not have been a weak boatman on the lake. Origam mentioned that Celcius had written that at least ten of the disciples were boatmen, plus two taxmen, equally very seriously hard cases. I run on....

Seems right to me. There's so little room for it in the faith the act is something I believe communities of faith should address and prepare for, understanding the scripturally supportable moment from another. We often talk about the need to resist sin, but how often do we begin to work out the details of how and when?

I understand your point. Some Christians will not kill, period. My parent's next door neighbour was a lay preacher and fisherman and he consciencously objected to fighting during WW11 and so he was allowed to continue fishing. He saved many Allied and German airmen from the North Sea, and was shot up several times by both sides. He lived, and later skippered a lifeboat. Courage comes in different forms. But he was a tough bloke and I reckon he would have knocked down any who tried to hurt his own.

There's certainly an element of subjectivity in terms of setting the line of demarcation on distinguishing violence from something less. To some, any act of will that contravenes another's is a violent act. And so on.

Absolutely! We are in the right! Our attack is defence, theirs is an outrage!
I trained commercial detectives and investigators and they needed to shut out everything but the consideration about how a jury might later decide about their actions, all seated safely, if not comfortably!

Men fleeing other men is hard to reckon without considering the response a response to the perception of threat and actions which can be described as violent, implying peril.

It's shock, fear, adrenalin, often terror, often extreme anger...... and, actually, when people make mistakes in those conditions they are not 'of evil mind' I forget how to spell 'mens rhea'..... something like that. But pre-meditated intentional violence is usually wicked. Having said that, the Israeli attack at Entebbe was intentional, but they were going in to save the lives of theirs, taken as a terrorist act. Entebbe was one of the bravest military actions ever, imo.

It's an expression of a deep seated hostility and fear, to my mind, that wraps the irrational response in the semblance of reason and the service of evil in the appearance of public virtue.

I wouldn't let a person who deliberately, intentionally set out to harm others later appeal on the grounds that they were doing something good. But my father who fought in Burma in WW11 couldn't stay in a posh London restaurant when, years later, a smart Japanese group entered the place. He couldn't stay in the same room. Ask him about Nagasaki and he'd be pleased to tell his thoughts about that.

We are commanded not to commit murder. Even if you warned people ahead of time you'd have to understand many would remain to protest, some would never know and lives would be lost, additional violence incited without any real justification. Murder and planting the seeds of murder in that moment. There's no Christ in it.

Are you referring to the suggested bombing and destruction of the Islamic Holy Rock? I get your point, and would like to add that we in the West have received reports of Islamic extremists destroying most anmcient and holy places around the World, tearing down great Statues of the Buddha, and Christian Temples, etc, and we have been shocked and saddened enough not to want to do anything like that to any Muslim Icon. There's a good placxe to mention 'turning cheeks'.

I don't believe you can love your neighbor and not be emotionally connected to his defense. The easiest way of illustrating the connection that should exist regardless is to bring children into the equation.

Emotion is being chill in hellfire, dry in the sea, when reason leaves the mind,(Jalaladin), and unreasoning violence often causes more harmstill, that's all.


My reply is probably rubbish, but you've caused me to sit and actually think for about 45 minutes now. So your post can't have been too bad.......

 

[ok doser]

The sample of Muslim Americans turning to terror is “vanishingly small​

i'm sure that will be a great comfort to the loved ones of those slaughtered by them

 

[dodge]

Are you trying to say we are currently in a year prior to 1808?

Hello ! That law is still active and on the books. Has the 1st and 4th been annulled ? Answer: no

 

[Angel4Truth]

We already have laws for people who try to hurt other people with rocks.

We have laws against rape and illegal immigration and female genital mutilation and honor killings too. Doesnt stop it.

Any community is free to agree with each other on rules, as long as they don't conflict with current US law.

yeah, which is why communities get sued all the time from people who dont live there
Jewish communities have organizations to settle matters under their beliefs without going to a public court. Corporations establish rules within their organizations. This is all fine as long as US law is not broken. When it is, then the justice system gets involved.

Sharia conflicts with US law.

 

[Angel4Truth]

How so? The constitution itself contains the instrument for changing it. If Muslims could get enough states together to convene a convention to remake the constitution to reflect Sharia law, it would be completely... well... constitutional.

Easy to understand why they are flooding other countries and then trying to change the laws to what they supposedly are escaping, right?

 

[Angel4Truth]

they're 0.9% of the population

and they account for 14% of terrorist acts committed in america

by 2050, they'll probably account for 28% of all terrorist acts committed in america

Ill bet its higher than that, if we make it that long.

Revelation 20:4

Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

 

[Nihilo]

No, I'm not.

Yes you are. No Catholic would have any trouble with what I've been saying, they would just look up self defense and defense of innocent people in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, where these matters are treated clearly and unambiguously. That's your "New Covenant source," if you are willing to accept it.

 

[Angel4Truth]

 

[eider]

Yes you are.

Wrong. Try again.
There are over 3000 Creeds, Churches and Denominations of Christianity, so educate yourself, humble yourself and then stop telling people what they are.

No Catholic would have any trouble with what I've been saying, they would just look up self defense and defense of innocent people in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, where these matters are treated clearly and unambiguously. That's your "New Covenant source," if you are willing to accept it.

Hmmmm..... pity the vasst majority of your Catholic ancestors didn't live by any Creed of Peace, really.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is not the New Covenant.
The New Covenant can only be found in the Divine Words of God as passed to His Ordained Prophets and Apostles and Writ Large in the Gospels and other books and letters of the New Testament.

Anything else is just man-made drivvle.