He also advocated responding to evil by not stooping to the level of one's opponent.Jesus counsels resistance, but without violence
You are right.
Jesus' teachings are practical. We need to read what Jesus teaches with overall context.
He also advocated responding to evil by not stooping to the level of one's opponent.Jesus counsels resistance, but without violence
Even if that were so (I disagree and find that whole post to be a big ball of twisted definitions) it still doesn't correspond to the question of "responding to violence in kind" nor self-defense.The verse according to a new translation called the "Scholars Version" reads in Matthew: "Don't react violently against the one who is evil."
The verse, according toa new translationan interpretation done back in 1991 by The Jesus Seminar called the "Scholars Version", reads in Matthew: "Don't react violently against the one who is evil."
Let's figure that out. Give me some examples.
All of them? Really? News to me.
We have to right (duty, I'd argue) to defend ourselves and the innocent, not just any old thing we decide we'd like to defend, like a nation or its politics.
Explain why their opinion trumps anyone and everyone else's.
Against lawful authorities. The rebuke was obviously (to anyone not having a vested interest their willing to twist scripture over anyway) a warning that lashing out at the guards like they could get you very dead. And rightly so, as they were performing the duty quite lawfully!
Word: macaira
Pronounce: makh'-ahee-rah
Strongs Number: G3162
Orig: probably feminine of a presumed derivative of 3163; a knife, i.e. dirk; figuratively, war, judicial punishment:--sword. G3163
Use: TDNT-4:524,572 Noun Feminine
Heb Strong: H1270 H2595 H2719 H3979
1) a large knife, used for killing animals and cutting up flesh
2) a small sword, as distinguished from a large sword
2a) curved sword, for a cutting stroke
2b) a straight sword, for thrusting
So are you saying that according to the Gospel if we are attacked by someone or our family is attacked by someone right in front of us who is trying to kill or seriously injure them we are to just sit and watch/allow it to be done to us?
So are you saying that according to the Gospel if we are attacked by someone or our family is attacked by someone right in front of us who is trying to kill or seriously injure them we are to just sit and watch/allow it to be done to us?
Well....You can sing "Kum-Bah-Yah" too if it makes you feel better. :idunno:
Between do nothing and violent self-defense there are a multitude of options, especially for those being protected by God.
Well....You can sing "Kum-Bah-Yah" too if it makes you feel better. :idunno:
Sung at the right pitch it will damage their eardrums and allow him to escape. :chuckle:
It helps to be a Black-Belt in Martial Vocalisms. :chuckle:
I talked my way out of two muggings. :blabla:
(No surprise, huh?)
That's not what I'm saying to do.
Between do nothing and violent self-defense there are a multitude of options, especially for those being protected by God.
Do you disagree?
Actually, No, It's not :chuckle:
...While I am a rather strong proponent of self-defense I am in full agreement that violence should always be a last resort and quite often is unnecessary if alternate approaches are considered.
Somewhat. I believe that God guarantees nothing for you but salvation.
He gives people on earth free will.
If someone uses their free will to attack me or my family ...
... I do not believe that I should [not] be able to defend my family and myself with what means I need to. Usually asking them to just stop doesn't work.
And if you believe God's promises for protection I shared above, that will temper your response.
It was your question, not mine. :idunno:Crack a history book open.
Then whether some soldiers believe they're defending a political point it's all the more irrelevant to the question of self defense, innit? Maybe you shouldn't have offered that as an argument.Did I say all of them? No.
I'm starting to catch on to how when you can't answer a point, you throw out some moral challenge that hasn't anything to do with anything.Talk is cheap. What are you doing to defend the babies being aborted near you?
Why, in particular? I would think you'd be more than willing to explain why their opinion matters so much to you, other than their agreeing with you.I haven't said their opinions trump other opinions, but we should consider why the Ante-Nicene period church was against military service and violence in self-defense.
That was part of it, yes. Just as Jesus clearly suggested. He also made the very point I made. It's you trying to twist that into some other meaning, not me. Besides, you're the one who brought it up, back in post #27, so why are you telling me to drop it?They were trying to arrest God. Okay? Just drop the lawful authority argument right there.
I think scripture speaks for itself. Considering I'm in agreement with the vast majority of those who've studied that scripture and your interpretation is in distinct minority, then it seems to me that it behooves you to prove that Jesus was telling them to sell their clothes to buy knives to scale fish with, or whatever. Most people are able to recognize that's ridiculous. Why would scripture spend so much emphasis on that? :AMR:You are only proving what I claimed. What you need to do is prove he meant take two swords to stab their enemies instead of for cutting meat.
And if you believe God's promises for protection I shared above, that will temper your response.