Why even pacifists should practice self defense

[tracysaboe]

You're appealing to the OT?  You mean the "weak and beggarly elements"? (Gal 4:3)

Maine isn't. He's just pointing out the weak argument of using the old testiment "Though shalt not kill" as proof that we shouldn't be violent then turning around and saying the Mosaic law was abolished.

I understand that neither of you too were basing your arguments of that, but I think he thought maybe you were.

Tracy

[tracysaboe]

Let me know when you figure out a rational reason why Jesus told people that owning a sword was more important than clothing, if not for violent purposes...
Joe

Jesus' command was most likely figurative according to many Biblical scholars:

So now you want to pick and choose what you want to use from the Bible?

You're sounding alot like the liberal theology or process thinking nonsense I was inundated with all through college.

Tracy

[Michael Fisher]

Let me know when you figure out a rational reason why Jesus told people that owning a sword was more important than clothing, if not for violent purposes...
Joe

Jesus' command was most likely figurative according to many Biblical scholars:

So now you want to pick and choose what you want to use from the Bible?

You're sounding alot like the liberal theology or process thinking nonsense I was inundated with all through college.

Tracy

Not at all, Tracy. Face it, Jesus spoke to the disciples in parables and metaphors now and then. He usually announced it beforehand and afterward. But, at least a few times, he spoke in metaphors during normal conversations.
For example, "I have food to eat that you do not know about." Jesus wasn't talking about food.

Also, you must read things in context to understand the form of speech and the meaning. It's very clear that Jesus was talking metaphorically at that time, because the next verse was clearly metaphorical:

Luke 22:36-37

"Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

("Prepare your spirits, because the time is now.")

"For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end."

("I know no sin, but will take the sin of the world upon myself.")

That is, unless you believe Jesus was saying he's a transgressor, or that his purpose is coming to an end. He was clearly speaking metaphorically in that context.

[Caleb]

Quote me chapter and verse on that last part. Please.

I guess I see you as making up stuff in the Bible that isn't there to support your pacifistic worldview.

I'm still waiting for you to quote chapter and verse for that.

Patience, Patience.  Two things, Tracy:  First, we've been busy here in Keene due to the Lauren incarceration.  Second, I'm a little aghast that I have to reference a quote from the Sermon on the Mount for you.  But, since you appear to have never seen it before, I'm more than happy to quote it for you:

"DON'T REACT VIOLENTLY AGAINST THE ONE WHO IS EVIL." (Matthew 5:39, Scholar's Version)

You still haven't proven to me how defending my wife or my neighbor from agression is violating God's Commandments or Jesus definition of immorality. Are you saying that I shouldn't do what Paul says to do in his letter to the Ephesians?

Tracy, you are not allowed to judge.  God does that.  It gets to the very heart of what it means to be a Christian. The sin of Genesis was wanting to decide for ourselves what is good and evil.  Pacifism is the ultimate surrender to God of the decision of what is good and evil.  We no longer make the determination by judging and then carrying out judgment (actually, I would argue that the command not to "judge" actually means not to carry out judgment.  Jesus elsewhere tells us to "judge" in the sense of "watch out for the leaven of the Pharisees."  The command not to judge, therefore, does not mean to avoid making a mental assent, it means not to impose that judgement or carry it out, but to leave all things to God.)

This is part of the spiritual reason behind Jesus' command not to react violently towards one who is evil.  That's really more than you need to know:  All you need to know to obey is that he said it.

As I've explained to you time and time again, you are permitted to take care of your wife (Paul nowhere says to "defend" her.  Funny that it is you who is adding words like "defend" where they don't exist even whilst you accuse me of adding stuff.) You must, in fact, take care of your wife as your own body or you are worse off than a man without faith.  But in so doing, you must stick to moral means to achieve moral ends.  And since Christ defines resisting evil violently as immoral, then it is forbidden to you for any reason, even for noble reasons like taking care of your wife.  For the third time.  I hope this clarifies.

[tracysaboe]

It seems to me the word "cherish" means protect. And is translated as thus in numerous translations.

It's the very definition of love. "To Nuture and Cherish." It's right out of the letter to the Ephesians.

THanks for your responce though. It was well taken.

2ndly. Their are numerous ways to defend and protect w/o necessarily being violent.

Tracy

[MaineShark]

You're appealing to the OT?

Nope.  Just pointing out that it?s amusing to see Christians saying on the one hand that the OT no longer applies, and on the other that the Ten Commandments do.

And that many Christians (not necessarily ones here) think that non-violence stems from the thoroughly-mistranslated ?Thou shalt not kill.?

Why were the first Christians pacifists?

Why was Ghandi?  You know, there is definitely a parallel there.  Jesus and the sword, Ghandi and the comments about gun control.

Why is there no record of any Christian defending himself, his family, or his brothers from violence?

Ever?

You know, a guy like Maineshark can be understood.  He doesn't call Jesus Lord.  But those who do like to say, "Lord, Lord ... did we not do this and that, this and that all in your name?" ... well, his friends are those who obey him.  He said not to resist evil violently.  Obey or not, your choice.  At least Maineshark has the courage to admit that Jesus isn't his Lord.

I was unaware that required any courage.

Imagine what a positive role Christianity could play in the world if we Christians would universally be the salt of the earth by renouncing violence.  Imagine the blessings we could bring to the earth by beating our swords into plowshares, and our spears into pruning hooks.

Hmmm... is that why they were supposed to own swords?  So they?d have something to beat into plowshares?

I imagine that, if Christians had actually been non-violent throughout history, the world would likely be a better place.  A lot of blood was shed in Jesus? name.  And, regardless of whether you Christians ever decide amongst yourselves whether Jesus would oppose all violence, I think you?ll certainly agree that he would have been horrified by most of it.

But I also imagine that, if Christians had actually been non-violent throughout history, there would be few, if any, left on the face of the planet.  Dedicated followers of non-violence don?t tend to live that long, overall.

Let me know when you figure out a rational reason why Jesus told people that owning a sword was more important than clothing, if not for violent purposes...

Jesus' command was most likely figurative according to many Biblical scholars:

So now you want to pick and choose what you want to use from the Bible?

You're sounding alot like the liberal theology or process thinking nonsense I was inundated with all through college.

Also, you must read things in context to understand the form of speech and the meaning. It's very clear that Jesus was talking metaphorically at that time, because the next verse was clearly metaphorical:

Luke 22:36-37

"Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

("Prepare your spirits, because the time is now.")

"For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end."

("I know no sin, but will take the sin of the world upon myself.")

That is, unless you believe Jesus was saying he's a transgressor, or that his purpose is coming to an end. He was clearly speaking metaphorically in that context.

Really?  Buying a sword is metaphorical for preparing one?s spirit?

The only thing buying a sword might be metaphorical for is violence.  If Jesus meant to tell them to prepare for hardship, wouldn?t he have turned it around, and told them to sell things like swords (since, in your view, they would need no tools of violence) and buy things like warm clothing, as they might have to sleep outside due to persecution?

Joe

[Michael Fisher]

Readers may want to look into these things before they judge this argument:
-How the New Testament fulfills the Old Testament;
-The difference between Moses' law and God's law;
-The definition of sin;
-The actual spirit of the commandments;
-The difference between metaphorical, poetic, and literal speech in the Bible; and
-Jesus' different types of speech and when he used them.

That the 10 commandments have passed away is the greatest lie of our day, a lie that causes many people to stumble. It is not hard to realize that the 10 commandments tautologically define morality. This statement is always true: "A human action is either sin or it is not, and a hope is either sin or it is not." One must also define human action and hope in order to clarify that those without a somewhat-developed frontal lobe cannot make conscious decisions.

Without the commandments, sin would not exist, nor evil... nor good. Right and wrong would cease to exist, as there would be no way to define them.

Violating any one of the 10 commandments is an equal sin. This is not because I say so, or because a church says so, but because it just is sin, according to God. That is the system of rules that exists, like it or not, understand it or not.

The 10 commandments are a lense through which human action and the human heart is categorized, just as praxeology is a lense through which human action is defined as "striving for happiness." It is not necessarily true that every human action is a conscious instance of striving for happiness, but praxeology defines it as such in order to create an underlying theory that defines every human action.

Without a master theory, it is impossible to use deductive logic. In addition, all other logic, such as abductive and inductive reasoning, is weak, flawed, unguided, and unprovable.

Sins are sins because the 10 commandments define them as such. If one cannot get past this basic concept, then no logical deductions are possible regarding Biblical truth.

[Lloyd Danforth]

I read all of this crap and thank god I don't have all this confusion in my life.

[MaineShark]

Without the commandments, sin would not exist, nor evil... nor good. Right and wrong would cease to exist, as there would be no way to define them.

Really?  So where, precisely, does "original sin" come from?  That was supposed to have happened long before the Commandments were handed down from on-high...

Joe

[Michael Fisher]

Without the commandments, sin would not exist, nor evil... nor good. Right and wrong would cease to exist, as there would be no way to define them.

Really?  So where, precisely, does "original sin" come from?  That was supposed to have happened long before the Commandments were handed down from on-high...

Joe

God gave Adam and Eve one single commandment, but they could not keep it.

[Dreepa]

Does anyone here know whether drinking coffee is a sin?

Depends on which flavor of Christian.

[Dreepa]

Depends on which flavor of Christian.

It's like Baskin Robbins out there!

Except more flavors..

[Pat K]

And whole spoon fulls of nuts.

[Caleb]

Ouch!

Et tu, Pat K?

[Caleb]

"I'm not asking you. I'm asking Mr. Stuffsucker."