Why even pacifists should practice self defense

[Russell Kanning]

a)  The sword could be used merely as a bluff.  In other words, if bandits saw 12 men with swords, they probably would leave them alone and never hassle them in the first place. Once again, I point out that the Lord permitted them to carry swords, not to use them against humans.  You are inferring that, but it is not stated

Threatening to do violence is still violence.

"Oh, I only threatened to kill him; I never would have gone through with it!" hardly seems pacific to me...

Joe

I agree with you Joe. Can you imagine Amish buggies with machine guns installed on the roof?

[MaineShark]

I agree with you Joe. Can you imagine Amish buggies with machine guns installed on the roof?

Thanks a lot... Now I have Wierd Al's "Amish Paradise" stuck in my head...

Joe

[tracysaboe]

Well, I wasn?t saying it is quite the same, Tracy, I was using an extreme example to show that there are limits to what a Christian may do in caring for his family.  Simply, you must stay within the confines of moral behavior.

And who sets the standards of that moral behavior?  Christ does.  The very one who explicitly orders you to love your enemies, bear up under evil, and to refrain from violently resisting evil.

And is it really so different from renouncing Christ, Tracy? A rich guy came up to Jesus and said, ?Lord, I?ve kept all the commands since I was a little fry.  What more can I do??  Jesus gave him a hard saying: ?Sell everything you own and give to the poor.?  The man did not walk away with hatred in his heart towards Christ ? but he did walk away.  Grieved.  If you believed that Christ demanded pacifism of you ... would you walk away grieved?  Sometimes the attempt to make the hard saying go away is really an attempt to avoid making the choice:  For Christ? Or for ourselves?  Who is sovereign in our life?

We don?t follow Christ only when it?s easy and he doesn?t ask anything of us.  We pick up our cross, consider ourselves to be of no account, and follow him in trust, even when what he asks is difficult.  Like Christ said ? he who is faithful in what is least will also be faithful in what is much.

I suppose You think I should sell my wife to a rapist then and not defend her or myself then.

You're on real thin ground here.

2ndly, I am following The comandments of the Bible (God's commandments.) if my defend my wife and family.

So please don't change the subject by going off on numerous tangents.

TRacy

[Michael Fisher]

You erred by limiting yourself to the either/or of lying or telling the truth. There's also another option: sacrifice yourself to save those within. If you're committed to pacifism, you might not protect them (the JBTs can search freely after you've been dealt with), but at least you won't have given them up with a shrug.

Not at all. One could argue that sacrificing one's soul by lying to save others is a form of loving others. Indeed, it is. However, we are to love God first and foremost, and never to break his commandments for any reason whatsoever.

So we are to leave it up to Him to decide what happens, and it is only up to us to do what He commands.

[Michael Fisher]

Regarding the lieing thing.

The Bible only comands us to "not bear false witness against our neighbor."

Numerous liers were blessed by God in the Old Testament. Rahab the Harlete for one. Precisely, because she lied for their neighbor against government police.

Tracy

Christians believe Christ came to clarify God's laws and create a New Testament with the human race, and that is why we do not live by anything in the Old Testament that contradicts the New Testament.

The interpretation of the 9th commandment is too narrow. According to the Hebrew manuscripts, the 9th commandment was:

Exo 20:16  Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

???  LO - never
???  AW-NAW' - speak
????  SHEH'-KER - deceitful
??  AYD - statements (testimony)
??  RAY'-AH - associate, another

Strictly literal translation:
"Never speak deceitful statements to another."

[Michael Fisher]

I suppose You think I should sell my wife to a rapist then and not defend her or myself then.

You're on real thin ground here.

2ndly, I am following The comandments of the Bible (God's commandments.) if my defend my wife and family.

So please don't change the subject by going off on numerous tangents.

Tracy, these arguments do not make any sense.

Also, Caleb was trying to say this in so many words:
Nothing in the Bible, said by anyone, said at any time, permits us to violate the 10 commandments plus Jesus' teachings.

If Paul, James, John, or anyone else, said something apparently in conflict with Jesus, then Jesus' commandments and teachings take precedence. Also, Jesus' two commandments take priority over his other teachings.

Thus, the argument that if you do not kill someone to protect your wife, then you're not loving your wife, is nil.

[KBCraig]

You erred by limiting yourself to the either/or of lying or telling the truth. There's also another option: sacrifice yourself to save those within. If you're committed to pacifism, you might not protect them (the JBTs can search freely after you've been dealt with), but at least you won't have given them up with a shrug.

Not at all. One could argue that sacrificing one's soul by lying to save others is a form of loving others.

Now we're getting off into the deep water of "what is Salvation?"

I am not a Baptist, and I don't subscribe to the doctrine of "eternal Salvation". Neither am I at the opposite end of the spectrum, with Roman Catholics (and others) who believe that unconfessed/unrepented sin is an obstacle to reaching Heaven. Not to mention, we are imperfect, and subject to sinful temptation at any time. If I feel lust for a pretty lady at the street corner, and am killed by a passing bus, I don't believe I'm going straight to Hell for not confessing that specific sin.

The latter position is inconsistent with a loving God, and also ignores the substitutional sacrifice of Jesus; if we were able to be perfect in our lives, then His death on the cross was in vain.

The "once saved, always saved" position ignores the doctrine of free will, which includes the right to accept, and then reject, God. Having grown up in SBC territory, I've known too many examples of people who answered the altar call in their youth, and then went on to live lives of utter depravity, sometimes to the point of evil. Some even openly declared a change of allegience, joining other religions with fervor.

However, we are to love God first and foremost, and never to break his commandments for any reason whatsoever.

Among those commandments are that we sacrifice ourselves to save others. "Shoot me first and then shoot them" doesn't qualify. If you love your neighbor, you don't want him to be murdered, and will stop the murderer. If you're willing to "sacrifice one's soul" by telling a lie that doesn't protect others, surely you'd be more willing to sacrifice by actively fighting to protect others. I don't accept that souls are in jeopardy in either case, merely pointing out the inconsistency.

We're now into Christian theology, not necessarily pacifism-at-large, so I ask that those who reject Christianity not step in with extraneous arguments.

Kevin

[Michael Fisher]

Now we're getting off into the deep water of "what is Salvation?"

The "once saved, always saved" position ignores the doctrine of free will, which includes the right to accept, and then reject, God.

Not at all. If you take your heart back and stop believing in salvation then you are not saved. You always have choice. I'm merely pointing out the terrible act of planning to blatantly violate God's will in certain circumstances. That risks your soul.

If you plan to always do His will, but you fail to do so once in a while, especially in extreme and unpredictable situations, then you are still saved according to born-again evangelical fundamentalist Christianity.

However, we are to love God first and foremost, and never to break his commandments for any reason whatsoever.

Among those commandments are that we sacrifice ourselves to save others. "Shoot me first and then shoot them" doesn't qualify. If you love your neighbor, you don't want him to be murdered, and will stop the murderer. If you're willing to "sacrifice one's soul" by telling a lie that doesn't protect others, surely you'd be more willing to sacrifice by actively fighting to protect others. I don't accept that souls are in jeopardy in either case, merely pointing out the inconsistency.

That's exactly the point: I will do my best to never respond to force with force and I will do my best to never lie, not even to save every man alive.

Lloyd is correct in the lack of possibility to predict one's future actions in extreme circumstances. That is how all of this comes together. Never plan to fail, but know that you will, and when you do, know that He will forgive you.

However, if you give your heart to the Lord, then you are not supposed to make excuses in order to plan to violate His commandments for any reason. We are supposed to trust Him with all of our hearts, not explain away His commandments as unreasonable, illogical, inapplicable, self-contradictory, or downright foolish.

[Pat K]

 

[KBCraig]

Now we're getting off into the deep water of "what is Salvation?"

The "once saved, always saved" position ignores the doctrine of free will, which includes the right to accept, and then reject, God.

Not at all. If you take your heart back and stop believing in salvation then you are not saved. You always have choice. I'm merely pointing out the terrible act of planning to blatantly violate God's will in certain circumstances. That risks your soul.

If you plan to always do His will, but you fail to do so once in a while, especially in extreme and unpredictable situations, then you are still saved according to born-again evangelical fundamentalist Christianity.

???

Isn't that what I said?

I will do my best to never respond to force with force and I will do my best to never lie, not even to save every man alive.

Umm. You're saying you put your own soul ("not lying") ahead of saving anyone/everyone?

I need more clarification. I'm not seeing the selflessness there; you're saying your path to Heaven is more important than saving the mortal lives of those who may not yet have made that choice.

Kevin

[KBCraig]

:beer 219: :beer 219:

Cheers!

Kevin

[Pat K]

 

[Michael Fisher]

I will do my best to never respond to force with force and I will do my best to never lie, not even to save every man alive.

Umm. You're saying you put your own soul ("not lying") ahead of saving anyone/everyone?

I need more clarification. I'm not seeing the selflessness there; you're saying your path to Heaven is more important than saving the mortal lives of those who may not yet have made that choice.

Call it selfish if you want, but it's not about the individual's soul. It's about trusting God and doing what He commands, even when you really want to do otherwise.

It can never be wrong to do what He commands, because His commandments define right and wrong. Salvation cannot be earned, so trusting Him is not selfish.

[Caleb]

Since Jesus commands you to love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, and not to resist evil violently, Tracy, then it is you that is on thin ice if you disregard it.  Not me.  Even for what seems to you to be a noble purpose, such as "defending" your wife.

Like I keep trying to tell you, in fulfilling your obligations to men, you are limited by the bounds of morality, morality defined by Christ NOT YOU.  You are not authorized to use immoral means to achieve even good ends.  "And why not do evil that good may come??as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just." (Romans 3:8 )

Since Christ defines resisting evil with violence as evil ... then you are essentially arguing that it is ok for you to "do evil that good may come". 

[Dreepa]

Nothing in the Bible, said by anyone, said at any time, permits us to violate the 10 commandments plus Jesus' teachings.

An eye for an eye?