Why even pacifists should practice self defense

[Caleb]

"You heard that it was said,
'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'
But I tell you not to resist evil;
but whoever strikes you on your right cheek,
turn to him the other also;
and to the one who intends to judge you and take your shirt,
leave him also the coat;
and whoever forces you one mile, go with him two." - Jesus, Sermon on the Mount

In this passage Jesus claims the authority to override the Law of Moses.  In fact, he abolished the entire Law.

[Michael Fisher]

"You heard that it was said,
'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'
But I tell you not to resist evil;
but whoever strikes you on your right cheek,
turn to him the other also;
and to the one who intends to judge you and take your shirt,
leave him also the coat;
and whoever forces you one mile, go with him two." - Jesus, Sermon on the Mount

In this passage Jesus claims the authority to override the Law of Moses.  In fact, he abolished the entire Law.

He caused it to be abolished in our practice by fulfilling it. The law of Moses, written in a book, was created to look forward to Christ's coming. All of the law and the prophets looked forward to Christ's coming.

The commandments, twice written on stone, were not abolished but clarified and re-established by Christ.

[MaineShark]

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?

Okay, in fairness to the pacifists, the "eye for an eye" passage was a limitation on retribution, not a particular invitation.  In other words, in modern English, it would read as "no more than an eye for an eye."

But I still don't think they've proven their point, otherwise.  The Old Testament is bloody as all hell, and Jesus does tell his followers to go about armed.  So, even if one is a Christian and believes that Jesus' teachings over-ride the Old Testament, there is still plenty of continuity.

The Old Testament is pretty specific about certain killing being justified.

Joe

[Michael Fisher]

The Old Testament is pretty specific about certain killing being justified.

That's why they call it the Old Testament. It was fulfilled and it's laws no longer apply -- only its ten commandments apply. It's that simple.

Jesus was very specific about no killing being justified.

[MaineShark]

The Old Testament is pretty specific about certain killing being justified.

That's why they call it the Old Testament. It was fulfilled and it's laws no longer apply -- only its ten commandments apply. It's that simple.

Jesus was very specific about no killing being justified.

And even the Ten Comandments don't say that you can't kill people, do they?

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

[Pat K]

Maybe Jesus was the first bling bling guy and liked shiny swords?

[DC]

And even the Ten Comandments don't say that you can't kill people, do they?

I guess you are looking for him to say thou shall not kill. Then you are going to say the real translation is thou shall not murder. But it's just a guess.

[MaineShark]

And even the Ten Comandments don't say that you can't kill people, do they?

I guess you are looking for him to say thou shall not kill. Then you are going to say the real translation is thou shall not murder. But it's just a guess.

I presume he already knows that.  Just a reminder.

Joe

[Caleb]

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

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why Jesus said not to resist evil violently.

I'm also finding it amusing to see a non-Christian acting like the authority here.

Why were the first Christians pacifists?

Why is there no authorization from the NT for violence, but rather consistent admonition to accept violence without responding in kind?

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

The use of violence is incompatible with Christianity. Period.  Those who appeal to the OT for violence are giving their tacit admission to this point:  The NT doesn't endorse violence.  If you have to dig through the OT ... well, I consider that an admission because if violence is so wonderful for a Christian it should be easy to find in the NT.  The fact that you can't, and you have to resort to the OT and convoluted human reasoning (such as "I have a responsibility to defend my family") puts the proof to the fact that the NT does not endorse violence.  The reason for this is clear:  JESUS DIDN'T ENDORSE VIOLENCE!!!!!!

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.

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.  The problem is that Christians are content to let Jesus be SAVIOR (ie, "I put faith in his name, there's no other name by which we can be saved") but they won't let him be LORD.  Christians seem, just like most other people in the world, to want to be the Lord of their own life, and to live their life by their own understanding.

[Pat K]

Nobody want's to play rhythm guitar behind Jesus
Every body wants to be the lead singer in the band
It's hard to get a bead on whats devine when eveybodys pushing for  the head of the line.

I don't think it's working out at all the way he planned.


Not sure but think it was sung by Johnny Paycheck

[Michael Fisher]

The Old Testament is pretty specific about certain killing being justified.

That's why they call it the Old Testament. It was fulfilled and it's laws no longer apply -- only its ten commandments apply. It's that simple.

Jesus was very specific about no killing being justified.

And even the Ten Comandments don't say that you can't kill people, do they?

That is clearly a pointlessly arguable concept based on modern legal definitions of the word "murder."
http://www.biiible.com/cgi-bin/dispverseall.pl?book=Exodus&chapter=20&verse=13&instring=Exodus%2020:13

???
raw-tsakh'
A primitive root; properly to dash in pieces, that is, kill (a human being), especially to murder: - put to death, kill, (man-) slay (-er), murder (-er).

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:

New Provisions for the Future (Luke 22:35-38)
http://www.jesuswalk.com/lessons/22_35-38.htm

Many commentators see Jesus' command to obtain a sword as figurative rather than literal. Schlatter says,

"Jesus was not speaking of increasing their weapons. But just because He was not thinking of their weapons, the disciples needed the courage which regards a sword as more necessary than a cloak, and which will surrender its last possession but cannot give up the fight."[6]

Marshall sees it as "a call to be ready for hardship and self-sacrifice."[7] Geldenhuys assumes Jesus meant it spiritually, and sees the disciples who take it literally as "still blind to the spiritual nature of the Lord's work and kingdom."[8] Green sees Jesus' words as "a metaphorical reference to the coming [spiritual] reality," and his words "It is enough" as an expression of his exasperation with the disciples' dullness.[9] Calvin declares, "It was truly shameful and stupid ignorance, that the disciples, after having been so often informed about bearing the cross, imagine that they must fight with swords of iron."[10] And nowhere in the New Testament, besides the incident with Peter in the Garden, do Christians take up arms as they spread the faith.

[tracysaboe]

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.

Who said anything aboud killing? You don't need to kill somebody to defend yourself from him.

Tracy

[tracysaboe]

Since Jesus commands you to love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, and

So far so good

not to resist evil violently,

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

It is quite possible to love the agressor in an agape maner and pray for him at the time time he's attacking you. It's also entirely possible to do both of those things while you defend yourself from his/her attack.

Tracy, then it is you that is on thin ice if you disregard it.

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

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 )

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? If so, then you are activly telling me to willfully disregard a piece of scripture.  Or are you one of those Christian's that believe we should just throw out the epistles.

Since Christ defines resisting evil with violence as evil ...

You still haven't proven that.

then you are essentially arguing that it is ok for you to "do evil that good may come".

Hence, No I'm not.


Tracy

[tracysaboe]

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?

Okay, in fairness to the pacifists, the "eye for an eye" passage was a limitation on retribution, not a particular invitation.  In other words, in modern English, it would read as "no more than an eye for an eye."

But I still don't think they've proven their point, otherwise.  The Old Testament is bloody as all hell, and Jesus does tell his followers to go about armed.  So, even if one is a Christian and believes that Jesus' teachings over-ride the Old Testament, there is still plenty of continuity.

The Old Testament is pretty specific about certain killing being justified.

Joe

Yup.  I'm not a pacifist either, but Joe, CAleb, and Michael are correct on this one.
Tracy

[tracysaboe]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why Jesus said not to resist evil violently.

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

Tracy