Churchgoer kills churchgoer over 'saved seats' scuffle

[rambot]

Murby is the kind of gun owner I respect as he seems to have more respect for human life.

 

[Belk]

Okaaaaay. The verse doesn't say "a proper whip". And why would Jesus know how to make an actual, for real whip? At what other point in his ministry did he fashion a whip?

Not to but in , but would that not be rather easy knowledge for a omniscient being to have?

 

[Open Heart]

330 MILLION people.
340 MILLION guns.
About 85,000 non fatal events and 23,000 fatal events.

And you show a list of 12 events and that is supposed to be impressive. That means 0.052% of fatalities are due to "good guys with guns". Not an impressive number.

These are events in churches. Compare to other events in churches.

 

[rambot]

Not to but in , but would that not be rather easy knowledge for a omniscient being to have?

Weelll, I don't think Jesus was like, Neo or something. I don't necessarily think, by way of example, he would have whipped together a gun; or done some ninja moves on them.

 

[ewq1938]

As mentioned, the sword was purchased to fulfill the prophesy NOT for self defence;

No sword was purchased as Christ decided the amount of swords they had was enough. Swords were for self defense mainly, perhaps used as a tool to cut game or whatever as well.

it seems odd that he would demand stopping in the middle of the act of self defence if it was for self defence.....

Peter was wrong because he was trying to stop Christ's arrest and it was not supposed to be stopped.

I mean, he is called the Prince of Peace...

No peace for his enemies though.

The verse doesn't say "a proper whip". And why would Jesus know how to make an actual, for real whip? At what other point in his ministry did he fashion a whip?

Irrelevant. I am merely proving Christ has a violent side as well as killing side.

.And, come judgement time, in his justice, that will be his prerogative but that is Not what is asked of us. We are to love even our enemies.

God's people have always also been called to war.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

God's people have always also been called to war.

"Love your enemies" and "go to war" seem to be at odds with each other.

 

[Belk]

No sword was purchased as Christ decided the amount of swords they had was enough. Swords were for self defense mainly, perhaps used as a tool to cut game or whatever as well.




Peter was wrong because he was trying to stop Christ's arrest and it was not supposed to be stopped.




No peace for his enemies though.



Irrelevant. I am merely proving Christ has a violent side as well as killing side.





God's people have always also been called to war.

Yes. It's not like he was noted for saying things like "Love your enemy" and "Turn the other cheek".

 

[ewq1938]

"Love your enemies" and "go to war" seem to be at odds with each other.

Not if properly understood. Love your enemies would not be enemies like you have in war but like family members or maybe neighbors that you don't get along with.

 

[ewq1938]

Yes. It's not like he was noted for saying things like "Love your enemy" and "Turn the other cheek".

He's also noted for the second coming blood bath.

Rev 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
Rev 19:12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
Rev 19:14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
Rev 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
Rev 19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;
Rev 19:18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.
Rev 19:19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
Rev 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
Rev 19:21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

 

[rambot]

Not if properly understood. Love your enemies would not be enemies like you have in war but like family members or maybe neighbors that you don't get along with.

Does God command us to go to war? I thought the whole point of his being OUR saviour is that he would go to war FOR us.... not that WE go to war. That's why he commands us to love our enemies.

 

[rambot]

Not if properly understood. Love your enemies would not be enemies like you have in war but like family members or maybe neighbors that you don't get along with.

I don't remember reading ANY qualifications to that command. Could you quote where there is a clear delineation between which enemies WE (NOT Jesus) are supposed to love?

No sword was purchased as Christ decided the amount of swords they had was enough. Swords were for self defense mainly, perhaps used as a tool to cut game or whatever as well.

I stand corrected. They had two swords between 13 of then (though it's kind of hard to discern whether they already HAD swords or whether they were bought and THEN brought to him). Not exactly noteworthy as self defence in my book.

Peter was wrong because he was trying to stop Christ's arrest and it was not supposed to be stopped.

Yes. So what does that say about using violence in self defence? And where else does Jesus DIRECTLY have teaching on using violence in self defence?

Irrelevant. I am merely proving Christ has a violent side as well as killing side.

I agree, it is irrelevant. Yet you were the one who said he had the ability to fashion a whip. I am curious how you came to that conclusion since you were using that as an argument that Christ was violent.

Due to Christ's humanness, he had one (1) incident of note in his 30+ years of being on this earth where he "used violence" to get his point across. It would be difficult for me to accept him being fully human if he did not show evidence of the FULL range of human emotion. But to say Christ had a "violent side" while here on earth is a HUUUUUUUGE stretch in my opinion.





God's people have always also been called to war.[/QUOTE]

 

[ewq1938]

Does God command us to go to war? I thought the whole point of his being OUR saviour is that he would go to war FOR us.... not that WE go to war.

Yes we still need to go to war to defend our country and home and freedom of religion.

That's why he commands us to love our enemies.

Not the type of enemy that you find in war or terrorism.

 

[ewq1938]

I don't remember reading ANY qualifications to that command. Could you quote where there is a clear delineation between which enemies WE (NOT Jesus) are supposed to love?

Just study it and read commentaries. It's pretty clear once you look at it close enough.

I stand corrected. They had two swords between 13 of then (though it's kind of hard to discern whether they already HAD swords or whether they were bought and THEN brought to him). Not exactly noteworthy as self defence in my book.

Yet Christ said it was enough.

Yes. So what does that say about using violence in self defence? And where else does Jesus DIRECTLY have teaching on using violence in self defence?

It's indirect there and direct when he is shown leading an army from heaven against the army of the beast. If the beast didn't raise an army as a threat no army would have been needed from heaven.

I agree, it is irrelevant. Yet you were the one who said he had the ability to fashion a whip. I am curious how you came to that conclusion since you were using that as an argument that Christ was violent.

What he did with it was the point. It was a side comment that he knew how to make one.

Due to Christ's humanness, he had one (1) incident of note in his 30+ years of being on this earth where he "used violence" to get his point across. It would be difficult for me to accept him being fully human if he did not show evidence of the FULL range of human emotion. But to say Christ had a "violent side" while here on earth is a HUUUUUUUGE stretch in my opinion.

One instance is enough to show he had that side to him...and it was righteously expressed.

 

[rambot]

Just study it and read commentaries. It's pretty clear once you look at it close enough.

Any suggestions then?
I've read it often; I've heard it preached on in my church several times through my life. NEVER heard about any qualifications so I really need your guidance on where to look. I don't have the time to do a blind running around on the internet (Despite what my activity on CF over the last couple days suggests).

Yet Christ said it was enough.

Yes he did. YOU are investing the idea that it was for self defense (for which there is no rational, consistent evidence for). I am arguing he had enough to fulfil the prophesy.

It's indirect there and direct when he is shown leading an army from heaven against the army of the beast. If the beast didn't raise an army as a threat no army would have been needed from heaven.

Jesus is in charge of that violence. As I said, he's our SAviour because he is fighting OUR battles.
Again, He did not call on us to participate in it; He called on us to love.

What he did with it was the point. It was a side comment that he knew how to make one.

ok.

One instance is enough to show he had that side to him...and it was righteously expressed.

I'm glad you agree there was only one incident but....Really? So are you the kind of person who judges a person's character on a SINGLE incident? Because when I was in junior high, I gave a kid a wedgie. Does that mean there is a side of me that is prone to violence, because every single person who knows me would say the EXACT opposite?
Again, I'm not arguing he was NOT angry/violent; I'm arguing that one instance of it in his entire life is not sufficient reason for me to believe he is condoning violence when all the rest of His life was a MODEL on not being violent.

 

[Sketcher]

No biblical evidence for the opposit3. Prove they had one

This is very, very poor logic. At best, you can say they may or may not have had the two swords that were in their possession at the time of the Last Supper throughout Jesus' earthly ministry; there is no conclusive evidence for either side. It would seem reasonable though, that since they were following a pacifist teacher who took up collections for the poor, it would be strange for them to acquire weapons at the end of his ministry rather than bringing them along from the beginning. It would also seem reasonable that Simon the Zealot especially would have had one since the beginning, given his faction. Since Simon Peter wielded the sword at Gethsemane, it may be reasonably inferred that the other one was his. When, where, and how he would have gotten it is a bit more mysterious. While it is true that Jesus did send out the disciples with hardly anything - no bag, no kudgel, etc - this does not mean that they were not carried with them regularly when together with Jesus. It is possible that these goods were being stored with one or more supporters for the duration of that short trip.

 

[rambot]

This is very, very poor logic. At best, you can say they may or may not have had the two swords that were in their possession at the time of the Last Supper throughout Jesus' earthly ministry; there is no conclusive evidence for either side.

[my emphasis] That is all I would argue. Nothing more.

 

[Sketcher]

[my emphasis] That is all I would argue. Nothing more.

That's all one can reasonably argue. But you argued differently:

And for almost his WHOLE time on earth none of his disciples carried a sword.

 

[ewq1938]

Any suggestions then?

I have nothing saved but in the past I have read some good works on this. Ultimately it's a matter of interpretation. I'll try to search again and see if I can re-find anything helpful.

Yes he did. YOU are investing the idea that it was for self defense (for which there is no rational, consistent evidence for). I am arguing he had enough to fulfil the prophesy.

Swords were either for offense, defense or used as tools. I reject that the disciples were committing offensive crimes so their swords were for defense and tools. What prophecy do you speak of?

Jesus is in charge of that violence. As I said, he's our SAviour because he is fighting OUR battles.

Yet in this thread has "Jesus is the prince of peace" been thrown at me. My position is to show the side of Jesus many like to ignore or avoid.

Again, He did not call on us to participate in it; He called on us to love.

I think we are expected to participate. Jesus returns with all the saints and in other scripture it is said the armies of heaven come with him so I believe the saints are part of his army and you know what an army is for.

I'm glad you agree there was only one incident but....Really? So are you the kind of person who judges a person's character on a SINGLE incident?

There is no judgment. He was able and willing to use violence against enemies of God. The whip was minor by comparison of what is coming.

Because when I was in junior high, I gave a kid a wedgie. Does that mean there is a side of me that is prone to violence, because every single person who knows me would say the EXACT opposite?

It shows at least when you were younger you acted as a bully. That is not the same thing because Christ is justified to punish or kill his enemies but being a bully is not.

Again, I'm not arguing he was NOT angry/violent; I'm arguing that one instance of it in his entire life is not sufficient reason for me to believe he is condoning violence when all the rest of His life was a MODEL on not being violent.

While it's the only example given during his Earthly ministry he spoke of the future where violence would befall the unsaved (mostly found in the olivet discourse about his return) and of course there is Rev which speaks of more of that violence.

 

[Belk]

He's also noted for the second coming blood bath.

Rev 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
Rev 19:12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
Rev 19:14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
Rev 19:16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
Rev 19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;
Rev 19:18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.
Rev 19:19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.
Rev 19:20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
Rev 19:21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

So when other Christians claim that unlike Muslims the bible does not advocate violence from its adherents I can send them to you to correct them?

 

[ewq1938]

So when other Christians claim that unlike Muslims the bible does not advocate violence from its adherents I can send them to you to correct them?

No, you can direct them to the verses which prove God does use physical violence against his enemies and that his saints are part of his army.