Violence in self-defense

Ripheus27 · Feb 28, 2015

brinny said:
Vandalism is a crime. Jesus overturned tables. Jesus had a whip. He DROVE the moneychangers from the Temple. A pivotal question here is why did Jesus have the whip? How did He DRIVE the moneychangers from the Temple.

I don't know, since the text doesn't say. It could be He actually whipped people, or that He just gestured at them menacingly with a whip in hand while shouting at them to leave.

This leads us to the question of:

Was Jesus violent?

If so, did He sin?

Thank you kindly.

Well, we don't think Jesus ever sinned. So if He was violent, He was violent without sinning, which means that there was at least one time in all of history where it was not a sin to be violent. To extrapolate from that to self-defensive violence or just-war theory or whatever requires extra premises, though.

EDIT: Actually, if we're going down this road, it might be easier to prove Christian communism (killing the rich to give their money to the poor, or whatever, out of emulation of Christ) than killing in self-defense or to repel foreign invasions.

4x4toy · Feb 28, 2015

Ripheus27 said:
@brinny I shouldn't be so impatient, but I'm not going to keep answering the same questions over and over again. It would probably be more reasonable for you to lay out your full argument at this point. As for Jesus committing a crime, I didn't say that, I said He committed vandalism. Vandalism may or may not be defined as a crime, but in general, it's a description of a form of physical behavior (causing damage to a certain kind of property IIRC).

@4x4toy, my argument is that your attitude, while natural, is obviously the opposite of what Christ would have us do. So either you are obviously denying Christ, or you think there is an argument reconciling all the nonviolence-related passages I originally quoted with violence being permitted under certain circumstances.

Recall that we must love Christ "more" than our family. Perhaps this means that if the option is between letting our family die in order to fulfill Christ's commandments about nonviolence, and saving our family by using violence, we should let out family die.

I don't think this is quote so, though. Or rather, this is not the only option. There is a third option, which is that God will miraculously save our families from would-be killers (or Resurrect them at least) if we are nonviolent in the face of those who are trying to kill them. That is, rather than trust a worldly means of deliverance (physical violence) we ought to trust in God's power, the power He proved to us when He Resurrected His Son in the first place (not to mention creating the world out of nothingness).

There is a time for everything ..

Ripheus27 · Feb 28, 2015

4x4toy said:
There is a time for everything ..

So there's a time for fornication, for other questionable sexual acts (including ones that here on this site are barred from being debated), for blasphemy, for torturing children who believe in Jesus, for blowing up international trade centers, for rounding people up and gassing them to death, etc.?

4x4toy · Feb 28, 2015

Ripheus27 said:
So there's a time for fornication, for other questionable sexual acts (including ones that here on this site are barred from being debated), for blasphemy, for torturing children who believe in Jesus, for blowing up international trade centers, for rounding people up and gassing them to death, etc.?

Ecclesiastes 3

Ripheus27 · Feb 28, 2015

Ecclesiastes also says that everything is meaningless, doesn't it?

And are you saying that sometimes it's okay to rebel against God in one way or another, because rebellion is a "thing" and every "thing" has its own season?

Also, "a time for everything" doesn't automatically mean "there is a time period, corresponding to each 'thing,' during which that thing is justified." It might just mean that sometimes there is war, sometimes there is peace, and so on. And anyway, while we're on this point, even if "for everything" implies what you imply, mightn't the one time Jesus used violence have been the one "time for" violence?

brinny · Feb 28, 2015

Originally Posted by brinny View Post
Vandalism is a crime. Jesus overturned tables. Jesus had a whip. He DROVE the moneychangers from the Temple. A pivotal question here is why did Jesus have the whip? How did He DRIVE the moneychangers from the Temple.

Ripheus27 said:
I don't know, since the text doesn't say. It could be He actually whipped people, or that He just gestured at them menacingly with a whip in hand while shouting at them to leave.

This leads us to the question of:

Was Jesus violent?

If so, did He sin?

Thank you kindly.

Click to expand...

Ripheus27 said:

Well, we don't think Jesus ever sinned. So if He was violent, He was violent without sinning, which means that there was at least one time in all of history where it was not a sin to be violent. To extrapolate from that to self-defensive violence or just-war theory or whatever requires extra premises, though.

EDIT: Actually, if we're going down this road, it might be easier to prove Christian communism (killing the rich to give their money to the poor, or whatever, out of emulation of Christ) than killing in self-defense or to repel foreign invasions.

Click to expand...

Jesus either sinned or He didn't. He could NOT have been sacrificed on the cross as God's sinless Sacrifice, for us, if He had EVER sinned. There could be NO sin in Him, ever.

Is ALL violence "sin"?

Thank you kindly.

Ripheus27 · Feb 28, 2015

brinny said:
Is ALL violence "sin"?

Thank you kindly.

"Not all violence is sin," does not entail, "More than one case of violence is not sin." That's not valid reasoning.

brinny · Feb 28, 2015

Originally Posted by brinny View Post
Is ALL violence "sin"?

Thank you kindly.

Ripheus27 said:
"Not all violence is sin," does not entail, "More than one case of violence is not sin." That's not valid reasoning.

Not following you, brother....i did not understand your above response.

Is ALL violence "sin"?

Thank you kindly.

Ripheus27 · Feb 28, 2015

brinny said:
Not following you, brother....i did not understand your above response.

Is ALL violence "sin"?

Thank you kindly.

All killing in self-defense and all war is sin. Not all overturning of tables and threatening people with whips is sin.

EDIT: I should probably have avoided using "violence" and "nonviolence" to explain myself.

brinny · Feb 28, 2015

Originally Posted by brinny View Post
Not following you, brother....i did not understand your above response.

Is ALL violence "sin"?

Thank you kindly.

Ripheus27 said:
All killing in self-defense and all war is sin. Not all overturning of tables and threatening people with whips is sin.

EDIT: I should probably have avoided using "violence" and "nonviolence" to explain myself.

God in judgement, had entire populations put to death/killed. He also caused a flood that drowned/killed entire populations. He also drowned the Pharaoh's army in the Red Sea. It was pre-meditated.

Did God sin?

Thank you kindly.

brinny · Feb 28, 2015

I must get offline now. I appreciate the conversation and allowing me to "think out loud" so to speak. I will be back either tonight or in the morning.

Thank you kindly.

:wave:

sojourner4Christ · Feb 28, 2015

For starters, looking at the first part of the OP:

Violence in self-defense
Sometimes we think, "But if you are stricken on one side, turn that you can be stricken on the other," is a metaphor that doesn't strictly imply nonviolence. From the context, though, it is difficult to see how an implication is to be avoided. For not only are we to also give our second cloak off our backs once the first one is stolen, and repay evil with good in general, but taken altogether, such an attitude--turning the other cheek, giving possessions to thieves, and general refusal to mirror the behavior of evildoers--is not consistent with killing those who are trying to kill us (how, pray tell, can we shoot someone trying to steal the "cloak" of our homeland, and yet give such a person all the cloaks we have?).

The problem here is that one has relied on a copyrighted perversion of the Holy Bible, which has predictably skewed one’s discernment.

Even Christ himself did not literally turn the other cheek when smitten by a member of the Sanhedrin (John 18:22-23), or when struck on the face by the palms of the Roman guards (Matthew 26:57-68; Mark 14:65; Luke 22:64).

Matthew 5:39 is speaking about the custom of the Romans when a superior would demand obedience from an inferior. Christ was showing disdain for them when he said to turn the other cheek. When struck by a Roman superior in the first century, you where to drop to one knee or put your forehead in the dirt before them. To turn the other cheek to him would be a very defiant act when you were struck on the face. We are not to resist with violence, of course, but with love. That is truly resisting evil.

By simply turning the other cheek for him to hit, you are refusing to partake of the evil resulting from bowing to man, and at the same time you are not reverting to violence. We are to "overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:21). You are showing him, out of love, that you can only bow to One Lord, and no man will you ever bow down to. You show him that you will place God's command above man's command, no matter what the consequences will be. You are willing to take the punishment, and are willing to get "hit again" by your enemies, but you will stand firm in God's Law of love. By taking a stand such as this, the one who hits you may very well flee from you (James 4:7).

And the following comment is likewise troubling; again, a perversion of the Holy Bible was consulted to reach another erroneous conclusion:

Ecclesiastes also says that everything is meaningless, doesn't it?

Without going into a lot of detail right now regarding the myriad of modern bible versions (I have extensive research on this issue and I’d be glad to share with you, if you are interested), I looked up the verse you referred to, in the AV (Authorized Version, aka King James Bible). The word used is vanity, which has quite a different meaning than ‘meaningless’. Vanity speaks of that which is temporal and passing. The word can refer to a vapour. Also note Ecclesiastes 1 verse 14 which says, I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit. The phrase ‘under the sun’ is repeated numerous times in this book. It refers to our life hear on earth (i.e. under the sun) apart from God’s intervention. Man was created to inhabit this earth. Isa 45:18, For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else. The first command he gave in the Bible to Adam and Eve was, And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. We are on this earth to exercise dominion over the things God created. So under the sun is vanity (temporal, like a breath). It passes by so quickly. When we look at the things that happen ‘under the sun,’ they are vanity, they seem to have no purpose. And yet Romans 8:28 tells us, And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

So if you’re viewing it from only an earthly perspective, things will seem to have no purpose.

Ecclesiastes seems to be a depressing book if you don’t read it carefully. It comes from an entirely earthly perspective, showing us what life is like when it is viewed only as ‘under the sun’. When we become born again, we are able to fulfill that which was commanded of Adam and Eve and that is to take dominion over that which God has created. So we can rise above our earthly view, and find joy in our work, relationships, and even our trials and tribulations.

Our work/jobs can go from mere drudgery to a way to serve and glorify God: Colossians 3:23, And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;

Our relationships became a vehicle to make us holy.

Our trials become a way to further purify us, James 1:2-4, My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations; Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.

1 Peter 1:6-7, Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations: That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:

Even eating and drinking can be done to the glory of God, as 1 Corinthians 10:31 says, Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

When we are born again. our lives have meaning. We are to do that which God calls us to do. We no longer need to view things as ‘under the sun’. Instead, we can do as Colossians 3:1-3 says, If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.

Remember, it is that which is ‘under the sun’, and it is not meaningless but vanity i.e. temporal.

People can’t be “meaningless,“ for John 3:16 says, For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Psalm 139:14, I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

Ripheus27 · Feb 28, 2015

brinny said:
God in judgement, had entire populations put to death/killed. He also caused a flood that drowned/killed entire populations. He also drowned the Pharaoh's army in the Red Sea. It was pre-meditated.

The Flood is mostly mythical, and the genocides in the early OT may or may not have actually taken place (even if they did, I doubt God actually commanded them; the writers of the relevant books just lied and said He told them to). On the other hand...

Did God sin?

There are two ways to read this question. If sin is whatever God tells us to not do, then God can't sin because He can't do something He tells Himself not to do (or so we naively think, perhaps). In THAT case, God didn't sin in these mass slaughters, but since He also told us (through Jesus) to never do such things, then it still is true that any time a human being commits mass slaughter or such, he or she is sinning. (You might try to get around this by saying that God didn't directly commit genocide during the conquest of Canaan, et. al. but had humans do it for Him. But then we would only be justified in genocide, etc. when and only when God directly told us to do these things. Hopefully no one with a conscience is going to claim, nowadays, that God is personally authorizing them to kill anyone for any reason.)

HOWEVER, if sin is not subjective/relativistic, if it is based on a standard of objective right-and-wrong, then God might be able to sin because He has free will and can choose to disobey the objective moral standard. Then I would say that, if He did commit/was an accomplice to the OT slaughters, He did sin, for it is fairly clear that the objective standard of right and wrong includes, "Don't commit genocide."

OldWiseGuy · Mar 1, 2015

Ripheus27 said:
The Gospel of John speaks of a whip/similar weapon, but it never says (so I'm reading) that He actually used it.

Click to expand...

"And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;"

It is clearly stated what he made; a small 'scourge', which represented the instrument used by the Romans to punish criminals or enemies of the empire. That is was 'small' indicated that he didn't intend to harm anyone with it, but sent the message that he considered these merchants and traders to be criminals. And so they were, robbing the worshippers by unfair currency exchanges, and others selling inferior animals for sacrifices; none of which should have been transacted on the temple grounds. Also there is no indication that he became 'violent' although he was clearly angry. There is also no indication that any property was damaged. He told them to leave and take their stuff with them.

Jesus also taught, through Paul,

"Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:

Neither give place to the devil." (Ephesians 4:26-27)

timewerx · Mar 1, 2015

brinny said:
Would you care to elaborate?

Thank you kindly.

Like one time, a metal frame fell on me. I was looking somewhere else, away from it.

Next time I knew, I stopped it with a water dispenser jug that is half full while holding a cup of tea on the other hand while standing on one foot, perfectly balanced! Only managed to spill a few drops of tea! I couldn't remember how I did it.

And then I shoved, punched, and slapped people who were trying to touch me. They were instinctive, didn't have to think about it.

One time, I violently grabbed a friend who nearly got hit by a car. Might have saved his life but have wounded him in the process with my nails.

These were all reflex actions.

I could tell myself not to be violent but in times like it, I lose control, it's just not me anymore. Fortunately, I have not hurt anyone out of malice, they are all in self-defense or in the act of saving another person and a dog.

Violence in self-defense

Holeless fox

Newbie

Holeless fox

Newbie

Holeless fox

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places

Holeless fox

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places

Holeless fox

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places

I am born again (the world calls me Christian).

Holeless fox

Wake me when it's soup.

the village i--o--t--

Similar threads