Christians, War, and Violence

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,412
15,559
Colorado
✟428,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Loving your enemies sometimes mean making a whip out of chords and violently driving them away from the temple! ;) ;) ;)
Jesus did that.

But he holds the rest of us to a different standard according to the Bible.

Same as when he brings a sword (which may even be a metaphor anyway).
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RDKirk
Upvote 0

timewerx

the village i--o--t--
Aug 31, 2012
15,204
5,877
✟296,877.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
But he holds the rest of us to a different standard according to the Bible.

Maybe not. Read this verse:

John 14:12
Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.

Same as when he brings a sword (which may even be a metaphor anyway)

Yes, I agree.
 
Upvote 0

timewerx

the village i--o--t--
Aug 31, 2012
15,204
5,877
✟296,877.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Even killing in defense of the innocent is not a righteous act because it was not that way in the beginning. There is no righteousness in shedding another man's blood. The entire event is within a cloud of sin.

If you review the Bible carefully, the same thing can be said about eating meat and making money.

But we still eat meat and work for money anyhow because we still live in this corrupt world. It's not a sin as long you don't put any value in these things and not love them.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,140
20,187
US
✟1,441,679.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If you review the Bible carefully, the same thing can be said about eating meat and making money.

But we still eat meat and work for money anyhow because we still live in this corrupt world. It's not a sin as long you don't put any value in these things and not love them.

As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live.

I know lots of people want to get their killin' on and defend it with the name of Jesus, but as someone who has a couple of hundred deaths on my own conscience--in what was a bogus and fruitless war--I know there is nothing about killing that is worth defending.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pommer
Upvote 0

Peter J Barban

Well-Known Member
Mar 29, 2016
1,474
973
62
Taiwan
Visit site
✟97,647.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The State kills murderers and justly so. But it is not the Christian's role. The NT teaches not only separation of Church and State, but separation of believer and State too, in offices that wield the sword.
I strongly dispute that! Where does the NT teach the separation of Church and State? As for the separation of believer and state, Paul clearly asserted his rights as a Roman citizen.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Francis Drake
Upvote 0

timewerx

the village i--o--t--
Aug 31, 2012
15,204
5,877
✟296,877.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
I know lots of people want to get their killin' on and defend it with the name of Jesus, but as someone who has a couple of hundred deaths on my own conscience--in what was a bogus and fruitless war--I know there is nothing about killing that is worth defending.

I closely followed the wars "against" terror waged by the coalition in recent times.

I have to agree with you on that one. A bogus and fruitless war. I think they are running behind some really dark agendas and soldiers are taken for fools.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Dave L is correct in this instance.

And I say this after my own full career in the military in a family that has been military for over a century, and in the face of the fact that I am licensed to carry a firearm. But I am an older man, and Ecclesiastes makes a lot of sense to me now.

Jesus did not lie when He we asserted--unequivocally and without exception--"Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." The unequivocal nature of that statement must give great pause to anyone who would rather walk the Way in the center and not on the edges.

The king is given authority in this fallen world to use the sword to maintain worldly order--the sword is the weapon of earthly warfare. But Jesus' words will be true: Every worldly nation will fall, sooner or later. The blood shed to preserve it will always ultimately prove to have been shed in vain, because every nation will ultimately fall.

The temple guards who approached John the Baptist were commanded not to use force to extort money from people but to be satisfied by their wages. This did not apply to the legionaries of the Roman empire, because their very job was to create and maintain terror. Their mission and command was to regularly extort from the population. And on occasion, they would crucify even innocent men to maintain terror, if so ordered.

A Roman legionary who did convert to Christianity would necessarily have to refuse to continue to obey the orders of his superior, because his orders were to terrorize Jews. Church history records Roman soldiers who understood that--and died for it.

(I can argue that Cornelius was actually a retired centurion, not on active duty, but that's not necessary here.)

This is the problem with being a member of the military or police force in this fallen world. The kings of this fallen world maintain the wealth and order of their kingdoms through the use of the sword. Even in "peaceful" dealings and trade, behind the smiling diplomats are always baleful soldiers.

To maintain their wealth and power, earthly kings will command their soldiers to do evil.

And that is the problem. Early Christians recognized that to put the sword of the king on their waists meant that they would be required to use that sword for evil--even to kill other Christians. That's what worldly kings must do in this fallen world.

There may be a theoretical thing as a "just war," but in practice just war has not happened, certainly not in our lifetimes. And, by the way, goading or frightening a weaker opponent into attacking you does not make your defense just...which is today's method of justifying war.

People today delude themselves into thinking it's different now, but it certainly isn't. The US military is used for evil every day--for nothing but to maintain wealth and power, often for the plutocrats.

This is a fact: No poor man has ever ordered a soldier to war. Only the wealthy order soldiers to war, and for only their own regard. Their lofty platitudes are just to rouse the rabble.

I have personally witnessed American politicians lie to lie to the people to rouse them to war, and more than once in my own career. I see it happening right now.

So despite any arguments about self defense and such, the issue with making someone the servant of the king to use the sword puts one in the likely service of evil, which is unnecessary for someone who intends to walk in the center of the Way rather than on the edges.

It's often not different for police forces. Frequently "the law" is written for the wealthy to maintain order for their benefit, and "the law" is often evil. Frequently a police officer must hold his tongue when he knows evil is being done before him ("in the name of the law"), rather than giving witness to that evil. Again, it is an unnecessary risk, playing with fire, for someone who intends to walk in the center of the Way rather than on the edges.

As for self defense, certainly the concept of martyrdom, by the very meaning of the Greek μάρτυρας, means one who dies specifically as witness, who dies for his testimony.

That would seem to absolve killing in self defense, because someone killed by a street mugger will not have died for his testimony...possibly.

I pause at the decision of Nate Saint, who went to Ecuador to evangelize the hyper-violent tribe of the Huaorani. These people were so violent that the government of Ecuador had left them to destroy themselves.

Nate Saint, in contemplation of using guns to protect himself, asserted: "I am ready to meet my Maker. They are not." Saint carried a gun, but ultimately when attacked, Saint put the gun down. He was speared and killed.

Years later, Saint's son took up the same mission that had killed his father. Steven Saint was successful, and even brought the very man who had killed his father to Jesus. That was a win-win for Jesus, because now Jesus had both Nate and that man.

'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live.' -- Ezekiel 33

I know I am ready to meet Jesus...but is the other guy ready? Can I really feel righteous about taking that possibility from him?

Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

And we have to remember that there was not killing in the beginning either, and that killing--even in self-defense--is not an act of righteousness any more than divorce, but a concession of the Mosaic law to the hardness of men's hearts.

Even killing in defense of the innocent is not a righteous act because it was not that way in the beginning. There is no righteousness in shedding another man's blood. The entire event is within a cloud of sin.

The earthly solace is that I don't know if anyone else around me is any more ready to meet Jesus than an assailant. If I kill an assailant who threatens the lives of others, it will be so that they have their chance to become ready to meet Jesus.

But I won't claim righteousness for that act. God has already explicitly asserted that it gives Him no pleasure. That will be a horror and a shame. I'll still get on my knees.

I believe the above regarding offensive war for sure. The type of war that robs people of land and possessions, like oil, or gold. In that manner we are to love our enemies. But in the case for example of a robber coming into the house and holding a daughter hostage, for the purpose of selling her into the sex trafficking industry, and trying to steel her. I don't think it is far fetched for a christian dad to use self defense. In fact I think that maryterdom is something only an individual should do. If you are responsible for others I suggest manning up and defending them, and don't use the Bible as an excuse to get out of it. God never intended it that way. I posted this argument earlier, but let me post it again, because of the length of your post:

Luke 22:36 He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."
-This would most likely have been a Jewish short sword - a dagger used as protection against wild animals and robbers, considered so essential that even the "peace-loving Essenes" carried it, and it was permitted to be carried on the Sabbath as part of one's adornment. [See Hengel, Was Jesus a Revolutionist?, 21]… Josephus tells us that when Essenes went on a journey they had no need to take supplies with them, for they knew that their needs would be met by fellow members of their order; they did, however, carry arms to protect themselves against bandits.

Granted this was not a broad or long sword like those of the temple police, or roman guards. Yet it was a weapon for self-defense. A pacifist would not promote such self-defense.

So you must choose to accept that Jesus was not a strict pacifist.

WHY DID JESUS SAY TWO SWORDS WAS ENOUGH?


Many pacifists hold the argument that because Jesus said that only two swords is enough, and because two swords is not enough to protect twelve disciples that therefore Jesus motive for the buying of the swords was not for protection at all. And that is simply refuted in the verse, 36 of luke 22. It mentions that anyone that has a garment (or cloak), was to sell it and buy a sword. Some may not have had a cloak or garment to spare, and thus this is the reason for the limitation, the reason they were not more protected was that they did not have garments to spare. That is the most straight forward answer to refute the pacifist claims. But there are other explanations as well: This site mentions that it is possible that when Jesus said "it is enough" that it was talking not about the swords but about the words. Here is more on that:


"But as we see repeatedly throughout the Gospels, the disciples never really "got" the whole "Jesus is going to die and then be resurrected" thing until after it was all accomplished. Here, they hear him talking about swords, and someone says "yeah, we've got a couple here already." They just don't understand what he's trying to explain, and you can almost hear the Master's resigned sigh. "Sure, that'll be fine.""

Why did Jesus tell His disciples to buy a sword?


I tend to believe the first explanation over the second, but that is just my opinion.

another pastor and teacher that believes the second interpretation of this passage:


"c. It is enough means enough of this kind of talk (Jesus’ firm way of ending the conversation), not two swords will be enough. How could two swords ever be enough against all those who came to arrest Jesus?

i. Jesus’ disciples must be “just as determined and whole-hearted as a fighting man who gives up everything, even his garment, as long as he only possesses a sword to continue the struggle with.” (Geldenhuys)


-David Guzik is the new Senior Pastor of Calvary Chapel Santa Barbara. His excellent study materials have been edifying the Christian community for the past seven years. Currently he is the director of the Calvary Chapel Bible College in Siegen, Germany. Sources: Guzik, David. "Commentary on Luke 22:36". "David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible". "Luke 22 Commentary - James Burton Coffman Commentaries on the Bible. 1997-2003.







Other commentators who believe in a literal Luke 22:36:




----------------------------------------

And he said unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a wallet; and he that hath none, let him sell his cloak, and buy a sword.
The absolute pacifist tradition among Christians of all ages and the acceptance of it by many commentators make this verse "a real problem" for many. Most commentators view the passage as figurative, as did Geldenhuys, who said, "The Lord intended (these words) in a figurative sense."[19] But if the sword is figurative, what about the purse, the wallet, and the cloak?

As Hobbs said, "It is impossible to tone down this statement; neither can we dismiss it as not being a genuine saying of Jesus."[20] The clear meaning of the passage is that "a sword" is the one thing needful, even surpassing in priority such an important item as a cloak. The two errors to be avoided here are (1) the supposition that the gospel should be spread by the sword, and (2) the notion that a sword should ever be employed against lawful authority. Before the evening was over, the Lord would have further occasion to demonstrate the proper and improper uses of the sword. Barnes was certainly correct in his view that "These directions (concerning the sword) were not made with reference to his being taken in the garden but to their future lives."[21]

J. S. Lamar, an eminent Restoration scholar, expressed surprise "to find several of the ablest Protestant expositors interpreting (this passage) as a warrant for self-defense."[22] Nevertheless, the view maintained here is that self-defense is exactly what Jesus taught. Self-defense is a basic, natural right of all men, and there is no lawful government on earth that denies it. Just why should it be supposed that Jesus denied to Christians such a basic right has never been explained. "Resist not evil ... go the second mile ... turn the other cheek... give thy cloak also, etc." are not applicable to situations in which one's life is threatened, or endangered.

[19] Ibid., p. 672.

[20] Herschel H. Hobbs, An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1966), p. 307.

[21] Albert Barnes, op. cit., p. 150.

[22] J. S. Lamar, The New Testament Commentary, Vol. II (Cincinnati, Ohio: Chase and Hall, 1877), p. 260.

Coffman, James Burton. "Commentary on Luke 22:36". "Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament". "Luke 22 Commentary - James Burton Coffman Commentaries on the Bible". Abilene Christian University Press, Abilene, Texas, USA. 1983-1999.

----------------------------------------------

We are living in difficult days. The Lord said, “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” Why? For self protection, of course. They were living in days that required a sword. We need to recognize that fact also. If we do not resist evil today, all kinds of evil will befall us. We could end up in the hospital or have some of our loved ones slain.

McGee, J. V. (1997). Thru the Bible commentary (electronic ed., Vol. 4, p. 347). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

----------------------------------------------------
22:36. Jesus’ instructions here reflect the culmination of His mission and the crescendo of antagonism from the leadership in Jerusalem. The increased context of hostility called for supplies that would facilitate self-preservation (a “money bag” or knapsack) and self defense (a sword). Although the supplies would change, they would still lack nothing (v 35).

Valdés, A. S. (2010). The Gospel according to Luke. In R. N. Wilkin (Ed.), The Grace New Testament Commentary (p. 340). Denton, TX: Grace Evangelical Society.

---------------------------------------------------
When the disciples had depended on God to provide for their needs, those needs were met through generous people. However, the situation had changed. Jesus here instructed His disciples to take a money bag, a knapsack, and a sword on their journeys in order to be prepared for the rejection that was to come.
Radmacher, E. D., Allen, R. B., & House, H. W. (1999). Nelson’s new illustrated Bible commentary (Lk 22:35–36). Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers.
-----------------------------------------------------
The Galileans generally travelled with swords. Christ wore none himself, but he was not against his disciples’ wearing them.

Henry, M. (1994). Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible: complete and unabridged in one volume (p. 1903). Peabody: Hendrickson.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Dave L is correct in this instance.

And I say this after my own full career in the military in a family that has been military for over a century, and in the face of the fact that I am licensed to carry a firearm. But I am an older man, and Ecclesiastes makes a lot of sense to me now.

more commentaries on the interpretation of "sell thy cloak and buy a sword."

-----------------------------------------------------
Jesus is saying: “I am on the point of leaving you, and when I am gone, you must use common sense means for provision and protection.” Such practical considerations were not needed before, but were needed now.
b. The disciples had been sent out to do ministry without Jesus before (Luk 10:1-17), but then they were received with goodwill and hospitality. Now they are facing a hostile world without Jesus, and must be prepared.
c. It is enough means enough of this kind of talk (Jesus’ firm way of ending the conversation), not two swords will be enough. How could two swords ever be enough against all those who came to arrest Jesus?
i. Jesus’ disciples must be “just as determined and whole-hearted as a fighting man who gives up everything, even his garment, as long as he only possesses a sword to continue the struggle with.” (Geldenhuys)

-David Guzik is the new Senior Pastor of Calvary Chapel Santa Barbara. His excellent study materials have been edifying the Christian community for the past seven years. Currently he is the director of the Calvary Chapel Bible College in Siegen, Germany. Sources: Guzik, David. "Commentary on Luke 22:36". "David Guzik Commentaries on the Bible". "Luke 22 Commentary - James Burton Coffman Commentaries on the Bible. 1997-2003.

here are more commentators that agree with a literal interpretation of the verse suggesting that the Disciples, sell their coat and buy a sword:


( I could not fit them all in one post)



Buy a sword (ἀγορασατω μαχαιραν [agorasatō machairan]). This is for defence clearly. The reference is to the special mission in Galilee (Luke 9:16=Mark 6:613=Matt. 9:3511:1). They are to expect persecution and bitter hostility (John 15:1821). Jesus does not mean that his disciples are to repel force by force, but that they are to be ready to defend his cause against attack. Changed conditions bring changed needs.


Robertson, A. T. (1933). Word Pictures in the New Testament (Lk 22:36). Nashville, TN: Broadman Press.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Luke 22:36. ἀλλὰ νῦν, but now, suggesting an emphatic contrast between past and present, or near future. ἀράτω, lift it: if he has a purse let him carry it, it will be needed, either to buy a sword or, more generally, to provide for himself; he is going now not on a peaceful mission in connection with which he may expect friendly reception and hospitality, but on a campaign in an enemys country. ὁ μὴ ἔχων, he who has not; either purse and scrip, or, with reference to what follows, he who hath not already such a thing as a sword let him by all means get one. πωλησάτω τὸ ἱμάτιον, let him sell his upper garment, however indispensable for clothing by day and by night. A sword the one thing needful. This is a realistic speech true to the manner of Jesus and, what is rare in Lk., given without toning down, a genuine logion without doubt.


Nicol, W. Robertson, M.A., L.L.D. "Commentary on Luke 22:36". The Expositor's Greek Testament. "Luke 22 Commentary - The Expositor's Greek Testament". 1897-1910.


------------------------------------------------------


While our Savior was with them on the earth, He miraculously fed, clothed, and protected them when it was necessary. Consequently they could go without these provisions, incident to human life, indiscriminately. But now that He is going away to leave them, they must take heed and give the necessary attention to the temporalities essential to their physical support and protection. The Orientals wear two garments the cheiton, interior, and the himation, exterior. The outer garment they frequently carried while traveling and laid aside when at labor, keeping it for night and storms. Jesus here tells them, if necessary, to sell the himation and buy a sword. I never could understand why He told them to take a sword till I traveled in that country and saw the necessity of carrying weapons. I did not carry any, as I did not know how to use them; but a sanctified preacher in our company carried a revolver, our dragman also being armed with a revolver and a dagger. In some places we were compelled to hire an armed escort to keep the robbers off. Why were you compelled to do it? Our guide refused to go without the armed escort. Going round in Jerusalem, men, as a rule, had no visible weapons; but traveling through the country, all we met were armed with guns, swords, or huge clubs, almost as large as an American rifle, and convenient to kill a man with a single stroke. The guide-books advise all travelers to go armed, but not to use their weapons, their utility being that of intimidation, as robbers abound everywhere, who do not content themselves by simply taking your money, but take everything you possess, leaving you utterly destitute of clothing, baggage, etc. In that day there were no firearms, the sword being the most common weapon of defense; also regarded as a badge of itinerancy. You see, when they pointed out these two swords, He said they were sufficient. The presumption is that the sword was a prudential, peace, and safety provision, for the intimidation of robbers and for personal security in case of emergency, as persons openly avowing the absence of all protecting weapons in their peregrinations would soon fall a prey to the robbers. Along the road from Jerusalem down to Jericho, where the traveler (Luke 10) was attacked by the robbers, the Roman Government had a garrison of armed men to protect the travelers, as the robbers were so troublesome.



Godbey, William. "Commentary on Luke 22:36". "William Godbey's Commentary on the New Testament". ( a Wesleyan evangelist.)

Luke 22 Commentary - William Godbey's Commentary on the New Testament



----------------------------------------


He that hath not, i.e., purse or wallet, let him sell his cloke (outer garment), necessary as that is, and buy a sword, which is now more indispensable than clothing. One who had not a sword, might still have a purse, and thus not be obliged to sell his garment; a point overlooked by the rendering of the E. V. This is not to be taken literally, nor yet allegorically, as though the purse, wallet, and sword had each a spiritual signification; but the whole is a figurative setting forth of the fact that henceforth self-defence would be their chief necessity, in view of the outward perils which would come upon them. This opposes the non-resistant theory of the Quakers, and also the view, that force can be used aggressively in the cause of Christ; self-defence alone is in question.


Schaff, Philip. "Commentary on Luke 22:36". "Schaff's Popular Commentary on the New Testament". "Luke 22 Commentary - Schaff's Popular Commentary on the New Testament". 1879-90..


-------------------------------------------


he told them that matters were now altered, they were to be violently assaulted by their enemies; were to meet with the strongest temptations, and to be so hotly persecuted bytheir countrymen, that they could no longer expect anysuccour at their hands; for which reason, he ordered them, in their future journeys, to provide money, and clothes, and a sword, for themselves: that is to say, besides relying on the divine Providence as formerly, they were to use prudent precautions in fortifying themselves against the trials which were coming on them; and our Lord tells them they were thus to arm themselves, because he was to be treated as a malefactor, condemned and crucified, agreeably to the predictions of the prophets.


Coke, Thomas. "Commentary on Luke 22:36". Thomas Coke Commentary on the Holy Bible. "Luke 22 Commentary - Thomas Coke Commentary on the Holy Bible". 1801-1803.


--------------------------------------------

Didnt Jesus mention pacifism in the Beatitudes like Mathew 5?



Matthew 5:39 and that is that personal revenge is taken out of our hands, and that applies to lynch-law. Aggressive or offensive war by nations is also condemned, but not necessarily defensive war or defence against robbery and murder. Professional pacifism may be mere cowardice.

The Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament. Copyright � Broadman Press 1932,33, Renewal 1960. All rights reserved. Used by permission of Broadman Press (Southern Baptist Sunday School Board)


In similar thought, Dallas Seminary former president exclaims:


Although some might deduce from the principles of the kingdom expounded here that the Bible supports pacifism, most interpreters would not draw this conclusion. In dealing with publicans, John the Baptist instructed them not to abuse their power (Lk 3:13-14). Jesus here was not trying to give hard and fast principles that are applicable under all circumstances, but was stating the ideals which govern His kingdom.


John Walvwoord-series on MATTHEW THY KINGDOM COME, Ch 5 on Matthew 5, 1/1/2008

5. The Moral Principles of the Kingdom | Bible.org



--------------------------------------------------------------
 
Upvote 0

Dave L

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 28, 2018
15,549
5,875
USA
✟580,110.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I strongly dispute that! Where does the NT teach the separation of Church and State? As for the separation of believer and state, Paul clearly asserted his rights as a Roman citizen.
“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” John 18:36 (KJV 1900)

“And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.” John 8:23 (KJV 1900)

“If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” John 15:19 (KJV 1900)

“Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” 1 John 2:15 (KJV 1900)

World = 41.38 κόσμοςc, ου m; αἰώνc, ῶνος m: the system of practices and standards associated with secular society (that is, without reference to any demands or requirements of God)—‘world system, world’s standards, world.’


Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RDKirk
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dave L

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 28, 2018
15,549
5,875
USA
✟580,110.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The State I live in has bequeathed to me the right to use lethal force in protection of self AND others. Even if they didn’t, the FOUNDERS have. I would do this as a citizen, not as a Christian. There’s your separation. But as a Christian I could perhaps avoid it, moderate it or escape it somehow. God's grace could intervene.
“But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;” Matthew 5:44 (KJV 1900)
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” John 18:36 (KJV 1900)

“And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.” John 8:23 (KJV 1900)

“If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” John 15:19 (KJV 1900)

“Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” 1 John 2:15 (KJV 1900)

World = 41.38 κόσμοςc, ου m; αἰώνc, ῶνος m: the system of practices and standards associated with secular society (that is, without reference to any demands or requirements of God)—‘world system, world’s standards, world.’


Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains
I don't believe this means that we should not seek to unify christian moral principles within government. That is not the purpose of the separation of church and state, it was to keep government from infringing the rights of religion.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Dave L
Upvote 0

Sketcher

Born Imperishable
Feb 23, 2004
38,978
9,399
✟378,031.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
If an intruder tries to kill me or my family, I would rather we die upholding Jesus’ words than disobey only to suffer death from old age. Any alternative views on this?
It's one thing to sacrifice your life - but what of your family's? If someone were to harm one of your children or grandchildren because you refused to physically intervene either lethally or non-lethally, is that loving towards them? Before you try to explain it to me, imagine how you would explain it to them after it's all over - one of them is raped, maimed or dead, their siblings crying. And explain to them why they were not worthy of your physical intervention to protect them, and how you still love them anyway in view of your willful non-action.
 
Upvote 0

Dave L

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 28, 2018
15,549
5,875
USA
✟580,110.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It's one thing to sacrifice your life - but what of your family's? If someone were to harm one of your children or grandchildren because you refused to physically intervene either lethally or non-lethally, is that loving towards them? Before you try to explain it to me, imagine how you would explain it to them after it's all over - one of them is raped, maimed or dead, their siblings crying. And explain to them why they were not worthy of your physical intervention to protect them, and how you still love them anyway in view of your willful non-action.
You might become a human shield and sacrifice your own life. This is what Jesus did. But he never took the sword and expects us to follow his example. If you consider those who die upholding his words receive the crown of life (martyr's crown), why kill, and deny Christ only to die from the pains of old age? And if the wicked die young, they have less sin to suffer for in eternity than if you intervene. It's all in how you look at it.
 
Upvote 0

JAM2b

Newbie
Sep 20, 2014
1,822
1,913
✟93,117.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
This is a major internal struggle for me. I lean heavily toward pacifism, but I have a "riding the fense" believe in self-defense and defending the vulnerable if there is not a peaceful option. The tricky part is lack of trust in leaders when they say it is necessary, and trusting them to do right by soldiers after war. I am very cynical when it comes to war and military action because they fight for some causes and ignore others that are just as worthy or possibly more worthy. The amount of damage to innocent lives is overwhelming. It raises many questions and doubts in my mind about the motives and intentions of leaders.

I believe in the altruism, loyalty, love, and good intentions of individual soldiers. I just don't trust those in high places who make the decisions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RDKirk
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dave L

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 28, 2018
15,549
5,875
USA
✟580,110.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is a major internal struggle for me. I lean heavily toward pacifism, but I have a "riding the fense" believe in self-defense and defending the vulnerable if there is not a peaceful option. The tricky part is lack of trust in leaders when they say it is necessary, and trusting them to do right by soldiers after war. I am very cynical when it comes to war and military action because they fight for some causes and ignore others that are just as worthy or possibly more worthy. The amount of damage to innocent lives is overwhelming. It raises many questions and doubts in my mind about the motives and intentions of leaders.

I believe in the altruism, loyalty, love, and good intentions of individual soldiers. I just don't trust those in high places who make the decisions.
As I see it, Jesus knows what he's doing when he says resist not evil and love enemies. It's the only position that makes sense if you consider the spiritual aspects. If we die upholding his word we receive a martyr's crown so to speak. If we kill to remain alive, we not only deny him, but live to die from the miseries of old age.

If you kill to prevent the death of a believer, you cheat them out of their reward along with yourself. If you prevent the death of an unbeliever, they live only to enjoy more sin for which they will suffer more in eternity. Jesus makes sense.
 
Upvote 0

JAM2b

Newbie
Sep 20, 2014
1,822
1,913
✟93,117.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Divorced
If you prevent the death of an unbeliever, they live only to enjoy more sin for which they will suffer more in eternity.

Wouldn't you be cheating them out of future opportunities to come to know the Jesus we know and trust, ensuring their salvation and possibly changing them into a loving and peaceful person?
 
Upvote 0

Dave L

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 28, 2018
15,549
5,875
USA
✟580,110.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Wouldn't you be cheating them out of future opportunities to come to know the Jesus we know and trust, ensuring their salvation and possibly changing them into a loving and peaceful person?
Jesus says all the Father gave to him will come to him = nobody dies before their time.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
This is a major internal struggle for me. I lean heavily toward pacifism, but I have a "riding the fense" believe in self-defense and defending the vulnerable if there is not a peaceful option. The tricky part is lack of trust in leaders when they say it is necessary, and trusting them to do right by soldiers after war. I am very cynical when it comes to war and military action because they fight for some causes and ignore others that are just as worthy or possibly more worthy. The amount of damage to innocent lives is overwhelming. It raises many questions and doubts in my mind about the motives and intentions of leaders.

I believe in the altruism, loyalty, love, and good intentions of individual soldiers. I just don't trust those in high places who make the decisions.

As I see it, Jesus knows what he's doing when he says resist not evil and love enemies. It's the only position that makes sense if you consider the spiritual aspects. If we die upholding his word we receive a martyr's crown so to speak. If we kill to remain alive, we not only deny him, but live to die from the miseries of old age.

If you kill to prevent the death of a believer, you cheat them out of their reward along with yourself. If you prevent the death of an unbeliever, they live only to enjoy more sin for which they will suffer more in eternity. Jesus makes sense.

again if someone breaks into your house and attempts to traffick your wife and daughters, and you simply say "Jesus wants me to love my enemies." And you don't protect your family when you have the power to do so. Well lets just say that you are more a member of satan than of God in this situation. So I agree with the other poster. There is time for self defense, but in cases of offensive war (for oil, or for land or for property) God would rather us give away our property, not kill and defend our property. But our family is not property, they are children of God who need a leader, not some pacifist as a father. God help your children, if you have any. Like I said you can make yourself a martyr but voluntarily making your family martyrs when they don't want to be, is no different than being an evil dictator in the name of God. Hitler went to mass almost every sunday, and had the blessings of the catholic church.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dave L

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 28, 2018
15,549
5,875
USA
✟580,110.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
again if someone breaks into your house and attempts to traffick your wife and daughters, and you simply say "Jesus wants me to love my enemies." And you don't protect your family when you have the power to do so. Well lets just say that you are more a member of satan than of God in this situation. So I agree with the other poster. There is time for self defense, but in cases of offensive war (for oil, or for land or for property) God would rather us give away our property, not kill and defend our property. But our family is not property, they are children of God who need a leader, not some pacifist as a father. God help your children, if you have any. Like I said you can make yourself a martyr but voluntarily making your family martyrs when they don't want to be, is no different than being an evil dictator in the name of God. Hitler went to mass almost every sunday, and had the blessings of the catholic church.
You're missing the beauty of Christ's teaching on non-violence. I can uphold Jesus' word being a "human shield" just as he was, yet without violence. And Paul says it is better to die as a believer and go to heaven than remain here. I throw old age into the mix and say it is far better to die young upholding Christ's words, that to kill loosing my crown to die of old age. This would be true where any believer is involved.

The unbelievers suffer less in hell dying young and sinning less than if you were to intervene. Not only losing your own crown but heaping more suffering on them resulting from a long life.
 
Upvote 0