Do you support/condone violence?

[Servant of the Kingdom]

I mean even in self defense. I know some mennonite and anabaptist groups condemn it, what about baptists?

 

[ZeroTX]

I support self-defense. I cannot speak for other Baptists.

-Michael

 

[TwinCrier]

I support self defense, including military and police action. I feel that pacifism and non-resistance is unbiblical beyond a personal level.

[url]http://av1611.faithweb.com/custom4.html[/url]

 

[McCravey]

I think that Christ's teaching shows us that non-violence is the way. To respond with violence puts too much value in the things of this world...ie. I value my health, money, etc. more than I value your life. But of course, this is a very difficult thing to live out.

 

[Crazy Liz]

You make a good point, McCravey. Although Anabaptists and Quakers traditionally oppose the use of violence, we do not condemn others for acting in self-defense.

Whether one comes to a pacifist conclusion or that of nonresistance depends on how you think a nonviolent person can best act as salt, light and yeast in the world, as we are called to be the vanguard of the Kingdom of God.

 

[ZeroTX]

I think that Christ's teaching shows us that non-violence is the way. To respond with violence puts too much value in the things of this world...ie. I value my health, money, etc. more than I value your life. But of course, this is a very difficult thing to live out.

Thanks to the above person for pointing me at this Scripture. There are a couple of instances where we see that Jesus does not believe in pacifism in all cases.

When Jesus says to his Disciples in Luke:

"And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one." Luke 22:36 (NASB)

Here he's telling them to become armed in preparation for their own personal defense. The reason for Jesus' pacifism is because he knows he must fulfill the prophecy, and allow himself to be crucified. This is not a general pacifist look at all matters, but only in the matter of his sacrifice for us.

-Michael

 

[Crazy Liz]

Thanks to the above person for pointing me at this Scripture. There are a couple of instances where we see that Jesus does not believe in pacifism in all cases.

When Jesus says to his Disciples in Luke:

"And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one." Luke 22:36 (NASB)

Here he's telling them to become armed in preparation for their own personal defense. The reason for Jesus' pacifism is because he knows he must fulfill the prophecy, and allow himself to be crucified. This is not a general pacifist look at all matters, but only in the matter of his sacrifice for us.

-Michael

I don't think that's what Jesus is telling his disciples at all. Have you read the Sermon on the Mount? Did Jeus ever take that back? Did Jesus say he was not going to resist evil becuase he was making a sacrifice, but the disciples were to defend themselves? What about the martyrs? The church has always honored those who testified to Christ, even though it meant tehir death. The chuch has not similarly honored saints for killing their persecutors.

 

[Iron Lion]

i think fighting bck is ok as long as u dont have any other way to get outa it. try talk your way outa it and so on.

 

[theseed]

I belive that pacifism must be employed at times, but I don't always oppose going to war.

A very strong case for extreme pacifism can be made using Scripture. So I have been thinking alot about this lately.

 

[12volt_man]

Violence, sadly, is often necessary.

As was pointed out, it was no less an authority than Christ, Himself, who ordered His disciples to go and buy swords to defend themselves with.

In addition, it should be noted that Christ, Himself, committed an act of violence when he chased the moneychangers out of the temple.

 

[theseed]

Yes, Jesus did use the whip in the Temple, but are you Jesus?

Also, I need proof for the sword thing, because I've never seen it in the Bible, but infact, I have seen the opposite twice.

 

[12volt_man]

Yes, Jesus did use the whip in the Temple, but are you Jesus?

No one is claiming to be Jesus but the point was made that Jesus made a blanket condemnation of violence. My point was that Jesus did not condemn violence. At the very least, His actions in the Temple are a tacit approval of violence where appropriate.

At worst, if He did condemn and the commit violence, then not only is He logically inconsistent, but He has committed sin and is no longer the unblemished Lamb of God, no longer a worthy or acceptable sacrifice and His death on the cross is therefore meaningless.

Also, I need proof for the sword thing, because I've never seen it in the Bible,

Luke 22:36.

but infact, I have seen the opposite twice.

Where? Could you please show us where in scripture Jesus teaches "the opposite"?

 

[theseed]

Where? Could you please show us where in scripture Jesus teaches "the opposite"?

Matthew 26:52
Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for [Gen 9:6; Rev 13:10] all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.

 

[12volt_man]

Matthew 26:52
Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for [Gen 9:6; Rev 13:10] all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.

But Jesus isn't teaching the opposite here.

He's not condemning violence or the use of the sword, here, He's trying to stop Peter from (a) interfering with His destiny and the arrest that must take place in order for Him to fulfil His date with the cross and (b) being killed.

Good try but no.

So, again, I ask you: could you please show us an example from scripture where Jesus "teaches the opposite"?

 

[theseed]

So, again, I ask you: could you please show us an example from scripture where Jesus "teaches the opposite"?

Nice try, but you did not refute this passage. It clearly says that those who take up the sword will die by it--thus those who use violence will die by it. Therefore, this is an anti-violent statement.

And if this was not enough--about about the well-known obvious?

Matt. 5 (KJV)
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 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;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Luke 6 (KJV)
28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.
30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.
34 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.

 

[12volt_man]

Nice try, but you did not refute this passage.

It wasn't up to me to refute it since it didn't say what you claimed it said to begin with.

It clearly says that those who take up the sword will die by it--thus those who use violence will die by it. Therefore, this is an anti-violent statement.

Again, Jesus' statement here is not condemning of violence, but an attempt to stop Peter from keeping Jesus (albeit, unknowingly) from fulfilling the prophecies concerning Him and keeping Him from the cross.

He was also speaking as a caring friend who did not want His friend and confidant to be killed at the hands of the surrounding guards.

Even so, for Jesus to warn Peter that violence only leads to more violence is not the same as teaching against violence.

And if this was not enough--about about the well-known obvious?[/font]

Matt. 5 (KJV)
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 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;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Luke 6 (KJV)
28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.
30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.
34 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.

Actually, in both of these passages, Jesus is speaking specifically about how His disciples are to handle themselves in the face of persecution for the sake of the Gospel. Neither of these passages is a blanket condemnation of violence.

You've never attempted to explain the contradiction between Jesus ordering His disciples to go and buy swords with which to protect themselves and the idea that Jesus is against all forms of violence, even when appropriate. I also notice that you completely ignored the example I brought up about Jesus committing an act of violence in the temple.

So then, was His violence justified or was He a hypocrite?

 

[theseed]

Even so, for Jesus to warn Peter that violence only leads to more violence is not the same as teaching against violence.

It's not :sratch:

Actually, in both of these passages, Jesus is speaking specifically about how His disciples are to handle themselves in the face of persecution for the sake of the Gospel. Neither of these passages is a blanket condemnation of violence.

"but whosoever shall smite thee" (Matt. 5.39)

You've never attempted to explain the contradiction between Jesus ordering His disciples to go and buy swords with which to protect themselves and the idea that Jesus is against all forms of violence, even when appropriate. I also notice that you completely ignored the example I brought up about Jesus committing an act of violence in the temple.

So then, was His violence justified or was He a hypocrite?

I belive that pacifism must be employed at times, but I don't always oppose going to war.

A very strong case for extreme pacifism can be made using Scripture. So I have been thinking alot about this lately.

See post #9

 

[12volt_man]

It's not

No, it's not. An observation and a moral declaration are two different things.

"but whosoever shall smite thee" (Matt. 5.39)

So then, I take it you're not a big fan of context? Again, these statements were made in the context of how His disciples were to handle themselves in a given situation, not axiomatic for all situations.

You've never attempted to explain the contradiction between Jesus ordering His disciples to go and buy swords with which to protect themselves and the idea that Jesus is against all forms of violence, even when appropriate. I also notice that you completely ignored the example I brought up about Jesus committing an act of violence in the temple.

So then, was His violence justified or was He a hypocrite?

 

[theseed]

No, it's not. An observation and a moral declaration are two different things

The observation has moral implications. Also, it read like a proverb or colloqualism.

So then, I take it you're not a big fan of context? Again, these statements were made in the context of how His disciples were to handle themselves in a given situation, not axiomatic for all situations.

Perscution is only part of the context, it is part of a long list of vile and evil things.

You've never attempted to explain the contradiction between Jesus ordering His disciples to go and buy swords with which to protect themselves and the idea that Jesus is against all forms of violence, even when appropriate. I also notice that you completely ignored the example I brought up about Jesus committing an act of violence in the temple.

So then, was His violence justified or was He a hypocrite?

I've already answered this in post #9. I never made a blanket statement claim, you assumed I did. I said that I did not see where Christ taught his disciples to buy swords.

And Christ did turn the other cheek, and submitted himself to arrest, flogging, and crucifixion

 

[12volt_man]

The observation has moral implications. Also, it read like a proverb or colloqualism.

I would prefer to read it in the spirit it was meant.

Perscution is only part of the context, it is part of a long list of vile and evil things.

No, it's not just part of the context, it is the context. Jesus is speaking specifically of howHis disciples should face persecution for the sake of the Gospel.

I've already answered this in post #9.

No, you didn't. Here are your exact words from #9:

I belive that pacifism must be employed at times, but I don't always oppose going to war.

A very strong case for extreme pacifism can be made using Scripture. So I have been thinking alot about this lately.

...here we see that you didn't answer the question at all. In fact, your post has nothing to do with my question.

I never made a blanket statement claim, you assumed I did.

I never said you made any kind of a blanket statement. I don't even know what you're referring to.

I said that I did not see where Christ taught his disciples to buy swords.

You asked where Christ's admonition to His disciples was found and I showed you. Then, you completely ignored it as well as my point that Jesus, Himself, committed an act of violence.

And Christ did turn the other cheek, and submitted himself to arrest, flogging, and crucifixion

I agree but what does that have to do with the subject at hand.