Is it ever ok to kill our enemies in the name of Jesus?

[John Hyperspace]

It's not my own definition. It's God's.

It was your definition of "true pacifist", God doesn't have a definition of "true pacifist" as the phrase doesn't appear in the bible. But the word "pacifist" is defined by popular usage, which definition has nothing to do with "war of words"

 

[John Hyperspace]

Willfully avoiding Christ defending the home? You do see him defending his Fathers home right?

If you're going to seriously compare Jesus Christ cleansing the temple of God from moneychangers, to you killing a man; then all I can say is, you follow that spirit, and I'll follow the other that tells me not to kill others.

 

[Philip_B]

I accept the position of a pacifist, and I support them in it, though I do not adopt it outright. The faith tradition in which we find ourselves has rarely been all lollipops and roses. And I do accept that there is something marginally inconsistent with the notion of 'fighting for peace'. I find Psalm 137 inspiring, confronting, challenging, realistic, and I think in a way I get it.

Psalm 137

Lament over the Destruction of Jerusalem

By the rivers of Babylon—
there we sat down and there we wept
when we remembered Zion.
On the willows there
we hung up our harps.
For there our captors
asked us for songs,
and our tormentors asked for mirth, saying,
‘Sing us one of the songs of Zion!’

How could we sing the Lord’s song
in a foreign land?
If I forget you, O Jerusalem,
let my right hand wither!
Let my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth,
if I do not remember you,
if I do not set Jerusalem
above my highest joy.

Remember, O Lord, against the Edomites
the day of Jerusalem’s fall,
how they said, ‘Tear it down! Tear it down!
Down to its foundations!’
O daughter Babylon, you devastator!
Happy shall they be who pay you back
what you have done to us!
Happy shall they be who take your little ones
and dash them against the rock!​

There is something amazingly powerful in the lament, and in the cry for retribution, and maybe we really do need to be in touch with our own reality and the depths of our own humanity. One of my sayings as a teenager - no doubt borrowed from someone 'suppose they gave a war and nobody came'. I lament the poverty of my understanding, perhaps the naivety of youth, perhaps well fed in the west, in a world were none of us understood why we were sending young men (and possibly me) to Vietnam for somebody else's war. I am a bit older now, and I have seen a bit more of the human condition, and I think the Christian's default position is the non-violent proposition, however I see there are times and places where that is not enough, when the nation makes decisions, where people for whom I have care and responsibility are under threat, and no doubt many other positions. These are not decisions taken lightly, though they may need to be taken in haste, but that does not make them wrong decisions.

 

[PollyJetix]

The law also said "eye for eye, tooth for tooth": do you abide by that law, since you endorse the law of Moses for your actions? Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, Deuteronomy 19:21. But Jesus said: Matthew 5:38-39. Who do you follow, Moses or Jesus? Old covenant or new? John 1:17, John 5:45

The commandment of "An eye for and eye, and a tooth for a tooth" was something said by "them of old time"--the rabbis of the 400 years of silence, whose teachings the Pharisees studied and applied more than the actual Torah. and THIS is what Jesus was correcting in the Sermon on the Mount. He was not doing away with Exodus 21:24.

Remember, Jesus preceded his teachings there with "I have not come to destroy the law!"

Yes, God told Moses those words, but the rabbis and the Pharisees twisted them to mean something different.

What God was giving Moses, was guidelines for the government, when enforcing punishment. No punishment could go higher than the level of wrong done.
However, the punishment could be avoided altogether, if the party wronged chose to forgive it completely.

The Pharisees were applying this as "I can make you suffer every inch as much as you made me suffer!"
When that is exactly the attitude God warned against, in Leviticus 19:18.

You claim to be such a pacifist, in outward letter-of-the-law physical violence.
But your heart... how full of strife and war is it?

Isn't this hypocrisy?

 

[PollyJetix]

...Also are you saying we should stone our children to death if they are disobedient? Are we sinning for not stoning children?

We are not enforcers of the law, personally.
It is the government that enforces law.
And, yes, God's law is perfect. He said so.

However, this is the day of grace. God is granting TIME for sinners to repent, before He lowers the boom of Judgment Day on them all.

And yes, those who are not in Christ, who depend on their own works to justify them before God, will find themselves served the death penalty... the ultimate death penalty.

 

[PollyJetix]

If you're going to seriously compare Jesus Christ cleansing the temple of God from moneychangers, to you killing a man; then all I can say is, you follow that spirit, and I'll follow the other that tells me not to kill others.

But, that is not the spirit you are following, if you love to fight using words.
Where is this coming from?
1 John 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother IS a murderer.

 

[ldibart]

What I can say is this: I know the scripture; I know the new covenant; I have myriad teachings telling me "be harmless as doves" "blessed are the peacemakers" "do not resist evil" "take up your cross" "render no man evil for evil" "turn the other cheek" "threaten not" "do not repay evil for evil; overcome evil with good" "love works no ill" "forgive your enemies" etc.

Can anyone produce a single teaching in the manner "kill those that threaten you" "when rendered evil, take out the sword and kill" "blessed are them that kill in my name" or any such thing?

If

you're going to seriously compare Jesus Christ cleansing the temple of God from moneychangers, to you killing a man; then all I can say is, you follow that spirit, and I'll follow the other that tells me not to kill others.

I said the context to YOU was under the dove .. and it was said that a dove fights .. so .I said as Christ did defend his home he did defend those being robbed he did INDEED use FORCE and he took it to the level needed to defend his home

THAT is the same as we can do .. defend our homes to the necessary level needed to stop it .. this shows the scriptures you quoted are not intended to be used in the way you say it ..

what happened to turning the other cheek? Jesus did not there....what happens to repay not an evil man? .. did not christ do this ? resist not evil men ..did not christ do that ?.. see you have the scriptures taken in the wrong context .. or else Christ would not have done what he did .This and Ananias incident says you are incorrect in your assumptions

SO i am the type to say ACTIONS speak louder than words .. Christ actions dealing with robbers evil men in his fathers earthly house proves you have those scriptures out of context .

So answer what I said .. not cop out with "you seriously cannot compare what he did in the temple " because I already proved he is not your definition of harmless as a dove. nor is the definitions of turn the other cheek resist not an evil man OR not to repay evil ..

I also showed that others were put to death for holding back money and lying Husband and Wife .. I can put together many many more examples but you don't care about actions that show what the words actually mean

he gave us commonsense to use .. IF you do not fight for your family or children friends being killed and can listen to their screams and begging for you or anyone to help
If you do not fight to your death for them and lay down your life if needed to save them THEN that is not GOD you are listening too hear God and his words as the Good Shepard ..why call him that ? to defend from wolves .. or so he could watch the wolves kill his sheep?

I suppose you will poo poo away the defensive qualities of a Shepard and say its symbolism .. YET harmless as a dove is symbolism as well ..

 

[PollyJetix]

It was your definition of "true pacifist", God doesn't have a definition of "true pacifist" as the phrase doesn't appear in the bible. But the word "pacifist" is defined by popular usage, which definition has nothing to do with "war of words"

According to the dictionary:

pac·i·fist
ˈpasəfəst/
noun
noun: pacifist; plural noun: pacifists
1.
a person who believes that war and violence are unjustifiable.

Now, you claim that you hold this belief.
Yet, Jesus always majors on attitudes, more than physical actions.

How is it you can claim to be a literal follower of Christ, and claim to be a pacifist, and yet think it's okay to fight with words, and enjoy verbal violence?

 

[ldibart]

.

 

[ldibart]

.

 

[PastorFreud]

If you are a true follower of the Koran then all Christians and all other faiths are expendable if they do not convert to Islam. So are you ready to convert? To do so would be to deny Christ.

You said
"I was hoping you would enlighten me since you think it is a bad thing. I wouldn't mind giving up birthday parties for world peace."

Maybe you should think about reconsider you statement based on the bible verses in

1 Thessalonians 5:2-4 King James Version (KJV)
2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.
4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.

Awesome job misappropriating 1 Thessalonians. That verse is clearly about the day of the Lord, which is not an every day kind of occurrence.

Sure, sharia law looks about as horrible as OT law. I'll grant that. But we don't stone our children or force women to marry their rapists, so we don't apply OT law. My understanding is that moderate Muslims are the same and they are fighting for women's rights. Extremists exist, of course, but they exist in every religion. And still, wouldn't it be better to die in Christ - and let your sacrifice serve as a witness -- than to kill an enemy?

 

[SolomonVII]

What I can say is this: I have myriad teachings telling me "be harmless as doves" "blessed are the peacemakers" "do not resist evil" "take up your cross" "render no man evil for evil" "turn the other cheek" "threaten not" "do not repay evil for evil; overcome evil with good" "love works no ill" "forgive your enemies" etc.

Can anyone produce a single teaching in the manner "kill those that threaten you" "when rendered evil, take out the sword and kill" "blessed are them that kill in my name" or any such thing?

Nope.
That would be anti-gospel.
Can you produce a verse that says to give your children up to the fire, or to turn up the TV louder in order not to hear the screams of your daughters and your wife as they are being raped?

Can you find a verse that advises you that is someone sues you for your shirt, you should offer him also your neices virginity?

 

[PastorFreud]

hmm ok I must have not been clear I will restate it like this if they took up swords they all would have been killed. Jesus plan was to have a church he would not have one had the proceeded on that path

Yes of course their are multiple uses for a sword ..a deterrent to robbers . I am not sure where you think i said its only for killing however

I did make a point that we CAN defend our loved ones

Yes, you confused me. Now I see your point that the disciples would have been overpowered. You see in Christ's suffering a greater purpose, even though it was not understood by the disciples or, most likely, even by Jesus. And couldn't the same be true of our deaths? And killing for loved ones misses the point. If they are servants of God, they wouldn't want you to kill for them. If they are not, your death would be a witness to them. If you die. Defend yourself by all means necessary short of taking life. I think the situation requiring life or death is not as common as one thinks and, by faith, God can provide a way.

 

[PastorFreud]

You're kidding right? There is nothing wrong with Arabic or any other language should one choose to learn it. I speak more than one language. But under Sharia law you will be forced to speak and read Arabic. Do you want armed Jihadists forcing you to learn Arabic?

It is not either/or, living under Sharia law means being forced to learn Arabic and become a muslim. Here are the first eleven Sharia laws from one list I found.

• Theft is punishable by amputation of the right hand.
• Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
• Criticizing Muhammad or denying that he is a prophet is punishable by death.
• Criticizing or denying Allah is punishable by death.
• A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death .
• A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
• A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
• Girls' [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] should be cut (Muhammad's, Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
• A woman can have 1 husband, who can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more.
• A man can beat his wife for insubordination..​

I saw that list online. From a biased website. The Muslims I know are not in favor of this kind of law. The Muslim women I know are even more against it. This seems to be what extremists want. A similar list could be created from the Pentateuch.

 

[PastorFreud]

Exactly and Paster frued is a muslim


It does not take all Muslims to be on board, the ones that ARE on board would be the ones pushing and setting up courts so on to rule the many as seems to be the case which is the usual case..because the majority would be passive instead of bringing to prison BY FORCE those evil men which are killing beating torturing ..

SHARIA LAW is barbaric and evil many believe in sharia law just the small amount that is here already set up a sharia court in Texas and that court had to be removed .

Report: 1,200 women assaulted on New Year's Eve in German cities

the EU is having sexual assaults they had 1200 in one night! and 24 same night full out rapes! there are 900 go zones 750 in france .. news crews attempted to interview the camera man smashed in the face and they crew had to run while they chanted this is our city .
People are not suppose to just let themselves be raped nor beat killed or other.

Clearly the swords are not back scratchers and the apostle new he had the right to defend with it and did not go for a death blow but a warning shot thus the ear cut off . IT was not the right timing because Jesus had larger plans and did not want them to die it was his time to be taken .

Jesus defended his fathers house from robbers he had the right to overturn tables and toss things over and whip at those evil men in his father house and obviously would escalate as needed until the left.

NO we have the RIGHT to defend our homes and our loved ones!

The language of "rights" may be a valid way to speak as citizen of an earthly nation. It is not a biblical way to speak or consistent with Citizenship in God's Kingdom.

 

[Philip_B]

Exactly and Paster frued is a muslim

Are you able to establish that claim, I wonder?

 

[PastorFreud]

I have heard opinions in the past that Christianity was designed to keep people under oppression and is a religion of slaves. What do you think to this concept?
It does appear sometimes that we are always giving in to more dominant faiths or ideas.

Curious idea. I'm not sure I would ascribe malice to Christianity's formers and developers, yet at the same time I would say power corrupts. When Constantine made Christianity the religion of the state, something definitely happened along the lines of people complying or being oppressed.

The slavery idea is fascinating as well. It does seem that some Christians see their roles in the world as puppets or slaves. They willingly abdicate reason and have strong faith in their un-vetted sources. Yet there are also more reasonable Christians who seem to have a faith that is not based on fear and obedience, but upon sharing God's love for humanity and God's desire to call all his children home to himself. You've brought up an interesting point to ponder.

 

[PastorFreud]

Are you able to establish that claim, I wonder?

I am NOT a Muslim. I think the poster was suggesting that I would be a Muslim because I refused to kill Muslim oppressors. Oh ye of little faith! I believe I could resist and God would make a way, but even if that didn't happen, can't win people by shooting them or blowing them up.

 

[ldibart]

Yes, you confused me. Now I see your point that the disciples would have been overpowered. You see in Christ's suffering a greater purpose, even though it was not understood by the disciples or, most likely, even by Jesus. And couldn't the same be true of our deaths? And killing for loved ones misses the point. If they are servants of God, they wouldn't want you to kill for them. If they are not, your death would be a witness to them. If you die. Defend yourself by all means necessary short of taking life. I think the situation requiring life or death is not as common as one thinks and, by faith, God can provide a way.

Hello,I agree that situation is not common.. I also agree struggling .. I would not allow my life to be snatched by evil intent and also feel that if it was truly my time then I will lose anyhow and if it was not my time and I had to take a life then it was their time and God judged them not me..

IF my death is supposedly meant to be by God and I do not die then the flip side of that same coin says it was indeed their time and apparently God felt they had long enough to choose Christ and their evil actions is what got them killed and not my saving my loved ones or even myself.

The language of "rights" may be a valid way to speak as citizen of an earthly nation. It is not a biblical way to speak or consistent with Citizenship in God's Kingdom.

We are of an earthly kingdom as we live here and one of heavenly for now. Later an earthly kingdom will come from heaven set up and ruled by heaven and MUSLIM world it will not be. knowing this is to know that they will NOT gain the world nor should they gain it .as it Christs world.

So we need to reflect heaven onto earth as much as possible thy kingdom come they will be done on earth as it is in heaven .

this will is not one that will allow for rapes butchering of christians sexual assaults so on ..

 

[PastorFreud]

Can you resist without taking life yourself? And isn't sacrificial death a form of resistance? Paul said, "My citizenship IS in heaven..."

Jesus also made it clear his disciples should not be a part of earthly power structures -- "Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

No one stopped the radical butchering of infants two years old and under in Bethlehem. In 70AD when the temple fell, the Christians did not use force or power -- they fled. I don't see a biblical exclusion that allows us to kill each other.