Passivity or resistance when under life threatening persecution?

[afishamongmany]

Hello - I see there is already a 'Persecution' thread here started by Lik3 but I'd like this one to be focused on the question in the thread title. I've chosen this forum rather than the 'Christians only' alternative as I'm interested in the common human dilemma involved at the heart of the question.
This thread is not about forgiveness. For a Christian it is quite clear, we are to forgive. Nor is the thread about if, when, where or how persecution is happening or will happen in any particular region of the world.
This morning I read this,
from Barnabas prayer booklet -
“It is good this happened to the Copts (Christians) and not to anyone else. They forgive and do not retaliate.” This comment was made on Egyptian national TV by a muslim news presenter last year, after Islamic State militants had attacked a group of Christians on a family day out in Minya province, killing 29 and injuring 22, among them children. Praise God that the Christ-like response of His people is so much the norm in Egypt, and pray that this may draw many peace-loving Muslims to the Lord Jesus.
This talks of 'not retaliating' but what about self defense, what about being on guard, armed and ready to attack back when attacked (and therewith the possibility of killing and maiming the attackers)? If you, your family, your community were under this kind of threat and at the heart of your philosophy, beliefs, religion was some sort of 'be peaceful and nonviolent' principle, how would you deal with it?
><>

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[afishamongmany]

From experience of more than once, I know that I would put my life on the line. My future destiny is heaven.

Hi vinsight4u - 'life on the line' ? so you would not physically defend yourself or those threatened?
><>

 

[Sanoy]

I don't know and it's something I have wondered about for a while. I think there are times where you certainly should, like being a father/mother or as a husband. All the points of passivity in the NT seem to involve the state, authority figures, or mobs. Basically positions where fighting would make you appear as the aggressor or the guilty.

I don't think there is any clear call on what to do. I know I'm going to fight, I able to accomplish it, and I'm not going to put the next man in danger when I could have stoped the person when I had the chance. A body guard I knew told me something thats stuck with me when I asked him about it. He said something to the effect of "why should the world receive a murderer at the cost of one that saves life." Ultimately it is going to depend on the situation and discernment.

 

[afishamongmany]

I don't know and it's something I have wondered about for a while. I think there are times where you certainly should, like being a father/mother or as a husband. All the points of passivity in the NT seem to involve the state, authority figures, or mobs. Basically positions where fighting would make you appear as the aggressor or the guilty.

I don't think there is any clear call on what to do. I know I'm going to fight, I able to accomplish it, and I'm not going to put the next man in danger when I could have stoped the person when I had the chance. Ultimately I think it is going to depend on the situation and discernment.

Hi Sanoy - what about serious (that is fight back stuff) security for meetings or an outing?
><>

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[Sanoy]

Hi Sanoy - what about serious (that is fight back stuff) security for meetings or an outing?
><>

I think that, in the kinds of situations we imagine, if you can defend someone you should, even if it requires you to kill. I can't speak from scripture, but that is what I believe is morally the right thing to do. I think if you are given charge of someone it is your duty to protect them. Whether that be as a pastor, a father, husband, or running security for a meeting.

That said, Vinsight did everything right. He protected everyone, prayed and trusted God. But God can't make someone do the right thing, and there may come a time when you have to kill.

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[Strathos]

I draw a clear distinction between defending yourself and/or others from an immediate threat and retaliating by harming innocent people.

For example, if a Muslim tried to kill me, I would defend myself. But I wouldn't try to kill other uninvolved Muslims in revenge.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Hello - I see there is already a 'Persecution' thread here started by Lik3 but I'd like this one to be focused on the question in the thread title. I've chosen this forum rather than the 'Christians only' alternative as I'm interested in the common human dilemma involved at the heart of the question.
This thread is not about forgiveness. For a Christian it is quite clear, we are to forgive. Nor is the thread about if, when, where or how persecution is happening or will happen in any particular region of the world.
This morning I read this,
from Barnabas prayer booklet -
“It is good this happened to the Copts (Christians) and not to anyone else. They forgive and do not retaliate.” This comment was made on Egyptian national TV by a muslim news presenter last year, after Islamic State militants had attacked a group of Christians on a family day out in Minya province, killing 29 and injuring 22, among them children. Praise God that the Christ-like response of His people is so much the norm in Egypt, and pray that this may draw many peace-loving Muslims to the Lord Jesus.
This talks of 'not retaliating' but what about self defense, what about being on guard, armed and ready to attack back when attacked (and therewith the possibility of killing and maiming the attackers)? If you, your family, your community were under this kind of threat and at the heart of your philosophy, beliefs, religion was some sort of 'be peaceful and nonviolent' principle, how would you deal with it?
><>

If there were ever a peaceful people who did not retaliate, fight back, or proactively eliminate threats to their society...then they were wiped out by a people who did.

There's not much choice to be had.

 

[brinny]

I'd defend and fight back.

I'd be praying first, and praying during my defending and fighting back, including asking God to intervene as only He can.

There are issues of justice and righteousness involved.

If anybody's gonna "bite the dust" it would be evil and those having the audacity to attempt to carry out evil plans.

Take a gander at the seven things God hates.

Amongst them is that God HATES the shedding of innocent blood.

 

[afishamongmany]

I draw a clear distinction between defending yourself and/or others from an immediate threat and retaliating by harming innocent people.

For example, if a Muslim tried to kill me, I would defend myself. But I wouldn't try to kill other uninvolved Muslims in revenge.

Hello Strathos - Sure a good distinction to make, between self defense and revengeful retaliation.
If you had been on that bus on that day would you have wanted to be carrying a gun and/or to have had gun carriers on the bus with you?
><>

 

[afishamongmany]

If there were ever a peaceful people who did not retaliate, fight back, or proactively eliminate threats to their society...then they were wiped out by a people who did.

There's not much choice to be had.

Hi Ana the1st - Well yes that's the logic but how and why some societies survive while others get wiped out can be (despite what some history books tell us) quite complex to understand.
The complexity of persecution highlighted in the OP is that it is vicious persecution of one pacific group by another murderous group both supposedly under the jurisdiction of a government that says and does 'some' good things but seems completely powerless to deal with lawlessness.
I'm wondering whether the Christians in Egypt have the option of armed defense even if they chose to do that?
><>

 

[afishamongmany]

I'd defend and fight back.

I'd be praying first, and praying during my defending and fighting back, including asking God to intervene as only He can.
There are issues of justice and righteousness involved.
If anybody's gonna "bite the dust" it would be evil and those having the audacity to attempt to carry out evil plans.

Take a gander at the seven things God hates.
Amongst them is that God HATES the shedding of innocent blood.

Hi there Brinny - So would you vote for church people to be armed guards present during church meetings?
><>

 

[brinny]

Hi there Brinny - So would you vote for church people to be armed guards present during church meetings?
><>

If necessary, yes.

Being an armed guard is neither sinful nor evil. What is evil and sinful is whatever the dynamic is that which would call for the "necessity" of armed guards.

(i will be happy to elaborate on the "if necessary", if necessary)

 

[afishamongmany]

If necessary, yes.

Being an armed guard is neither sinful nor evil. What is evil and sinful is whatever the dynamic is that which would call for the "necessity" of armed guards.

(i will be happy to elaborate on the "if necessary", if necessary)

Yea elaborate Lass. Would you see it as necessary at this time in that part of the world where you are?
I'm off now for tonight but I'll pick it up tomorrow.
Go well
><>

 

[brinny]

Yea elaborate Lass. Would you see it as necessary at this time in that part of the world where you are?
I'm off now for tonight but I'll pick it up tomorrow.
Go well
><>

Ok, G'nite.

By "if necessary", i mean that if it was downright dangerous, and there were no other alternatives, arming church members for protection is perfectly fine. It is not sinful to "bear arms". It is not sinful to use arms in self defense or to protect innocent people. It is just a means to do what is unfortunately necessary sometimes.

i do not own a gun, but i am not squeamish or "superstitious" about them being "evil". They're just inanimate objects. It is those who would use the guns for evil that are evil, not the guns.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Hello - I see there is already a 'Persecution' thread here started by Lik3 but I'd like this one to be focused on the question in the thread title. I've chosen this forum rather than the 'Christians only' alternative as I'm interested in the common human dilemma involved at the heart of the question.
This thread is not about forgiveness. For a Christian it is quite clear, we are to forgive. Nor is the thread about if, when, where or how persecution is happening or will happen in any particular region of the world.
This morning I read this,
from Barnabas prayer booklet -
“It is good this happened to the Copts (Christians) and not to anyone else. They forgive and do not retaliate.” This comment was made on Egyptian national TV by a muslim news presenter last year, after Islamic State militants had attacked a group of Christians on a family day out in Minya province, killing 29 and injuring 22, among them children. Praise God that the Christ-like response of His people is so much the norm in Egypt, and pray that this may draw many peace-loving Muslims to the Lord Jesus.
This talks of 'not retaliating' but what about self defense, what about being on guard, armed and ready to attack back when attacked (and therewith the possibility of killing and maiming the attackers)? If you, your family, your community were under this kind of threat and at the heart of your philosophy, beliefs, religion was some sort of 'be peaceful and nonviolent' principle, how would you deal with it?
><>

I think many parts of the bible that seems all about passivity, non-violence and submitting to authority are used to manipulate people. Church, state and individual alike.

The only authority you submit to is God; if an authority conflicts with Him, then you are not to submit to it. Likewise, people like to say Christ turned the other cheek, but ignore when He told His disciples to arm themselves, and when He literally beat officials out of the temple.

Peaceful and nonviolent is an inward, and outward act. But, God never told us to be stepping stones, trash or to be willingly delivered into the hands of the enemy. He spends thousands of years trying to get us to understand we do not have to be delivered into the enemy's hand, and that we are not trash that we should just take abuse.

This is a dogma issue, and a cultural theology issue. The "hippie Jesus" psychology needs to stop; He is a King full of grace and merciful, but with overwhelming power and one who rules with an iron rod. This isn't a punk we are talking about, and neither should His followers. We are at war.

A main reason why any warrior would let an enemy take them is so that they can reconnoiter the enemy situation. When Christ says do not speak when you are delivered, He means don't try to fight HIM. Our hour of temptation is unique, and not a lifetime of torture leading to a grand payoff of torturous death. It is then when we don't fight. But, we have to be cognizant of what God wants from us in order to ascertain when our unique hour is.

Otherwise, why would anyone let themselves be taken without a fight? Your life is precious.

 

[afishamongmany]

By "if necessary", i mean that if it was downright dangerous, and there were no other alternatives, arming church members for protection is perfectly fine. It is not sinful to "bear arms". It is not sinful to use arms in self defense or to protect innocent people. It is just a means to do what is unfortunately necessary sometimes.

i do not own a gun, but i am not squeamish or "superstitious" about them being "evil". They're just inanimate objects. It is those who would use the guns for evil that are evil, not the guns.

Hi Brinny – Yea ok, so I'm not a pacifist and I agree that 'evil' originates from, and resides in, people, not in the technology they use to do evil. But for this Christian there is uncertainty as to when (if ever?) would it be 'right' to resist with force, even if that force was only bare knuckles.

In the entire New Testament, to the best of my memory, there is only one incident of a Christian physically attacking someone, John 18:10,11. This incident and The Lord's words to Peter are not a pacifists charter, they do not address definitively the question we are asking.

Then looking at historical and present day examples of Christians 'fighting back' (the situation in C.A.R. comes to mind) the outcomes always seem to lead to more and more violence and not to God's glory.

It would be interesting to hear the views of people having a buddist, bahia, hindu, or philosophically pacifist belief base.

Do you know Brinny, if in the USA you can just go ahead and organise armed security at a church, or are there official boxes to tick first?
><>

 

[brinny]

Hi Brinny – Yea ok, so I'm not a pacifist and I agree that 'evil' originates from, and resides in, people, not in the technology they use to do evil. But for this Christian there is uncertainty as to when (if ever?) would it be 'right' to resist with force, even if that force was only bare knuckles.

In the entire New Testament, to the best of my memory, there is only one incident of a Christian physically attacking someone, John 18:10,11. This incident and The Lord's words to Peter are not a pacifists charter, they do not address definitively the question we are asking.

Then looking at historical and present day examples of Christians 'fighting back' (the situation in C.A.R. comes to mind) the outcomes always seem to lead to more and more violence and not to God's glory.

It would be interesting to hear the views of people having a buddist, bahia, hindu, or philosophically pacifist belief base.

Do you know Brinny, if in the USA you can just go ahead and organise armed security at a church, or are there official boxes to tick first?
><>

No, i do not know the answer to that. As of this writing no church i've attended has had armed security. Nevertheless, since the police would not be able to stand guard at the church, it would behoove the church, if "necessary", to hire and/or place armed guards or to arms members, if the situation wouls warrant it.

Neither is evil. Neither are police evil. Neither are inanimate objects like guns evil. Neither are "locks" on doors evil.

Each that i have mentioned are "preventive" measures, like sorta' "insurance", so to speak, for that "just in case" danger, disaster, or catastrophe.

I don't believe that anyone, lo and behold, "Christians" included, to be phobic about guns, or the "sight" of them, and/or to suffer from undue anxiety at the "thought" of them.

Seriously.

THIS is not evil:

Those with evil intent in their heart, that are bound and determined to use them for evil, are.