Would you shoot a home invader?

[ebia]

Laughing does not make you right.

No, but it really did make me laugh and when comments keep cracking you up it's hard to keep taking the conversation seriously.

 

[brinny]

Keep knocking your strawman. Nobody is claiming that evil does not matter.

WE are either for evil or we are against it. We are to hate those things God hates. It is written.

 

[dies-l]

That's wrong. The context for that was eye for eye, tooth for tooth- equal justice upon those who do wrong. If they take out an eye, they lose one too. If they kill a donkey, they get one of theirs killed or have to pay for it. OT was all about equality in justice. It was not limited to violence, and what Jesus further said was to show mercy rather than justice.
The passage you reference earlier about slapping, that's about insults. It was a cultural thing that you should be familiar with if you pay attention to theology.
Again, that is wrong. It was not talking merely about violence, that's why he said 'you have heard it said'. He was referencing OT Law, which demanded equal punishment for any crime. Jesus was essentially saying to show mercy on wrongdoers. It had nothing to do with what to do while the crime was taking place.
Merely saying 'this means that' while ignoring the OT context of the NT is not going to convince me. If you think you can show me where self defense is condemned, then cite your source. If you can show me where it says either directly or indirectly that Jesus is a pacifist, then cite your source. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I stand by my claims.

I did not say that that passage was merely about violence. I argue that non-violence certainly seems to be a relevant application of that passage, and that it is not merely about responding to insults

I don't appreciate being called a liar, and certainly not by a moderator, by the way.

I did not call you a liar. I said that your argument was dishonest. Lying is only one form of dishonesty, and it was not what I was accusing you of. Please do not put words in my mouth.

 

[brinny]

I did not say that that passage was merely about violence. I argue that non-violence certainly seems to be a relevant application of that passage, and that it is not merely about responding to insults



I did not call you a liar. I said that your argument was dishonest. Lying is only one form of dishonesty, and it was not what I was accusing you of. Please do not put words in my mouth.

Show where, in the Bible, it's dishonest :o

 

[ebia]

WE are either for evil or we are against it. We are to hate those things God hates. It is written.

Strawman still - nobody has said anything that implies they are not thorougly against evil.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
WE are either for evil or we are against it. We are to hate those things God hates. It is written.

Strawman still - nobody has said anything that implies they are not thorougly against evil.

tHose who hate evil as God commands us to, must back it up with action when evil rears its ugly head.

 

[Orange_County_Chopper]

If he's a home invader I am thinking his intention is not to borrow some sugar so yes!

 

[PreachersWife2004]

If he's a home invader I am thinking his intention is not to borrow some sugar so yes!

and this is what gets me...someone who has come into my home, uninvited, for whatever reason has put himself in a position where he could get hurt.

If he was hungry and needed food, he could've knocked on my door. If he needed money he could've knocked on my door. He didn't need to break into my house to get these things.

 

[Zebra1552]

I did not say that that passage was merely about violence. I argue that non-violence certainly seems to be a relevant application of that passage, and that it is not merely about responding to insults

Upon what basis?

I did not call you a liar. I said that your argument was dishonest. Lying is only one form of dishonesty, and it was not what I was accusing you of. Please do not put words in my mouth.

Oh, so it's okay for mods to accuse members of dishonesty now? Since when?

 

[Zebra1552]

No, but it really did make me laugh and when comments keep cracking you up it's hard to keep taking the conversation seriously.

It's disrespectful and rude.

Because that's not how understanding Jesus' way for his disciples works.

That's not evidence. That is yet another empty claim.

 

[wayseer]

What it has to do with self defense.

Seriously, why do you have such a problem with it? Why is it wrong to survive and incapacitate or kill (usually incapacitate) someone who is threatening yourself and those you love?

Because it does not work.

The cross is not evidence that love demands weakness to work.

The Cross is seen as an 'offence' against taken for granted assumptions that weakness signifies failure.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Upon what basis?

Oh, so it's okay for mods to accuse members of dishonesty now? Since when?

Saying an argument is dishonest is like saying your argument is flawed. He's not calling you dishonest...he's saying your argument is dishonest. Address the post, not the poster...I don't know exactly how he believes your argument is dishonest, though. Perhaps he can clarify that.

And you know that mods are human too and we make mistakes. Don't think that little letter by our name changes that.

 

[ebia]

tHose who hate evil as God commands us to, must back it up with action when evil rears its ugly head.

Yes - in the way that Jesus did. Not in the way Peter wanted to on the night of Jesus' arrest. Not in the way the Zealots - the Sicarii - sought to do with their daggers.

You can't set up violence as the only legitmate response without defacto denying everything Jesus (and the church he founded) did, said and stood for - including the cross and resurrection.

That's what the Sermon on the Mount is all about. The Essenes responded to evil by withdrawing from the world; the Saducees by compromise; the Pharasees symbolised in the Sicarii by violent rejection of evil. The Sermon on the Mount rejects all three in favour of a Jesus way, not compromising, not withdrawing and hoping the problem will go away, not resorting to evil's means. The way of the cross.

 

[wayseer]

self defense is not evil,

I don't think anyone is exactly proposing as much. The point about 'self-defense' is that ultimately it fails to address the very issues which might lead to claims of 'self-defense'.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

It would seem then that if a burglar entered your home, you would be led to ask him to join you for tea?

I'm really not trying to come across as being a smarty pants, but your argument appears to say that defending our families is against God's word, based on Jesus' reaction to Peter when Jesus is arrested.

I'm not sure anyone has set up violence as the only legitimate response...but I'm also certain that most people aren't going to stop and ask someone what their intentions are when that person is burglarizing a house.

Yes - in the way that Jesus did. Not in the way Peter wanted to on the night of Jesus' arrest. Not in the way the Zealots - the Sicarii - sought to do with their daggers.

You can't set up violence as the only legitmate response without defacto denying everything Jesus (and the church he founded) did, said and stood for - including the cross and resurrection.

That's what the Sermon on the Mount is all about. The Essenes responded to evil by withdrawing from the world; the Saducees by compromise; the Pharasees symbolised in the Sicarii by violent rejection of evil. The Sermon on the Mount rejects all three in favour of a Jesus way, not compromising, not withdrawing and hoping the problem will go away, not resorting to evil's means. The way of the cross.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
self defense is not evil,

I don't think anyone is exactly proposing as much. The point about 'self-defense' is that ultimately it fails to address the very issues which might lead to claims of 'self-defense'.

Evil is the intention of the one who violates the safety and security of the unsuspecting. It is written that this is evil, not the desperate reactions of those being violated, letting the evil-intentioned one off the hook. A dismissal of the victims dilemma is evil and sides with the evil of the perpetrator. tHat is what is meant when God says HE hates an un-even balance. It is because He is perfectly just. He hates the twisting around and saying evil is good and good is evil.

It is written. He has not changed.

 

[wayseer]

It would seem then that if a burglar entered your home, you would be led to ask him to join you for tea?

Now you are thinking! What a good idea.

I'm really not trying to come across as being a smarty pants, but your argument appears to say that defending our families is against God's word, based on Jesus' reaction to Peter when Jesus is arrested.

As Jesus demonstrated, violence is the religion of failure - failure to love.

I'm not sure anyone has set up violence as the only legitimate response...but I'm also certain that most people aren't going to stop and ask someone what their intentions are when that person is burglarizing a house.

Sure beats the alternatives on offer here.

 

[dinonum]

Evil is the intention of the one who violates the safety and security of the unsuspecting. It is written that this is evil, not the desperate reactions of those being violated, letting the evil-intentioned one off the hook. A dismissal of the victims dilemma is evil and sides with the evil of the perpetrator. tHat is what is meant when God says HE hates an un-even balance. It is because He is perfectly just. He hates the twisting around and saying evil is good and good is evil.

It is written. He has not changed.

I've yet to see anyone claim that the self-defense defined within the context of this thread is evil. On the contrary I've seen more comparing not behaving in one set way that they are practicing evil.

 

[wayseer]

Evil is the intention of the one who violates the safety and security of the unsuspecting. It is written that this is evil, not the desperate reactions of those being violated, letting the evil-intentioned one off the hook. A dismissal of the victims dilemma is evil and sides with the evil of the perpetrator. tHat is what is meant when God says HE hates an un-even balance. It is because He is perfectly just. He hates the twisting around and saying evil is good and good is evil.

So, just to clarify, the reaction of the Amish community to those terrible events was what, evil?

 

[ebia]

It's disrespectful and rude.

I know, but I had to choose between civility and honesty, and this time honesty won out.

That's not evidence.

It wasn't trying to be evidence; it was an explanation in direct answer to a question. You can't understand how to follow Jesus by looking through the red-letters in your bible for prohibitions. You need to understand the big picture of what he was about, about what the incarnation, cross and resurrection did, ... before trying to address a detail question like this - and we aren't looking at the same big picture it seems.