Would you shoot a home invader?

[PreachersWife2004]

My God doesn't need guns to protect His own. Only His Word. And He doesn't need us to be merciless and kill others, sending them to Hell. I haven't owned a gun in nearing half a century living in this wicked world.

Yay for you. That doesn't mean the rest of the world can't own guns.

Matthew 4:4 (NKJV)
4 But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.' "

Take note of the word LIVE.

What on God's green earth does that have to do with owning guns for protection?? Let's look at that in context. This was when Jesus was being tempted for pete's sake. Tempted to turn rocks into bread.

The mental gymnastics you must do with these passages astounds me.

 

[drich0150]

Solomon and David were not under the New Covenant..

Then why quote proverbs as source material that points to your position, if it is not valid?

 

[Some Other Guy]

Matthew 4:4 (NKJV)
4 But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.' "

Take note of the word LIVE.

Hey, you might have a pretty good point there if that verse had anything at all to do with what we're talking about.

However, if capitalizing certain words is really the game you want to play, did you really not notice the word "ALONE" in that verse, indicating that while man does live by the word of God, bread is also necessary?

I certainly hope you're not being so silly as to suggest that a man can go without eating as long as he keeps reading the Bible? If this were true, then why does Jesus tell us to feed the poor and not just tell the poor to keep on reading the Bible? Because food is necessary.

In the same way, while we depend on God for our protection, there are instances (such as the example we see when Jesus commands His disciples to buy swords to protect themselves with) when God protects us by giving us the ability to defend ourselves.

Let me ask you this: when you get into a car, do you wear seatbelts? If so, why? Why aren't you depending on God to protect you in case of an accident? Do you have insurance? If so, why? Do you have a job? Why?

 

[wannabeadesigirl]

No, cause I don't have a gun.
All kidding aside, it depends on the type of home invasion and what they're after. Talking to a guy on drugs might not work as well as a rolling pin across the cranium. However, I would try to talk them out of it, then try immobilization, and if that failed I wouldn't hesitate to defend myself and my loved ones to the death.

 

[aphemix]

ideally, I would not shoot a home invader. For in Matthew 5, in verses 39 through 42, Jesus says,

do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.

additionally, Romans 12, in verses 19 through 21, says,

Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,” says the Lord. “BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

this is reinforced in 1 Thessalonians 5, verse 15, which says,

See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seek after that which is good for one another and for all people.

the Bible speaks consistently about being a servant unconditionally. It dictates one should accept the hardships extended to him by the world without seeking his own ends. Kinda like Jesus did. The only valid purpose I understand the Bible to even recognize for seeking one's own ends is in order for his resources to be utilized in servitude to others. That's why you'll see the continuous instructions to sell your things and give the money to the poor, that sort of thing. That's why the disciples of Jesus were sent out with nothing but a staff and told they shouldn't even keep a change of clothes with them as they ministered. A worker is worth his wage.

you may ask, how is letting a home invader have his way relate to servitude? Well, I would say it is serving God directly, it is potentially serving my attacker, and it is also serving anyone who knows what I do, rather than allowing me to be a stumbling block unto them by setting a bad example. On one hand, it allows my attacker to commit his evil, in order that he may be judged. Such is implied by "IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD." On the other hand, it allows God to determine precisely what happens. It acknowledges the circumstances God has laid before me as more valid than the circumstances I seek to impose instead by pursuing my own misguided interests. If God sends a murderer into my house to begin with, and the only way to save my own life is to do harm unto him, it means God either wants me to get killed or simply wants me to do evil so that I, myself, may be convicted. For God would not instruct I refrain from repaying evil with evil in one instance and then require I do so to honor him the next. Makes no sense.

we are taught to resist evil and evildoers, sure. But in my understanding of the Bible, we are taught only to do so with good. I imagine this is because we, as humans, are in no position to determine one is an evildoer for certain at any time. God determines. We are not judges. What we do in the meantime is simply do good and follow God's instructions and hurt nobody. For it is written, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,” says the Lord.

so okay, a home invader seeking to do harm is pretty straightforward. Looks pretty evil to me. But even assuming my judgment of evil is accurate and infallible, I see the issue of determining just retribution for that evil as entirely separate. It's not so simple as, well, this guy is more evil than me by a wide, observable margin, therefore, in a face-off, he has to die, and I have to live. No way. It's not that simple. Take the Pharaoh in Exodus for example. Maybe a silly example, but bear with me. We can agree that guy is evil. God agrees. Pretty straightforward. But who am I to kill him? God admittedly built him up for a very specific reason, even despite his evil. God had a purpose for that evil which was unbeknownst to man; completely invisible to man from all angles. What if the guy who breaks into my house has a purpose too? Is it really my place to make that call? If it is, why haven't I been given instructions? If God really wants the guy dead, why is he alive? Et cetera. It's complicated.

the world of the flesh is worthless. Whether by "self-defense" or "revenge," I consider seeking to impose one's own will an acquiescence to the world of the flesh. I'm not perfect, and I'm sure I'd fail miserably at maintaining this outlook in instances of desperation, but I imagine true faith just understands God provides. Not one's own actions in the middle of a heated firefight. Not one's artillery. Just God.

realistically speaking, I can only hope to act this way when my welfare is threatened. I understand myself to be weak and to seek my own ends continuously, especially so in times of desperation. I may still act unjustly. I still need a lot of work.

 

[Dionysiou]

ideally, I would not shoot a home invader. For in Matthew 5, in verses 39 through 42, Jesus says,



additionally, Romans 12, in verses 19 through 21, says,



this is reinforced in 1 Thessalonians 5, verse 15, which says,



the Bible speaks consistently about being a servant unconditionally. It dictates one should accept the hardships extended to him by the world without seeking his own ends. Kinda like Jesus did. The only valid purpose I understand the Bible to even recognize for seeking one's own ends is in order for his resources to be utilized in servitude to others. That's why you'll see the continuous instructions to sell your things and give the money to the poor, that sort of thing. That's why the disciples of Jesus were sent out with nothing but a staff and told they shouldn't even keep a change of clothes with them as they ministered. A worker is worth his wage.

you may ask, how is letting a home invader have his way relate to servitude? Well, I would say it is serving God directly, it is potentially serving my attacker, and it is also serving anyone who knows what I do, rather than allowing me to be a stumbling block unto them by setting a bad example. On one hand, it allows my attacker to commit his evil, in order that he may be judged. Such is implied by "IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD." On the other hand, it allows God to determine precisely what happens. It acknowledges the circumstances God has laid before me as more valid than the circumstances I seek to impose instead by pursuing my own misguided interests. If God sends a murderer into my house to begin with, and the only way to save my own life is to do harm unto him, it means God either wants me to get killed or simply wants me to do evil so that I, myself, may be convicted. For God would not instruct I refrain from repaying evil with evil in one instance and then require I do so to honor him the next. Makes no sense.

we are taught to resist evil and evildoers, sure. But in my understanding of the Bible, we are taught only to do so with good. I imagine this is because we, as humans, are in no position to determine one is an evildoer for certain at any time. God determines. We are not judges. What we do in the meantime is simply do good and follow God's instructions and hurt nobody. For it is written, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,” says the Lord.

so okay, a home invader seeking to do harm is pretty straightforward. Looks pretty evil to me. But even assuming my judgment of evil is accurate and infallible, I see the issue of determining just retribution for that evil as entirely separate. It's not so simple as, well, this guy is more evil than me by a wide, observable margin, therefore, in a face-off, he has to die, and I have to live. No way. It's not that simple. Take the Pharaoh in Exodus for example. Maybe a silly example, but bear with me. We can agree that guy is evil. God agrees. Pretty straightforward. But who am I to kill him? God admittedly built him up for a very specific reason, even despite his evil. God had a purpose for that evil which was unbeknownst to man; completely invisible to man from all angles. What if the guy who breaks into my house has a purpose too? Is it really my place to make that call? If it is, why haven't I been given instructions? If God really wants the guy dead, why is he alive? Et cetera. It's complicated.

the world of the flesh is worthless. Whether by "self-defense" or "revenge," I consider seeking to impose one's own will an acquiescence to the world of the flesh. I'm not perfect, and I'm sure I'd fail miserably at maintaining this outlook in instances of desperation, but I imagine true faith just understands God provides. Not one's own actions in the middle of a heated firefight. Not one's artillery. Just God.

realistically speaking, I can only hope to act this way when my welfare is threatened. I understand myself to be weak and to seek my own ends continuously, especially so in times of desperation. I may still act unjustly. I still need a lot of work.

This is all very nice if YOU are the only one at risk. If your a father or a brother and your family is in danger, than to stand aside while they are abused and or killed is complete nonsense. You also assume that God has a purpose if somebody breaks into your home or commits an evil deed. what if the guy was strapped for cash and wanted some easy money? what if he is just a sadistic person who couldnt care less for your family and decides to kill everybody? to say that God "sent" him to come kill you would imply that God set the guy up to commit a sin. Im not saying you gotta kill anybody, but if your family is threatened the very least you can do is whack him with a bat.

 

[Some Other Guy]

ideally, I would not shoot a home invader. For in Matthew 5, in verses 39 through 42, Jesus says,

do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.

And what does that have to do with not defending your family from an attacker?

additionally, Romans 12, in verses 19 through 21, says,

Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,” says the Lord. “BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Except that we're not talking about vengeance. We're talking about self defense. By your logic, Jesus violated His own word when He commanded His disciples to go and buy swords with which to defend themselves.

this is reinforced in 1 Thessalonians 5, verse 15, which says,

See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seek after that which is good for one another and for all people.

Again, we're not talking about revenge, but about self defense.

the Bible speaks consistently about being a servant unconditionally.

And what does that have to do with defending your family?

It dictates one should accept the hardships extended to him by the world without seeking his own ends.

Really? Where does the Bible say that we should just throw our hands up and say, "You want to rape my wife and kill my children? OK. Here they are."?

Kinda like Jesus did.

Jesus commanded His disciples to go out and buy swords to protect themselves with, so obviously Jesus didn't have a problem with self-defense.

That's why you'll see the continuous instructions to sell your things and give the money to the poor, that sort of thing.

Actually, that only occurs one time and only to one specific individual.

That's why the disciples of Jesus were sent out with nothing but a staff and told they shouldn't even keep a change of clothes with them as they ministered. A worker is worth his wage.

Actually, they were told to sell their cloaks and to use that money to buy swords with.

you may ask, how is letting a home invader have his way relate to servitude? Well, I would say it is serving God directly, it is potentially serving my attacker, and it is also serving anyone who knows what I do, rather than allowing me to be a stumbling block unto them by setting a bad example.

How is defending your family from being murdered a bad example? Everybody I know would say that a guy who stands by and willingly allows his family to be murdered and his wife and daughters to potentially be raped is the "bad example".

On one hand, it allows my attacker to commit his evil, in order that he may be judged. Such is implied by "IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD."

Actually, you're taking this verse out of context. Read the preceeding vereses. They make it very clear that this passage is talking about not seeking revenge, not self defense.

On the other hand, it allows God to determine precisely what happens.

Really? So God is only sovereign over the situation if you allow your family to be murdered, but not if you defend them?

It acknowledges the circumstances God has laid before me as more valid than the circumstances I seek to impose instead by pursuing my own misguided interests.

And how do you know that God's purpose isn't for you to be obedient to His word and defend your family?

If God sends a murderer into my house to begin with, and the only way to save my own life is to do harm unto him, it means God either wants me to get killed or simply wants me to do evil so that I, myself, may be convicted.

Or perhaps He means for you to obey His word and protect your family?

For God would not instruct I refrain from repaying evil with evil in one instance and then require I do so to honor him the next.

How is it "evil" to defend an innocent person from being murdered?

we are taught to resist evil and evildoers, sure. But in my understanding of the Bible, we are taught only to do so with good. I imagine this is because we, as humans, are in no position to determine one is an evildoer for certain at any time.

If somebody breaks into your home with a gun, they're an evildoer.

What we do in the meantime is simply do good and follow God's instructions and hurt nobody.

God never instructs us to "hurt nobody".

For it is written, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,” says the Lord.

Except that we're not talking about vengeance, but about self defense.

so okay, a home invader seeking to do harm is pretty straightforward. Looks pretty evil to me. But even assuming my judgment of evil is accurate and infallible, I see the issue of determining just retribution for that evil as entirely separate.

We're not talking about retribution. We're talking about self defense.

Maybe a silly example, but bear with me. We can agree that guy is evil. God agrees.

How arrogant. But then, liberals always are.

Pretty straightforward. But who am I to kill him?

The head of the family, charged by God with protecting your wife and children.

Aod admittedly built him up for a very specific reason, even despite his evil. God had a purpose for that evil which was unbeknownst to man; completely invisible to man from all angles. What if the guy who breaks into my house has a purpose too? Is it really my place to make that call? If it is, why haven't I been given instructions? If God really wants the guy dead, why is he alive? Et cetera. It's complicated.

I pity your family.

realistically speaking, I can only hope to act this way when my welfare is threatened.

I hope not. I hope you show a little backbone and honor God's command to protect your family.

I still need a lot of work.

As evidenced by your butchering of scripture and your declaration that "God agrees with me!"

 

[drich0150]

ideally, I would not shoot a home invader. For in Matthew 5, in verses 39 through 42, Jesus says,



additionally, Romans 12, in verses 19 through 21, says,



this is reinforced in 1 Thessalonians 5, verse 15, which says,



the Bible speaks consistently about being a servant unconditionally. It dictates one should accept the hardships extended to him by the world without seeking his own ends. Kinda like Jesus did. The only valid purpose I understand the Bible to even recognize for seeking one's own ends is in order for his resources to be utilized in servitude to others. That's why you'll see the continuous instructions to sell your things and give the money to the poor, that sort of thing. That's why the disciples of Jesus were sent out with nothing but a staff and told they shouldn't even keep a change of clothes with them as they ministered. A worker is worth his wage.

you may ask, how is letting a home invader have his way relate to servitude? Well, I would say it is serving God directly, it is potentially serving my attacker, and it is also serving anyone who knows what I do, rather than allowing me to be a stumbling block unto them by setting a bad example. On one hand, it allows my attacker to commit his evil, in order that he may be judged. Such is implied by "IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD." On the other hand, it allows God to determine precisely what happens. It acknowledges the circumstances God has laid before me as more valid than the circumstances I seek to impose instead by pursuing my own misguided interests. If God sends a murderer into my house to begin with, and the only way to save my own life is to do harm unto him, it means God either wants me to get killed or simply wants me to do evil so that I, myself, may be convicted. For God would not instruct I refrain from repaying evil with evil in one instance and then require I do so to honor him the next. Makes no sense.

we are taught to resist evil and evildoers, sure. But in my understanding of the Bible, we are taught only to do so with good. I imagine this is because we, as humans, are in no position to determine one is an evildoer for certain at any time. God determines. We are not judges. What we do in the meantime is simply do good and follow God's instructions and hurt nobody. For it is written, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,” says the Lord.

so okay, a home invader seeking to do harm is pretty straightforward. Looks pretty evil to me. But even assuming my judgment of evil is accurate and infallible, I see the issue of determining just retribution for that evil as entirely separate. It's not so simple as, well, this guy is more evil than me by a wide, observable margin, therefore, in a face-off, he has to die, and I have to live. No way. It's not that simple. Take the Pharaoh in Exodus for example. Maybe a silly example, but bear with me. We can agree that guy is evil. God agrees. Pretty straightforward. But who am I to kill him? God admittedly built him up for a very specific reason, even despite his evil. God had a purpose for that evil which was unbeknownst to man; completely invisible to man from all angles. What if the guy who breaks into my house has a purpose too? Is it really my place to make that call? If it is, why haven't I been given instructions? If God really wants the guy dead, why is he alive? Et cetera. It's complicated.

the world of the flesh is worthless. Whether by "self-defense" or "revenge," I consider seeking to impose one's own will an acquiescence to the world of the flesh. I'm not perfect, and I'm sure I'd fail miserably at maintaining this outlook in instances of desperation, but I imagine true faith just understands God provides. Not one's own actions in the middle of a heated firefight. Not one's artillery. Just God.

realistically speaking, I can only hope to act this way when my welfare is threatened. I understand myself to be weak and to seek my own ends continuously, especially so in times of desperation. I may still act unjustly. I still need a lot of work.

So two questions do you have over a 42" plasma?

And what is your address?

 

[aphemix]

And what does that have to do with not defending your family from an attacker?

the attacker strikes not my cheek, but my home and my loved ones. I do not defend my cheek; I offer it readily. So should it be here. Likewise, the attacker is demanding my submission, my house, and my family. Just as I give my coat, I give him what he asks. Just as I walk two miles, I walk plundered, potentially injured, and potentially bereaved. Same thing.

now, I know we're talking about the welfare of human beings. Should opportunity arise, I will use my discernment, and I will protect others before yielding freely to an enemy. I will tell them to run. I will ward the attacker away. I may even sacrifice myself to some degree in order to ensure the safety of these people. But should I act in a way that is consistent with the Bible, I will not combat this attacker with evil. I have been specifically instructed not to do this.

Except that we're not talking about vengeance. We're talking about self defense.

Again, we're not talking about revenge, but about self defense.

Actually, you're taking this verse out of context. Read the preceeding vereses. They make it very clear that this passage is talking about not seeking revenge, not self defense.

Except that we're not talking about vengeance, but about self defense.

We're not talking about retribution. We're talking about self defense.

no. It seems we recognize different definitions. While you may consider vengeance to be more along the lines of seeking to enact deliberate retribution for wrongs previously suffered, I prefer the definition offered by the Bible's context, which simply understands it as the exchange of one evil for another. This would include, for example, the repayment of breaking, entering, and threatening with murder or bodily harm. Just because you do not recognize these values does not mean the values present in the exchange are in any way different. Call me crazy, but I also somehow doubt the welfare of the self would warrant a valid exception to the rule by Biblical standards. Evil is evil.

By your logic, Jesus violated His own word when He commanded His disciples to go and buy swords with which to defend themselves.

Jesus commanded His disciples to go out and buy swords to protect themselves with, so obviously Jesus didn't have a problem with self-defense.

Actually, they were told to sell their cloaks and to use that money to buy swords with.

I would be curious to see where exactly you believe Jesus instructed his disciples to do harm unto others with swords. I'm aware they bought swords. Could they not simply have kept swords to ward off those who would plunder them, knowing they were unarmed? The mere presence of swords doesn't really tell me anything. In fact, the only time I know Jesus to have offered his outlook on the use of swords was when the slave of the high priest got his ear sliced off, in which case, the message was pretty clear: don't do that. "All those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword." (Matt. 26:52) "Stop! No more of this." (Luke 22:51) "Put the sword into the sheath; the cup which the Father has given Me, shall I not drink it?" (John 18:11)

Really? Where does the Bible say that we should just throw our hands up and say, "You want to rape my wife and kill my children? OK. Here they are."?

well, the cup which the Father has given me by sending an invader into my home, shall I not drink it? Am I not to be an imitator of Christ? Am I not to "have this attitude in (myself) which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God" -- with which I would make decisions such as, for example, who lives and who dies -- "a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant," "and being found in appearance as a man," "humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross," (Phil. 2:5-8) just as with death by home invasion?

Actually, that only occurs one time and only to one specific individual.

no, sorry, wrong again. In addition to telling the rich young man directly in Matthew 19 when prompted, as you are referencing, Jesus also offers the stipulation much more generally to his disciples in Luke 12, in a much clearer context. He chose to bring it up amidst deliberate instruction not to "seek what you shall eat, and what you shall drink," and not to "keep worrying," (Luke 12:29) distinctly clarifying that, should you "seek for (God's) kingdom," "these things shall be added to you." (Luke 12:31) This parallels Matthew 6, wherein Jesus summarizes, "do not worry about tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself." (Matt 6:34) This seems to indicate that, just as it is not my prerogative to distrust God and hoard my food and drink to ensure I am fine, neither is it my prerogative to act against God's wishes in order to ensure my house is fine.

later, in Acts 2, Peter ministered to the men of Israel. He added three thousand souls to Christ in one day, conforming each one of them to one purpose so that they had all things in common, and the one, single thing of note we are informed they began doing once this happened is "selling their property and possessions," specifically for the purpose of "sharing them with all, as anyone might have need." (Acts 2:45) Again, in Acts 4, we see that, among all in Christ, "all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales, and lay them at the apostles' feet; and they would be distributed to each, as any had need." (Acts 4:34-35)

it was customary. It was standardized. In Acts 5, we even see Ananias and his wife struck dead merely for relinquishing a percent of their belongings rather than the total, which clearly insinuates all others were relinquishing in full; specifically intended to do so. What we have here is a recurring theme entirely consistent with the teaching of Christ. All your earthly things are worthless. God provides. "For we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh," (Phil. 3:3) even if, boo hoo, the flesh is having his home invaded. Just as if he were having his home sold. It's pretty simple.

How is defending your family from being murdered a bad example? Everybody I know would say that a guy who stands by and willingly allows his family to be murdered and his wife and daughters to potentially be raped is the "bad example".

well, you can feel free to agree with the world and use that as your gold standard if you want to. However, the Bible instructs you to "see to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ." (Col. 2:8) Personally, I try to do this. That said, I don't particularly care what everybody you know says, nor do I believe I should.

Really? So God is only sovereign over the situation if you allow your family to be murdered, but not if you defend them?

God is always sovereign, whether by having his instructions honored or simply by being disobeyed and having his judgment incurred. Personally, I would rather act as he has directed me, so that his will may not include my being punished all the more according to my deeds.

And how do you know that God's purpose isn't for you to be obedient to His word and defend your family?

Or perhaps He means for you to obey His word and protect your family?

The head of the family, charged by God with protecting your wife and children.

I hope not. I hope you show a little backbone and honor God's command to protect your family.

I understand I am to provide for my family, just as Christ provides unto me. Certainly. However, it is a huge leap to say I am instructed to provide by way of violence, especially when this contrasts blatantly with what I've been told elsewhere in the Bible. Tell me, where is this "word?" Where is this "charge?" Where is this "command?" I am always interested in learning. Please quote it for me if it exists.

If somebody breaks into your home with a gun, they're an evildoer.

sure. Generally speaking, I agree. Though I don't recall Jesus or the Bible ever deeming us fit to determine the consequences of evils of our own accord, even despite knowing what is evil and what isn't. Does anything you have read indicate it is appropriate we decide how evildoers are to be addressed, apart from how we are specifically instructed to address them? I ask that you show it to me.

How is it "evil" to defend an innocent person from being murdered?

well, that would depend on whether the means of defense included the commission of evil or not, wouldn't it. Who defines evil? You or God?

God never instructs us to "hurt nobody".

correct. Though the instruction to never repay evil for evil is consistent. We are not to engage in any evil. Then the instruction to accept persecution, and even to offer servitude and blessing in exchange for persecution, is also consistent. It is never explicitly stated we should not harm others, but it can be deduced via a process of elimination. We already have guidelines for dealing with evil. We already have a protocol for being persecuted. Where exactly would hurting other people even fit?

so okay, you say self-defense is the exception. I thus urge you to reexamine the incredible story of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, while doing nothing of his own initiative, but doing the will of the Father, only, plainly allowed himself to be delivered into the hands of men rather than resisting, even despite his doing so resulting in a torturous death. Now, look. This man was God's Anointed. He had more right to defend his own life than anyone. Yet in doing the will of God, he withheld. Think about it. This is the benchmark of benchmarks. If it applies to Jesus, it definitely applies to you and me. This is the fundamental example of the values of Christ.

we are told that, "if possible, so far as it depends on (us)," we should "be at peace with all men." (Rom. 12:18) Jesus proves just how much it does depend on us. It depends on us even to the degree to which we relinquish our own lives and the things we hold dear. For as he said, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it." (Matt. 16:24-25)

Jesus did no harm. The apostles did no harm. All were endangered. None hurt anyone. We are not to harm anyone. Case closed.

How arrogant. But then, liberals always are.

I pity your family.

As evidenced by your butchering of scripture and your declaration that "God agrees with me!"

I sense your agitation; I sense that it helps facilitate your dismissal. I know it is frustrating to disagree. I also know I appear pompous easily. I apologize for that. However, I seek to correct you and build your understanding so that we may be of one mind, and in order to do that, I must brazenly rebuke your misconceptions and demonstrate my aptitude. I encourage you, in the meantime, just as Paul, in the Spirit, advised, to "appreciate those who diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction," and "esteem them very highly in love because of their work." (1 Thess. 5:12-13) For I do not claim authority, asking that you swallow what I say whole; only that you "examine everything carefully," that you may "hold fast to that which is good," yet "abstain from every form of evil." (1 Thess. 21-22)

I'm sure it is tiresome to see me quote verses so readily to support myself, and I know it may even seem as though I seek to be patronizing or self-righteous toward you in this manner, but I assure you, I only wish to establish my reproof is valid "not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God." (1 Cor. 2:4-5)

feel free to continue if you like. I enjoy the back-and-forth. Cheers.

 

[aphemix]

This is all very nice if YOU are the only one at risk. If your a father or a brother and your family is in danger, than to stand aside while they are abused and or killed is complete nonsense. You also assume that God has a purpose if somebody breaks into your home or commits an evil deed. what if the guy was strapped for cash and wanted some easy money? what if he is just a sadistic person who couldnt care less for your family and decides to kill everybody? to say that God "sent" him to come kill you would imply that God set the guy up to commit a sin. Im not saying you gotta kill anybody, but if your family is threatened the very least you can do is whack him with a bat.

I would definitely not stand aside. I would simply refrain from employing evil in handling the situation. If he was strapped for cash and wanted some easy money, I guess he would have it. If he was just so sadistic he wished to kill everyone for no reason, well, I would hope that everyone either escaped or managed to ward him off by means which were not evil. Do I really need to hit him with a bat? Is it really that hard to block a door or something while cops are called and everyone escapes to a neighbor's house? I could just as easily dissuade him with a weapon as use one.

I believe all things are God's purpose. I believe if God's instructions are disregarded, the purpose is still manifested as the outcome of that disregard. I don't need to believe events are unfolding supernaturally in order to consider occurrences part of God's plan. I figure if it wasn't God's plan, it wouldn't happen. All the while, God has instructions for me. I believe it is prudent for me to follow them in order that I honor him, and in order that the likelihood God's plan includes my condemnation may be lessened.

to be real with you, rather than speak idealistically, if I just happen to see someone climbing into a broken window beside my daughter's bed wearing a visible strap-on, to make a brazen example, I can almost guarantee the first thing I will do is tackle him. He might topple out the window. A scuffle could easily ensue in which I am overtaken by adrenaline and rage and wish to inflict deliberate injury. And should I approach him with a weapon, alarmed and desperate, I could very well use it. I'm just a human being. The most I can do in lieu of this weakness, fallibility, and susceptibility to error I maintain is educate myself, discipline myself, and prepare myself. I can investigate to the best of my ability in hopes of understanding what is righteous in advance. I can take care not to keep guns in my house, among other things, lest I seek to use them in a compromised state. And I can rehearse the scenario in my mind, identifying the factors at work, when possible, so that I can better circumvent them now, while I am lucid, rather than when lives may depend on my quick action.

you might say it's smart to equip myself with a gun to be safe. I dunno. I think I'd much rather just let this stuff churn around my head awhile than even keep a gun in my house to begin with and condemn myself to relying on it. I don't think that would be healthy for me. It would incline me to consider fewer approaches. It would incline me to accept moral compromise by making moral compromise an easier, adequate option. Can't be doing things like that. God comes first.

So two questions do you have over a 42" plasma?

And what is your address?

no. I'm currently living in somebody else's house. She has a few TVs but they're all garbage. I bet if you asked her for one, she would even give you two.

 

[Duckybill]

Yay for you. That doesn't mean the rest of the world can't own guns.

Yay for me? "The rest of the world can do whatever God allows". Not my problem.

What on God's green earth does that have to do with owning guns for protection?? Let's look at that in context. This was when Jesus was being tempted for pete's sake. Tempted to turn rocks into bread.

LIVE, not die from violence. LIVE by trusting in what He said. LIVE by His promises to protect His own. Not by killing like Satan does.

The mental gymnastics you must do with these passages astounds me.

The Bible calls it faith that God honors. Faith for believing the 'impossible'. That is where our 'righteousness' is.

James 2:23 (NKJV)
23 "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called the friend of God.

 

[Duckybill]

Then why quote proverbs as source material that points to your position, if it is not valid?

The promises of God are valid for Christians. And they are echoed in the NT also.

"The Lord is my helper"

 

[Duckybill]

Hey, you might have a pretty good point there if that verse had anything at all to do with what we're talking about.

It does. God's Word will keep alive we who believe it.

However, if capitalizing certain words is really the game you want to play, did you really not notice the word "ALONE" in that verse, indicating that while man does live by the word of God, bread is also necessary?

No game. Just trust in the living God and His Word.

Mark 9:23 (NKJV)
23 Jesus said to him, "If you can believe, all things are possible to him who believes."

In the same way, while we depend on God for our protection, there are instances (such as the example we see when Jesus commands His disciples to buy swords to protect themselves with) when God protects us by giving us the ability to defend ourselves.

Jesus didn't say that. What He said was:

Matthew 5:39 (NKJV)
39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

Let me ask you this: when you get into a car, do you wear seatbelts?
If so, why? Why aren't you depending on God to protect you in case of an accident?

Yes, it's the law.

Do you have insurance? If so, why?

Because it's the law.

Do you have a job? Why?

2 Thessalonians 3:10 (NKJV)
10 For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.

 

[Zecryphon]

Would you shoot a home invader?

Why or why not?

It depends. If they are brandishing a weapon and advancing towards me they are a threat to my life and in that case I am legally justified at least in Arizona, in shooting them to stop the advancing threat, and would not hesitate to do so. I would run to the bedroom though and lock the door and call 911 and have them on the line so they can hear and record everything that happens. This is crucial when you get sued for shooting a criminal that broke into your house.

 

[Zecryphon]

Do you Americans get your houses broken into so much that that gun ownership is so necessary?!

In America it depends on which state you live in. Here in AZ, home invasions are on the rise, plus Americans have the Second Amendment which grants us the right to bear arms. Now how this is implemented varies from state to state. Some states absolutely do not allow it's residents to own a gun. Arizona allows this and you can buy a gun here if you've been a resident for six months, are over 21, have never been committed to a psychiatric facility and are not a convicted felon.

We are an open-carry state, which means that anyone who meets the criteria of gun ownership can purchase a gun and walk out of the gun store with it in probably under an hour, however long it takes to select the gun you want, have the store do a background check and pay for it. If you want to carry your firearms concealed here, you need a CCW permit and to obtain that you need to take a one-day class and pass a written and firing-range exam.

 

[Zecryphon]

And that fine, I don't expect some people to understand. You don't have to mock me though, I simply do not feel capable of killing another person.

In a self-defense scenario, like we're talking about here, you're not shooting to kill, you're shooting to immobilize and advancing threat. That doesn't mean you have to kill the person or even have that goal in mind. You want to put them down and keep them down until the police and paramedics arrive. You shoot in the chest area until the threat stops advancing, then keep your gun trained on them until the police arrive.

 

[drich0150]

The promises of God are valid for Christians. And they are echoed in the NT also.

"The Lord is my helper"

So my argument that states:

Didn't King Solomon command large armies? What about his Father David? Did he not also command large armies. Do you think Those armies were equip solely with trust? Remember Armies, like guns on a personal level, are weapons nations can use to defend themselves with. Does the fact these two great servants of God had armies, mean they did not trust God?

When David was matched against Goliath, didn't he use a weapon that fired projectiles?

In truth a solid Trust in God has nothing to do with how one equips Himself, or how he uses that equipment. unless that person uses that equipment to not trust God.

Is still valid, because it was under the same promise that David and Solomon built their armies and defended Israel. And, It was to the Same "Faith" That David armed Himself with a projectile weapon and fired it at the head of Goliath.

So if the promise of God is the same, then why is it ungodly (in your best estimation) that we defend our homes in the same manner as these two Godly men did? that is if we are under the same promise displaying the same faith as you have pointed out?

 

[Zecryphon]

Right....

Last time I checked that verse is simply talking about caring for and feeding and being their for family, not what if's like if someone were to come in and rob me.

I will take care of my family in the way that God inspires me to through Scripture much like the ones you posted and you will your way. I don't appreciate the implication that I wouldn't be caring for my family simply because I wouldn't react like you, seeing that you are not an authority on what is and isn't going to stop a person from invading my home and what the Bible has to say on the subject.

It's interesting that you're putting limitations on that verse, where none are given in that verse. Why is providing food allowed for your relatives allowed, but not protecting them from physical harm?

 

[Duckybill]

Is still valid, because it was under the same promise that David and Solomon built their armies and defended Israel. It was to the Same "Faith" That David armed Himself with a projectile weapon and fired it at the head of Goliath.

No Christian in the NT fought or killed anyone. And they were being imprisoned and murdered.

Acts 8:1-3 (NKJV)
1 Now Saul was consenting to his death. At that time a great persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. 2 And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him. 3 As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering every house, and dragging off men and women, committing them to prison.

So if the promise of God is the same, then why is it ungodly (in your best estimation) that we defend our homes in the same manner as these two Godly men did? that is if we are under the same promise displaying the same faith?

What promise are you talking about?

 

[drich0150]

No Christian in the NT fought or killed anyone. And they were being imprisoned and murdered.

So does that mean there is no promise or that David and Solomon were mis-identified as righteous?

Acts 8:1-3 (NKJV)
1 Now Saul was consenting to his death. At that time a great persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. 2 And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him. 3 As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering every house, and dragging off men and women, committing them to prison.

lol, when someone breaks into your house to steal a TV or rape your daughter you should know that you are not being religiously persecuted. You are not being hated for what you believe. It is not God or your belief in Jesus that these things are taking place. They want what you have, and are willing to harm you to get it. If you live in a state with a castle law then those who breaking in are willing to take a chance that they maybe forfeiting their lives, Do you not think they take this into consideration before they invade your home? Or do you think they are willing to peacefully hand their life over to you? If someone forces themselves into your home the mentality is me or you...

What promise are you talking about?

The promises of God are valid for Christians. And they are echoed in the NT also.

It was you who spoke of promises, so you tell me.