Would you shoot a home invader?

[dies-l]

I am addressing his post. I'm addressing his post where he accuses me of arguing dishonestly, which is a blight on my character. Since when do we allow that of people who are supposed to be the example?


That little excuse no longer flies in my book.

I am sorry that you read my comment as blight on your character. I can assure that my intent is not and never has been to personally insult you. I regret that I may have caused you to feel that way.

 

[ebia]

Seems some live in Ivory towers.I think its not something that can be easily promoted or condemned unless we were put in that situation.
Imo its a conscience matter and the irony isnt lost on me that some are so black and white about this topic.

I for one have explicitly said I don't condemn anyone for the choice they make in the heat of the crisis. But to refuse to think in a Jesus way when there is space and time to think things through, to refuse to develop the character to cope when the crisis comes, is sailing pretty close to the "unforgivable sin".

 

[interested in life]

I for one have explicitly said I don't condemn anyone for the choice they make in the heat of the crisis. But to refuse to think in a Jesus way when there is space and time to think things through, to refuse to develop the character to cope when the crisis comes, is sailing pretty close to the "unforgivable sin".

You dont get space and time ebia if someone bursts into your house.I see what you guys are saying and yeah ideally its wiser to turn the other cheek,but defending your life and your families take precedence.Getting smacked across the chops isnt the same as being confronted by somebody armed.

 

[Zebra1552]

I am sorry that you read my comment as blight on your character. I can assure that my intent is not and never has been to personally insult you. I regret that I may have caused you to feel that way.

Apology accepted.

 

[ebia]

Think again before you make assumptions about people's positions.

It was a guess that turned out to be someone else's response. But yours was from Revelations - a symbolic account of Jesus' final wiping away of the evil he dealt with in principle on the cross. To think the way he will do that will be literally in the very opposite mode to the cross denies the cross itself.

 

[dies-l]

It is hardly a certainty, given the context. And it is equally dishonest to treat it as one, as some have. So perhaps rather than attempting to dissuade me of my position, you could look deeper and realize what it is I'm saying.

You should get out more, then. I meet them all the time.


I never said it is contrary to Scripture. I said it is not in Scripture.


It most certainly can be supported. It's a negative claim. All there need be is no legitimate passages saying that Jesus is against violence, or passages where Jesus either condones or uses violence. Both situations exist to this point, therefore the claim must be true to this point. If you or anyone else has evidence to the contrary I'd love to see it. I've only asked for it multiple times in multiple ways from multiple people, after all.

What Jesus condones for us and what Jesus does himself are not necessarily the same. Jesus judges but tells us not to judge. Jesus kills but tells us not to kill. I have pointed to a specific teaching of Jesus, wherein he tells his followers not to respond to violent, insulting, or offensive conduct in kind. You apparently observe something in the passage that I do not. I have read through your explanations, and I understand your position, yet I continue to disagree. As I and others have pointed out, the idea that Jesus taught his follower to live non-violently is well supported by Scripture. You apparently disagree. On this point, I suppose it is sufficient to agree to disagree.

 

[ebia]

You dont get space and time ebia if someone bursts into your house.

No, you don't. Which is exactly why its vital to develop the right character before you get to the crisis.

A (borrowed) story:

Once upon a time, in a land far, far away (well, Westminster Abbey is a fair way from here and it was a few decades ago), there was a big church service, in a packed Abbey Church with a lot of very imporant people in attendence. In walks a group of protestors. What they are protesting about has no direct connection to the service going on, but they are well known at the time for very quickly getting violent in their protest. Nobody is quite sure what to do and everybody sits there hoping someone else will deal with it. There are some police present, but dealing with it by force would be as risky as anything else. Until one not particularly senior clergyman gets up, walks over to the leader of the protestors and chats to him for a minute or so, then walks over to the person in charge of the service and talks to him, then goes up to the microphone and announces that the protestors will be given 3 minutes at the microphone to voice their protest and will then leave quietly. All then goes according to that plan.

That clergyman had regularly been seen before (and since) just randomly kneeling down talking to drunks in doorways and other acts of engagement with people on the edge of society, so that when the crisis came he (and only he out of a couple of thousand people) had the virtues to be able to deal with the situation.

You don't get that point, of instinctively being able to find the non-violent solution when the crisis comes if you regard violence as an acceptable option. Or if you don't do the rest of the characer building.

Editted to add: and yes it's risky. That comes with the Jesus territory, I'm afraid.

 

[ebia]

Im not promoting a shoot first ask later mentality,but as a last resort when all options are exhausted.

The other options are never exhausted.

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent".

 

[brinny]

The other options are never exhausted.

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent".

I agree that criminals are incompetent, in more ways than one. Premeditation with the intent to harm someone not posing a threat to the perpetrator is onorous and an abomination that God hates. Especially those who lie in wait to victimize the innocent. He hates the twisting of the truth of what evil is, calling evil good, and good evil, and those who side with the evil-doer, against those victimized by evil. It is an abomination to Him to twist justice and righteousness in such a manner, with no mention or concern for those who evil was done to, especially in a pre-meditated manner.

Jesus the Christ is called the Good Shepherd. He carries a staff for a reason. It is to protect those who would attempt to harm his sheep.

The innocent one who is trounced upon is not the blood-thirsty one here. Criminalizing those who are put into a position to maintain theirs and their loved ones safety is a twisting of righteousness and justice. The ones who are targeted to be the victims of evil and destruction have nothing to apologize for.

The evil is coming from the one infringing on the safety and well being of the chosen victims, not on those who are placed in a position to react to the evil imposed on them.

Those who do not protect those who are under their care might as well have a mill stone tied around their neck and cast into the sea. This is dereliction of duty to protect. God calls this evil. It is written.

 

[ebia]

Jesus the Christ is called the Good Shepherd. He carries a staff for a reason. It is to protect those who would attempt to harm his sheep.

But his crozier is cross-shaped, not baton shaped.

Can you really not see that with every post you reduce Jesus to Caesar?

It's not just the criminals who are incompetent, but also those who resort to their way to stop them.

 

[dinonum]

Can I ask where we find that a Shepherd's staff is meant as a defensive tool to fend off enemies of the sheep?

 

[Duckybill]

Then Jesus isn't a Christian.

True, He is Christ/God/Savior.

 

[brinny]

Can I ask where we find that a Shepherd's staff is meant as a defensive tool to fend off enemies of the sheep?

What do sheherds use their staff for?

 

[brinny]

But his crozier is cross-shaped, not baton shaped.

Can you really not see that with every post you reduce Jesus to Caesar?

It's not just the criminals who are incompetent, but also those who resort to their way to stop them.

The incompetent anything comes from a perpetrator who planned evil from the gitgo.

 

[brinny]

Proverbs 6:16-19

16 There are six things the LORD hates,
seven that are detestable to him:

17 haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,

18 a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,

19 a false witness who pours out lies
and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.

No where does it say God hates those who defend against evil.

 

[brinny]

No, you don't. Which is exactly why its vital to develop the right character before you get to the crisis.

A (borrowed) story:

Once upon a time, in a land far, far away (well, Westminster Abbey is a fair way from here and it was a few decades ago), there was a big church service, in a packed Abbey Church with a lot of very imporant people in attendence. In walks a group of protestors. What they are protesting about has no direct connection to the service going on, but they are well known at the time for very quickly getting violent in their protest. Nobody is quite sure what to do and everybody sits there hoping someone else will deal with it. There are some police present, but dealing with it by force would be as risky as anything else. Until one not particularly senior clergyman gets up, walks over to the leader of the protestors and chats to him for a minute or so, then walks over to the person in charge of the service and talks to him, then goes up to the microphone and announces that the protestors will be given 3 minutes at the microphone to voice their protest and will then leave quietly. All then goes according to that plan.

That clergyman had regularly been seen before (and since) just randomly kneeling down talking to drunks in doorways and other acts of engagement with people on the edge of society, so that when the crisis came he (and only he out of a couple of thousand people) had the virtues to be able to deal with the situation.

You don't get that point, of instinctively being able to find the non-violent solution when the crisis comes if you regard violence as an acceptable option. Or if you don't do the rest of the characer building.

Editted to add: and yes it's risky. That comes with the Jesus territory, I'm afraid.

the only one here who finds violence an acceptable option is the one planning evil from the gitgo.

 

[brinny]

Can I ask where we find that a Shepherd's staff is meant as a defensive tool to fend off enemies of the sheep?

any good shepherd will protect his sheep. That's the bottom line of his purpose.

 

[brinny]

No, you don't. Which is exactly why its vital to develop the right character before you get to the crisis.

A (borrowed) story:

Once upon a time, in a land far, far away (well, Westminster Abbey is a fair way from here and it was a few decades ago), there was a big church service, in a packed Abbey Church with a lot of very imporant people in attendence. In walks a group of protestors. What they are protesting about has no direct connection to the service going on, but they are well known at the time for very quickly getting violent in their protest. Nobody is quite sure what to do and everybody sits there hoping someone else will deal with it. There are some police present, but dealing with it by force would be as risky as anything else. Until one not particularly senior clergyman gets up, walks over to the leader of the protestors and chats to him for a minute or so, then walks over to the person in charge of the service and talks to him, then goes up to the microphone and announces that the protestors will be given 3 minutes at the microphone to voice their protest and will then leave quietly. All then goes according to that plan.

That clergyman had regularly been seen before (and since) just randomly kneeling down talking to drunks in doorways and other acts of engagement with people on the edge of society, so that when the crisis came he (and only he out of a couple of thousand people) had the virtues to be able to deal with the situation.

You don't get that point, of instinctively being able to find the non-violent solution when the crisis comes if you regard violence as an acceptable option. Or if you don't do the rest of the characer building.

Editted to add: and yes it's risky. That comes with the Jesus territory, I'm afraid.

right character (righteousness) protects those under his charge.

 

[interested in life]

nice story but its not quite the same as somebody entering your house with the objective of killing or maiming you and your family.
Drunks in doorways isnt the same as what can be encountered today.
Been enlightening cya.

 

[ebia]

the only one here who finds violence an acceptable option is the one planning evil from the gitgo.

And yet you don't see that evil has won when you drop to using violence in response? That' you've spent the whole thread saying "violence is an acceptable way of dealing with evil"?

"He did it first" is a primary school playground excuse.