Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Does the NT allows for deadly force?

Maccabee
Posts: 1,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 11:14:50 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
I think it does.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 12:29:45 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/13/2016 11:14:50 PM, Maccabee wrote:
I think it does.
Not to sound rude, but it does not matter what you think. Similarly, it does not matter what I think. It does not matter what anyone thinks. Let's examine this idea using scriptural evidence. What does the Bible say about deadly force in the Greek Scriptures?

Romans 12:18 - "If possible, as far as it depends on you, be peaceable with all men."

Matthew 5:39 - "However, I say to you: Do not resist the one who is wicked, but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other also to him."

Luke 6:29 - "To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also; and from him who takes away your outer garment, do not withhold the inner garment either."

1 Peter 3:11 - "Let him turn away from what is bad and do what is good; let him seek peace and pursue it."

What do you gather from the above verses?
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
Maccabee
Posts: 1,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 12:39:02 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/14/2016 12:29:45 AM, tstor wrote:
At 1/13/2016 11:14:50 PM, Maccabee wrote:
I think it does.
Not to sound rude, but it does not matter what you think. Similarly, it does not matter what I think. It does not matter what anyone thinks. Let's examine this idea using scriptural evidence. What does the Bible say about deadly force in the Greek Scriptures?

I agree here.

Romans 12:18 - "If possible, as far as it depends on you, be peaceable with all men."

"IF it be POSSIBLE". If its not possible then I'll explain to the would-rapist/murderer not to do that in a language he'll understand.

Matthew 5:39 - "However, I say to you: Do not resist the one who is wicked, but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other also to him."

The KJV says "resist not evil". If we to take that at face value then I guess I should give in to temptation. God's view on evil is far different than what we think of evil. Also a slap on the cheek is a insult, not assault. Also notice it says "turn the other cheek" not give the other limb.

Luke 6:29 - "To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also; and from him who takes away your outer garment, do not withhold the inner garment either."

Same above.

1 Peter 3:11 - "Let him turn away from what is bad and do what is good; let him seek peace and pursue it."

Sure, I seek peace, but if peace is impossible then I would do anything neccesary to preserve me and mine. Also this verse is talking more so about everyday stuff, not someone taking your life or limb.

What do you gather from the above verses?

Deadly force still stands.

Luke 22:36

"He that hath no sword let him sell his cloak and buy one."
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 1:11:20 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/14/2016 12:39:02 AM, Maccabee wrote:

Romans 12:18 - "If possible, as far as it depends on you, be peaceable with all men."

"IF it be POSSIBLE". If its not possible then I'll explain to the would-rapist/murderer not to do that in a language he'll understand.
Yes, you rightly notice that it created an "if" statement. What do you believe that "if" refers to? More than likely self defense (defending yourself and your family from physical harm). The Bible speaks on this same subject some more in the following verses:

2 Timothy 2:24 - "For a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle toward all, qualified to teach, showing restraint when wronged,"

Hebrews 12:14 - "Pursue peace with all people and the sanctification without which no man will see the Lord."

James 3:18 - "Moreover, the fruit of righteousness is sown in peaceful conditions for those who are making peace."

Matthew 5:39 - "However, I say to you: Do not resist the one who is wicked, but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other also to him."

The KJV says "resist not evil". If we to take that at face value then I guess I should give in to temptation. God's view on evil is far different than what we think of evil. Also a slap on the cheek is a insult, not assault. Also notice it says "turn the other cheek" not give the other limb.
The Greek word used in Matthew 5:39 is ponero, which means "the evil man, who injures you" (Thayer's Greek Lexicon). So it is not speaking of a general evil, as you suggested.

Luke 6:29 - "To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also; and from him who takes away your outer garment, do not withhold the inner garment either."

Same above.
Yes, but you are missing a very crucial part that is there. The second part says "from him who takes away your outer garment, do not withhold the inner garment either." What does that mean? Well, it is talking about material possessions. Should someone come to you on the streets and demand your shoes, would you give them to him? If he was willing to physically harm you or your family, would you give the shoes to him? The Bible gives us a clear answer.

1 Peter 3:11 - "Let him turn away from what is bad and do what is "good; let him seek peace and pursue it."

Sure, I seek peace, but if peace is impossible then I would do anything neccesary to preserve me and mine. Also this verse is talking more so about everyday stuff, not someone taking your life or limb.
Ah, so you have provided a distinct scenario! What if someone tries to rob you of your material possessions, would you harm them physically? The Bible directs us to not engage in physical fights over material things. Though what about the scenario you raised? What if someone is threatening your life? I would like to point to the Hebrew Scriptures, which provide us an interesting scenario to consider. Exodus 22:2, 3 read:
"If a thief is found in the act of breaking in and he gets struck and dies, there is no bloodguilt for him. But if it happens after sunrise, there is bloodguilt for him.

He must make compensation. If he has nothing, then he must be sold for the things he stole."

This seems interesting. If I were to break into your home at night and you killed me, then there is no bloodguilt on you. However, if I break into your home during the day and you kill me, then you do have bloodguilt. Why is that? We can logically conclude that at night, you have no idea what I am doing. Am I trying to harm you and your family or simply steal your material possessions? You have no idea and therefore if you kill me there should be no bloodguilt. Although during the day, you can see what I am doing. So if I am simply stealing your material possessions, then you have no right to kill me. If I am trying to harm you, then you have the right to defend yourself and your family. Though should you try and kill me or simply ward me off?

What do you gather from the above verses?

Deadly force still stands.

Luke 22:36

"He that hath no sword let him sell his cloak and buy one."
Yes, Jesus did say that to his disciples, but in what context? Jesus told them to have swords, but what was the later lesson they learned? When Peter used the sword, what did Jesus say? He told Peter to "return your sword to its place, for all those who take up the sword will perish by the sword" (Matthew 26:52).
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
Maccabee
Posts: 1,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 1:37:31 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/14/2016 1:11:20 AM, tstor wrote:
At 1/14/2016 12:39:02 AM, Maccabee wrote:

Romans 12:18 - "If possible, as far as it depends on you, be peaceable with all men."

"IF it be POSSIBLE". If its not possible then I'll explain to the would-rapist/murderer not to do that in a language he'll understand.
Yes, you rightly notice that it created an "if" statement. What do you believe that "if" refers to? More than likely self defense (defending yourself and your family from physical harm). The Bible speaks on this same subject some more in the following verses:

2 Timothy 2:24 - "For a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle toward all, qualified to teach, showing restraint when wronged,"

From the KJV it says "and the servant of The Lord must not strive; but be gentle into all men, apt to teach, patient"

In context of the other verses dealing with this topic it's saying that we should seek to not strive or continuely strive. I don't think it's in reference to self defense.

Hebrews 12:14 - "Pursue peace with all people and the sanctification without which no man will see the Lord."

In the KJV it says "follow peace..."
It's saying that we shouldn't seek fights. Self defense doesn't seek fights. It prepares oneself for a fight if there's no other option.

James 3:18 - "Moreover, the fruit of righteousness is sown in peaceful conditions for those who are making peace."

There's a difference between MAKING peace and KEEPING peace. Making peace indicates force. Keeping peace keeps the status quo.

Matthew 5:39 - "However, I say to you: Do not resist the one who is wicked, but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other also to him."

The KJV says "resist not evil". If we to take that at face value then I guess I should give in to temptation. God's view on evil is far different than what we think of evil. Also a slap on the cheek is a insult, not assault. Also notice it says "turn the other cheek" not give the other limb.
The Greek word used in Matthew 5:39 is ponero, which means "the evil man, who injures you" (Thayer's Greek Lexicon). So it is not speaking of a general evil, as you suggested.

Still it's evil that slaps you, not evil that kills you.

Luke 6:29 - "To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also; and from him who takes away your outer garment, do not withhold the inner garment either."

Same above.
Yes, but you are missing a very crucial part that is there. The second part says "from him who takes away your outer garment, do not withhold the inner garment either." What does that mean? Well, it is talking about material possessions. Should someone come to you on the streets and demand your shoes, would you give them to him? If he was willing to physically harm you or your family, would you give the shoes to him? The Bible gives us a clear answer.

Yes I would give my shoes, but if he threatens my family or my life without cause then that's a different matter.

1 Peter 3:11 - "Let him turn away from what is bad and do what is "good; let him seek peace and pursue it."

Sure, I seek peace, but if peace is impossible then I would do anything neccesary to preserve me and mine. Also this verse is talking more so about everyday stuff, not someone taking your life or limb.
Ah, so you have provided a distinct scenario! What if someone tries to rob you of your material possessions, would you harm them physically?

No unless he tries to harm me or mine. The tv I can replace, but my family I cannot.

The Bible directs us to not engage in physical fights over material things. Though what about the scenario you raised? What if someone is threatening your life? I would like to point to the Hebrew Scriptures, which provide us an interesting scenario to consider. Exodus 22:2, 3 read:
"If a thief is found in the act of breaking in and he gets struck and dies, there is no bloodguilt for him. But if it happens after sunrise, there is bloodguilt for him.

He must make compensation. If he has nothing, then he must be sold for the things he stole."

This seems interesting. If I were to break into your home at night and you killed me, then there is no bloodguilt on you. However, if I break into your home during the day and you kill me, then you do have bloodguilt. Why is that? We can logically conclude that at night, you have no idea what I am doing. Am I trying to harm you and your family or simply steal your material possessions? You have no idea and therefore if you kill me there should be no bloodguilt. Although during the day, you can see what I am doing. So if I am simply stealing your material possessions, then you have no right to kill me. If I am trying to harm you, then you have the right to defend yourself and your family. Though should you try and kill me or simply ward me off?

I agree with you. Though if your trying to harm me then you lost your right to life so I don't need to try to ward you off. However if the mere presences of force cause you to run away with your tail between your legs then I'm satisfied. I won't chase you (unless I'm a cop) or anything. Although I will report you to the police.

What do you gather from the above verses?

Deadly force still stands.

Luke 22:36

"He that hath no sword let him sell his cloak and buy one."
Yes, Jesus did say that to his disciples, but in what context? Jesus told them to have swords, but what was the later lesson they learned? When Peter used the sword, what did Jesus say? He told Peter to "return your sword to its place, for all those who take up the sword will perish by the sword" (Matthew 26:52).

Notice Jesus said to return the sword in its place (modern day it would be "put your gun back in its holster) not to throw the sword away. Also if Jesus was just talking to his disciples then I think he would use "ye" in the KJV rather than "he".
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 1:56:57 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/14/2016 1:37:31 AM, Maccabee wrote:

Yes, you rightly notice that it created an "if" statement. What do you believe that "if" refers to? More than likely self defense (defending yourself and your family from physical harm). The Bible speaks on this same subject some more in the following verses:

2 Timothy 2:24 - "For a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle toward all, qualified to teach, showing restraint when wronged,"

From the KJV it says "and the servant of The Lord must not strive; but be gentle into all men, apt to teach, patient"
Let's examine the Greek:
doulon de Kyriou ou dei machesthai alla epion einai pros pantas didaktikon anexikakon

machesthai
- of those who engage in a war of words, to quarrel, wrangle, dispute (Thayer's Greek Lexicon)

A proper translation would be fight, not strive.

Hebrews 12:14 - "Pursue peace with all people and the sanctification without which no man will see the Lord."

In the KJV it says "follow peace..."
The Greek word translated as "pursue" is diokete, which means "to seek after eagerly, earnestly endeavor to acquire" (Thayer's Greek Lexicon) So the word "pursue" more accurately describes what was said in the Greek than "follow."

James 3:18 - "Moreover, the fruit of righteousness is sown in peaceful conditions for those who are making peace."

There's a difference between MAKING peace and KEEPING peace. Making peace indicates force. Keeping peace keeps the status quo.
Making peace does not indicate force. Rather, it could mean simply avoiding things that could obstruct peace. Or avoiding the temptation to break peace.

The KJV says "resist not evil". If we to take that at face value then I guess I should give in to temptation. God's view on evil is far different than what we think of evil. Also a slap on the cheek is a insult, not assault. Also notice it says "turn the other cheek" not give the other limb.
The Greek word used in Matthew 5:39 is ponero, which means "the evil man, who injures you" (Thayer's Greek Lexicon). So it is not speaking of a general evil, as you suggested.

Still it's evil that slaps you, not evil that kills you.
Right. So what will you do if someone comes up to you tomorrow and slaps you?

The Bible directs us to not engage in physical fights over material things. Though what about the scenario you raised? What if someone is threatening your life? I would like to point to the Hebrew Scriptures, which provide us an interesting scenario to consider. Exodus 22:2, 3 read:
"If a thief is found in the act of breaking in and he gets struck and dies, there is no bloodguilt for him. But if it happens after sunrise, there is bloodguilt for him.

He must make compensation. If he has nothing, then he must be sold for the things he stole."

This seems interesting. If I were to break into your home at night and you killed me, then there is no bloodguilt on you. However, if I break into your home during the day and you kill me, then you do have bloodguilt. Why is that? We can logically conclude that at night, you have no idea what I am doing. Am I trying to harm you and your family or simply steal your material possessions? You have no idea and therefore if you kill me there should be no bloodguilt. Although during the day, you can see what I am doing. So if I am simply stealing your material possessions, then you have no right to kill me. If I am trying to harm you, then you have the right to defend yourself and your family. Though should you try and kill me or simply ward me off?

I agree with you. Though if your trying to harm me then you lost your right to life so I don't need to try to ward you off. However if the mere presences of force cause you to run away with your tail between your legs then I'm satisfied. I won't chase you (unless I'm a cop) or anything. Although I will report you to the police.
So if someone was coming to attack you and your family and you had a gun, would you shoot them in the leg or in the head?

Luke 22:36

"He that hath no sword let him sell his cloak and buy one."
Yes, Jesus did say that to his disciples, but in what context? Jesus told them to have swords, but what was the later lesson they learned? When Peter used the sword, what did Jesus say? He told Peter to "return your sword to its place, for all those who take up the sword will perish by the sword" (Matthew 26:52).

Notice Jesus said to return the sword in its place (modern day it would be "put your gun back in its holster) not to throw the sword away. Also if Jesus was just talking to his disciples then I think he would use "ye" in the KJV rather than "he".
That does not change what Jesus said. He stated that "all those who take up the sword will perish by the sword." As well, Luke 22:36, in full, reads:
"Then he said to them: 'But now let the one who has a money bag take it, likewise a food pouch, and let the one who has no sword sell his outer garment and buy one.'"
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
Gentorev
Posts: 2,950
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 2:29:25 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/14/2016 12:29:45 AM, tstor wrote:
At 1/13/2016 11:14:50 PM, Maccabee wrote:
I think it does.
Not to sound rude, but it does not matter what you think. Similarly, it does not matter what I think. It does not matter what anyone thinks. Let's examine this idea using scriptural evidence. What does the Bible say about deadly force in the Greek Scriptures?

Romans 12:18 - "If possible, as far as it depends on you, be peaceable with all men."

Matthew 5:39 - "However, I say to you: Do not resist the one who is wicked, but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other also to him."

Luke 6:29 - "To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also; and from him who takes away your outer garment, do not withhold the inner garment either."
1 Peter 3:11 - "Let him turn away from what is bad and do what is good; let him seek peace and pursue it."

What do you gather from the above verses?

" To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also; and from him who takes away your outer garment, do not withhold the inner garment either."

By saying that, do you think that Jesus meant: "To him who rapes and murders your young daughter, offer to him also, your other daughter?"
Maccabee
Posts: 1,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 2:51:47 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/14/2016 1:56:57 AM, tstor wrote:
At 1/14/2016 1:37:31 AM, Maccabee wrote:

Yes, you rightly notice that it created an "if" statement. What do you believe that "if" refers to? More than likely self defense (defending yourself and your family from physical harm). The Bible speaks on this same subject some more in the following verses:

2 Timothy 2:24 - "For a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle toward all, qualified to teach, showing restraint when wronged,"

From the KJV it says "and the servant of The Lord must not strive; but be gentle into all men, apt to teach, patient"
Let's examine the Greek:
doulon de Kyriou ou dei machesthai alla epion einai pros pantas didaktikon anexikakon

machesthai
- of those who engage in a war of words, to quarrel, wrangle, dispute (Thayer's Greek Lexicon)

A proper translation would be fight, not strive.

That's what I meant.

Hebrews 12:14 - "Pursue peace with all people and the sanctification without which no man will see the Lord."

In the KJV it says "follow peace..."
The Greek word translated as "pursue" is diokete, which means "to seek after eagerly, earnestly endeavor to acquire" (Thayer's Greek Lexicon) So the word "pursue" more accurately describes what was said in the Greek than "follow."

James 3:18 - "Moreover, the fruit of righteousness is sown in peaceful conditions for those who are making peace."

There's a difference between MAKING peace and KEEPING peace. Making peace indicates force. Keeping peace keeps the status quo.
Making peace does not indicate force. Rather, it could mean simply avoiding things that could obstruct peace. Or avoiding the temptation to break peace.

At the same time if the only way to keep the peace is to do violence then so be it.

The KJV says "resist not evil". If we to take that at face value then I guess I should give in to temptation. God's view on evil is far different than what we think of evil. Also a slap on the cheek is a insult, not assault. Also notice it says "turn the other cheek" not give the other limb.
The Greek word used in Matthew 5:39 is ponero, which means "the evil man, who injures you" (Thayer's Greek Lexicon). So it is not speaking of a general evil, as you suggested.

Still it's evil that slaps you, not evil that kills you.
Right. So what will you do if someone comes up to you tomorrow and slaps you?

Slap him right back. Just kidding. My natural reflexes is to try to deflect the oncoming slap. But if I can't then I turn the other cheek. Because its an insult, if he wanted to hurt me then he would've punched me.

The Bible directs us to not engage in physical fights over material things. Though what about the scenario you raised? What if someone is threatening your life? I would like to point to the Hebrew Scriptures, which provide us an interesting scenario to consider. Exodus 22:2, 3 read:
"If a thief is found in the act of breaking in and he gets struck and dies, there is no bloodguilt for him. But if it happens after sunrise, there is bloodguilt for him.

He must make compensation. If he has nothing, then he must be sold for the things he stole."

This seems interesting. If I were to break into your home at night and you killed me, then there is no bloodguilt on you. However, if I break into your home during the day and you kill me, then you do have bloodguilt. Why is that? We can logically conclude that at night, you have no idea what I am doing. Am I trying to harm you and your family or simply steal your material possessions? You have no idea and therefore if you kill me there should be no bloodguilt. Although during the day, you can see what I am doing. So if I am simply stealing your material possessions, then you have no right to kill me. If I am trying to harm you, then you have the right to defend yourself and your family. Though should you try and kill me or simply ward me off?

I agree with you. Though if your trying to harm me then you lost your right to life so I don't need to try to ward you off. However if the mere presences of force cause you to run away with your tail between your legs then I'm satisfied. I won't chase you (unless I'm a cop) or anything. Although I will report you to the police.
So if someone was coming to attack you and your family and you had a gun, would you shoot them in the leg or in the head?

The head, actually the center of mass. It's easier for me to aim for in a high stress scenario and it stops him quicker. I don't want to kill him but if he dies from his wounds then so be it. I feared for my life.

Luke 22:36

"He that hath no sword let him sell his cloak and buy one."
Yes, Jesus did say that to his disciples, but in what context? Jesus told them to have swords, but what was the later lesson they learned? When Peter used the sword, what did Jesus say? He told Peter to "return your sword to its place, for all those who take up the sword will perish by the sword" (Matthew 26:52).

Notice Jesus said to return the sword in its place (modern day it would be "put your gun back in its holster) not to throw the sword away. Also if Jesus was just talking to his disciples then I think he would use "ye" in the KJV rather than "he".
That does not change what Jesus said. He stated that "all those who take up the sword will perish by the sword." As well, Luke 22:36, in full, reads:

I forgot that point. It's saying that if you seek violence then you will die by it. I don't seek violence. I stay away from dark alleys, I lock my doors, and I don't go out at night. But if the fight comes to me then I want the training and tools to defend myself.

"Then he said to them: 'But now let the one who has a money bag take it, likewise a food pouch, and let the one who has no sword sell his outer garment and buy one.'"

Right, and I still think it applies to all of us. Jesus is saying to prepare for the daily life as you preach the gospel.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 3:02:26 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/14/2016 2:51:47 AM, Maccabee wrote:

There's a difference between MAKING peace and KEEPING peace. Making peace indicates force. Keeping peace keeps the status quo.
Making peace does not indicate force. Rather, it could mean simply avoiding things that could obstruct peace. Or avoiding the temptation to break peace.

At the same time if the only way to keep the peace is to do violence then so be it.
Violence contradicts peace. Violence can never bring peace.

So if someone was coming to attack you and your family and you had a gun, would you shoot them in the leg or in the head?

The head, actually the center of mass. It's easier for me to aim for in a high stress scenario and it stops him quicker. I don't want to kill him but if he dies from his wounds then so be it. I feared for my life.
Good, so you agree that the intent should be to stop him, not kill him?

Notice Jesus said to return the sword in its place (modern day it would be "put your gun back in its holster) not to throw the sword away. Also if Jesus was just talking to his disciples then I think he would use "ye" in the KJV rather than "he".
That does not change what Jesus said. He stated that "all those who take up the sword will perish by the sword." As well, Luke 22:36, in full, reads:

I forgot that point. It's saying that if you seek violence then you will die by it. I don't seek violence. I stay away from dark alleys, I lock my doors, and I don't go out at night. But if the fight comes to me then I want the training and tools to defend myself.
It is appropriate to defend yourself so long as that defense does not turn into offense. The intention of the defender is what distinguishes the two.

"Then he said to them: 'But now let the one who has a money bag take it, likewise a food pouch, and let the one who has no sword sell his outer garment and buy one.'"

Right, and I still think it applies to all of us. Jesus is saying to prepare for the daily life as you preach the gospel.
Indeed, we should be prepared. We should defend ourselves. You will also note that Peter took off a man's ear with his sword. He did not stab him through the stomach or try and kill him.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
Maccabee
Posts: 1,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 3:12:52 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/14/2016 3:02:26 AM, tstor wrote:
At 1/14/2016 2:51:47 AM, Maccabee wrote:

There's a difference between MAKING peace and KEEPING peace. Making peace indicates force. Keeping peace keeps the status quo.
Making peace does not indicate force. Rather, it could mean simply avoiding things that could obstruct peace. Or avoiding the temptation to break peace.

At the same time if the only way to keep the peace is to do violence then so be it.
Violence contradicts peace. Violence can never bring peace.

Self defense is violent.

So if someone was coming to attack you and your family and you had a gun, would you shoot them in the leg or in the head?

The head, actually the center of mass. It's easier for me to aim for in a high stress scenario and it stops him quicker. I don't want to kill him but if he dies from his wounds then so be it. I feared for my life.
Good, so you agree that the intent should be to stop him, not kill him?

Yep. Shoot to stop the threat, not shoot to kill.

Notice Jesus said to return the sword in its place (modern day it would be "put your gun back in its holster) not to throw the sword away. Also if Jesus was just talking to his disciples then I think he would use "ye" in the KJV rather than "he".
That does not change what Jesus said. He stated that "all those who take up the sword will perish by the sword." As well, Luke 22:36, in full, reads:

I forgot that point. It's saying that if you seek violence then you will die by it. I don't seek violence. I stay away from dark alleys, I lock my doors, and I don't go out at night. But if the fight comes to me then I want the training and tools to defend myself.
It is appropriate to defend yourself so long as that defense does not turn into offense. The intention of the defender is what distinguishes the two.

"Then he said to them: 'But now let the one who has a money bag take it, likewise a food pouch, and let the one who has no sword sell his outer garment and buy one.'"

Right, and I still think it applies to all of us. Jesus is saying to prepare for the daily life as you preach the gospel.
Indeed, we should be prepared. We should defend ourselves. You will also note that Peter took off a man's ear with his sword. He did not stab him through the stomach or try and kill him.

I always thought he was trying to split the guard's head open and missed.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Gentorev
Posts: 2,950
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 3:33:08 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/14/2016 3:12:52 AM, Maccabee wrote:
At 1/14/2016 3:02:26 AM, tstor wrote:
At 1/14/2016 2:51:47 AM, Maccabee wrote:

There's a difference between MAKING peace and KEEPING peace. Making peace indicates force. Keeping peace keeps the status quo.
Making peace does not indicate force. Rather, it could mean simply avoiding things that could obstruct peace. Or avoiding the temptation to break peace.

At the same time if the only way to keep the peace is to do violence then so be it.
Violence contradicts peace. Violence can never bring peace.

Self defense is violent.

So if someone was coming to attack you and your family and you had a gun, would you shoot them in the leg or in the head?

The head, actually the center of mass. It's easier for me to aim for in a high stress scenario and it stops him quicker. I don't want to kill him but if he dies from his wounds then so be it. I feared for my life.
Good, so you agree that the intent should be to stop him, not kill him?

Yep. Shoot to stop the threat, not shoot to kill.

Notice Jesus said to return the sword in its place (modern day it would be "put your gun back in its holster) not to throw the sword away. Also if Jesus was just talking to his disciples then I think he would use "ye" in the KJV rather than "he".
That does not change what Jesus said. He stated that "all those who take up the sword will perish by the sword." As well, Luke 22:36, in full, reads:

I forgot that point. It's saying that if you seek violence then you will die by it. I don't seek violence. I stay away from dark alleys, I lock my doors, and I don't go out at night. But if the fight comes to me then I want the training and tools to defend myself.
It is appropriate to defend yourself so long as that defense does not turn into offense. The intention of the defender is what distinguishes the two.

"Then he said to them: 'But now let the one who has a money bag take it, likewise a food pouch, and let the one who has no sword sell his outer garment and buy one.'"

Right, and I still think it applies to all of us. Jesus is saying to prepare for the daily life as you preach the gospel.
Indeed, we should be prepared. We should defend ourselves. You will also note that Peter took off a man's ear with his sword. He did not stab him through the stomach or try and kill him.

I always thought he was trying to split the guard's head open and missed.

Yea, I'm sure he didn't aim for the ear. In this country, the police are not trained to shoot to wound a would be assailant, but to aim for the biggest body mass. To attempt to shoot them in the arms or legs, would put innocent bystanders in danger. Not too many survive with one or more bullets in the centre of their chest.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,290
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 8:51:03 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/13/2016 11:14:50 PM, Maccabee wrote:
I think it does.

Some soldiers were questioning him, saying, "And what about us, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages." Luke 3:14.

John the Baptist did not tell soldiers to quit or never kill. He asked them to act justly.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,950
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 9:44:19 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/14/2016 3:02:26 AM, tstor wrote: Violence contradicts peace. Violence can never bring peace.


Then you have no understanding of the Holy Scriptures my young Christian friend.

It will be on that great day of tribulation that the Lord gathers all the nations around Jerusalem, Zechariah 12: 10, and they will look upon me and see the one who they pierced, and they shall mourn for him as one mourns for an only child etc.

Isaiah 63: 1-6, "Who is this coming from the city of Bozrah in Edom? Who is this so splendidly dressed in red, marching along in power and strength?" It is the Lord, powerful to save, coming to announce his victory. "Why is his clothing so red, like that of a man who tramples grapes to make wine?"

The Lord answers, "I have trampled the nations like grapes and no one came to help me. I trampled them in my anger, and their blood has stained all my clothing. I decided that the time to save my people had come; it was time to punish their enemies, I was amazed when I looked and saw that there was no one to help me. But my anger made me strong, and I won the victory myself. In my anger I trampled whole nations and shattered them, I poured out their life"s blood on the earth."

The fault line where the African tectonic plate grinds against the Arabian plate in its northern migration, runs up through the centre of the Red Sea along the Jordan valley and under the Mount of Olives.

Concerning the war to end all war the Lord says through Zechariah 14: 3-19; "Then the Lord will go out and fight against those nations as he has fought in times past. At that time he will stand upon the Mount of Olives, to the east of Jerusalem. Then the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west by a large valley. Half of the Mountain will move northward (on the African plate) and half of it(on the Arabian plate) southward, etc.

From within the inner most sanctuary of his tabernacle, which is the body of mankind, he will fight the enemies of Israel; those Nations who surround Jerusalem in their attempt to drive God's chosen people into the sea. The Lord will throw them into a state of total confusion, and the weapons of destruction with which they would destroy Israel, he will cause them to turn upon their own allies and they shall suffer a terrible disease, the soft tissue such as their eyes and tongues will melt in their sockets, and their radiated flesh cooked to the bone will slide from their bodies while still standing.

Then all those who sing and dance with their eyes and hands raised to the heavens in worship of a god they neither know or understand, can kiss goodbye to their great cathedrals of Marble, stone and crystal, for all the surviving Nations, will send their representatives, who will go up each year to Jerusalem in the land of Israel, to worship the Lord as King and woe betide those who refuse to do so, See Zechariah 14.
seeu46
Posts: 578
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2016 3:47:23 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
John 18:36
Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world."
Gentorev
Posts: 2,950
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2016 1:20:16 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/14/2016 3:47:23 PM, seeu46 wrote:
John 18:36
Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world."

KJV...My Kingdom is not of this world (Of some two thousand years ago) . If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews, but "NOW" (Greek nun--at this point in time) my kingdom is not from hence=here.
Gentorev
Posts: 2,950
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2016 2:00:54 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/15/2016 1:20:16 AM, Gentorev wrote:
At 1/14/2016 3:47:23 PM, seeu46 wrote:
John 18:36
Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world."

KJV...My Kingdom is not of this world (Of some two thousand years ago) . If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews, but "NOW" (Greek nun--at this point in time) my kingdom is not from hence=here.

May thy kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven.
Deathbeforedishonour
Posts: 1,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2016 2:11:17 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/14/2016 3:47:23 PM, seeu46 wrote:
John 18:36
Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world."

This is a clear statement against Holy War, but the fact remains there is nothing against self defense on a personal level within scripture as long as all peaceful measures have been exausted and that, that individual is under immediate danger or dire distress.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1

Matthew 10:22- "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
Maccabee
Posts: 1,247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2016 2:42:32 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/14/2016 8:51:03 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/13/2016 11:14:50 PM, Maccabee wrote:
I think it does.

Some soldiers were questioning him, saying, "And what about us, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages." Luke 3:14.

John the Baptist did not tell soldiers to quit or never kill. He asked them to act justly.

Yep.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2016 6:56:04 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/13/2016 11:14:50 PM, Maccabee wrote:
I think it does.

In a word, no. Only Jehovah has the right to take or authorise the taking of life, and he ceased the authorisation of ay such acts when the Mosaic LAw was fulfilled by his son's faithful sacrifice.

Even before that he only authorised it for the protection of his own people from harm, especially spiritual harm.