This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
There are many things about the road we Christians are called to follow that go against common sense:
Classik, Viola could not have "walked away" yesterday, she tried, but the girl grabbed her arm and swung her around, then shoved her so hard that when Viola countered the force caused both of them to fall down.
This is why I shared the story of what happened to Viola yesterday. She was assaulted...technically it was assault and battery...and yet she did not fight back. She only defended herself and worked to subdue the other girl. She did not hit the girl, or pull hair, or do anything else to harm the girl.
What is assault if not violence?Good point. I was speaking about assault in response to assault. I see nothing to say we shouldn't protect ourselves and others from violence.But there seems to be a difference between being defensive and being offensive. Doing anything more than standing in the way of my family and subduing the assailant is getting more and more difficult to justify.
This is just something I'm working through on my own. I'm not chastising anyone else about it.
Oy vey.
Not this again.....(sigh).
The following text, from Luke 22, is often used to support the right to use violence in self-defence:
<O</O
<O
And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. <SUP>37</SUP>"For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS'; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment." <SUP>38</SUP>They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough."
Obviously a “superficial†reading suggests that Jesus is advocating the “right†to carry a weapon. However, the fact that such a reading is deeply at odds with other things Jesus teaches should be a tip-off that things are not as they appear. And indeed, such is the case here. When this text is understood in broader context, we realize that Jesus is not making any kind of a case for the right to bear arms (swords or otherwise).
In order to arrive at the correct interpretation, we really need to step back and ask ourselves what Jesus’ larger purpose was in this dialogue. Note the connective “for†at the beginning of verse 37. It suggests that the material which follows is an explanation or amplification on the point just made – that the followers of Jesus are to sell their coats and buy a sword. So what is Jesus’ larger purpose?
<O
In fact, this very specific focus on the intent to be seen as a transgressor is powerfully sustained by Jesus’ statement that there is prophecy that He (Jesus) must be seen as a transgressor.
Remember the incident in the temple with Jesus overthrowing the tables of the moneychangers. This is not, as many people think, merely a repudiation of the sin of materialism. It is also a shrewd provocation on the part of Jesus. By creating a ruckus in the temple, He is forcing the hand of the Jewish leaders – they cannot allow such behaviour, Jesus must be arrested soon.
This is why, in the next verse, when the disciples say they have two swords, Jesus says “It is enough.†Obviously, if Jesus ever intended for the disciples to use the swords, two swords would not be nearly enough in any kind of armed action. But it’s enough to fulfill the prophecy by making Jesus appear to be participating in a violent revolutionary movement of some kind.
Unlike the “Jesus is supporting the right to bear arms†interpretation, note how the above interpretation makes sense of the entire account. If Jesus was really making some general statement about a “right to bear armsâ€, how exactly does that contribute to His being numbered with transgressors? And how does that make sense of the limit of two swords? Such a “right to bear arms†interpretation makes sense of neither. So it is almost certainly an incorrect interpretation of Jesus’ statement about buying a couple of swords.
understand that!
I think that man's commentary is dead on Mike. Mike I am full of love for people, and will try my best to avoid a fight, but if I am forced I will fight. And guess who designed me to protect myself, yep you guessed it God.
Good point. I was speaking about assault in response to assault. I see nothing to say we shouldn't protect ourselves and others from violence.But there seems to be a difference between being defensive and being offensive. Doing anything more than standing in the way of my family and subduing the assailant is getting more and more difficult to justify.
This is just something I'm working through on my own. I'm not chastising anyone else about it.
What did you have in mind, a stern look ?
Scripture; A time for peace and a time for war
First of all, you have simply avoided the content of my argument. I trust you realize that you need to engage that argument in order to debate this issue properly.
This line of thinking simply does not work, as has been pointed out before. Someone could just as easily say "God designed me to have desire for sex with women other than my wife".
totopic :toofunny