What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

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!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

    Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses

  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

    Read The Gospel Online.

Kids Fighting Back

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$1,038.00
Goal
$1,038.00
Donate View
Drew said:
I very much agree with this distinction. Although my posts may lead people to think otherwise, I am not advocating a "stand there and take it" response to violence. I would say that its OK to "fend off blows", or to try to "disarm", even through physical actions. But, as I think you are saying, once you cross the line to one where you make the injuring of your opponent the objective, then I think you have gone too far. I recognize this "line" is not clear in many situations. But I am not suggesting that people "let themselves get punched".
Click to expand...


You never once stated that, instead when I said I wouldn't let my children be punching bags which equates to "let themselves get punched," you just kept going on and on about how we're not supposed to anything because Jesus never did.

I think had you stated this from the start, this thread wouldn't have gone 15 pages.

My intent with my defending myself was never to harm anyone, it was merely to show that I wouldn't be a punching bag anymore. My children while having been taught to defend themselves know that they aren't to hurt the attacker unless necessary in order to defend themselves and to keep from getting seriously injured.

My son, when he defended his little sister merely tackled the boy, and wouldn't get off of him till he promised to never bully his little sister again.
 
Boidae21 said:
You never once stated that, instead when I said I wouldn't let my children be punching bags which equates to "let themselves get punched," you just kept going on and on about how we're not supposed to anything because Jesus never did.

I think had you stated this from the start, this thread wouldn't have gone 15 pages.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I may bear some responsibility for some misunderstandings in this thread.
 
All sounds the same to me the verbiage is slightly different. How ever it is said, it all comes down to no more force then necessary.
 
The bottom line is this if a child is attacked by a bully, the child should fight back if she or he can. God did not tell you to stand up there and be a punching bag. Where is that posted in the Bible, to stand there and let somebody kick, slap, punch and stomp you to death. I think that the commentary that I posted in this subject hit it right on the head. The word Antistenai is the problem as translated in the 1604 1611 King James version, and the other versions followed suit,

 antistenai



Definitions




Examples


  • “When the court translators working in the hire of King James chose to translate antistenai as "Resist not evil," they were doing something more than rendering Greek into English.”
    Latest News from Ekklesia
  • “Now we are in a better position to see why King James 'servants translated antistenai as "resist not.”
    Latest News from Ekklesia
  • “The Scholars Version translates antistenai brilliantly: "Don't react violently against someone who is evil.”
    Latest News from Ekklesia
  • “Hina dunethete antistenai en te eme'ra te ponera, in order that ye may be able to withstand, i.e. successfully to resist, in the evil day.”
    A Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians
  • “* Hina dunethete antistenai en te eme'ra te ponera: [1271] 1”
    A Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians
  • “In the nations in which Christianity has predominated, Jesus’ teaching on nonviolence has been perverted into injunctions to passive nonresistance, which … is the very opposite of active nonviolence … Jesus always resisted evil … The Greek word translated as “resist” [antistenai], is literally “to stand [stenai] against/anti.””
    What happened to Jesus and what's a Christian to do with it?
http://www.wordnik.com/words/antistenai




 
Last edited by a moderator:
Drew said:
I very much agree with this distinction. Although my posts may lead people to think otherwise, I am not advocating a "stand there and take it" response to violence. I would say that its OK to "fend off blows", or to try to "disarm", even through physical actions. But, as I think you are saying, once you cross the line to one where you make the injuring of your opponent the objective, then I think you have gone too far. I recognize this "line" is not clear in many situations. But I am not suggesting that people "let themselves get punched".
Click to expand...

Drew, I'm in full agreement! :thumbsup

To fend off or subdue, I don't see the problem...it's actually better even for the bully, for being able to beat someone up does them no good. But, no, Christians shouldn't be in the business of trying to injure a bully. The line can be blurred, but Christians should certainly remember that we are to love all, including that bully standing there hurling insults and blows.
 
I very much agree with this distinction. Although my posts may lead people to think otherwise, I am not advocating a "stand there and take it" response to violence. I would say that its OK to "fend off blows", or to try to "disarm", even through physical actions. But, as I think you are saying, once you cross the line to one where you make the injuring of your opponent the objective, then I think you have gone too far. I recognize this "line" is not clear in many situations. But I am not suggesting that people "let themselves get punched".
Click to expand...
Probably the most sensible thing said in this entire thread. Defending one's self does not require one go on the offensive.
 
Drew said:
I very much agree with this distinction. Although my posts may lead people to think otherwise, I am not advocating a "stand there and take it" response to violence. I would say that its OK to "fend off blows", or to try to "disarm", even through physical actions. But, as I think you are saying, once you cross the line to one where you make the injuring of your opponent the objective, then I think you have gone too far. I recognize this "line" is not clear in many situations. But I am not suggesting that people "let themselves get punched".
Click to expand...
So much for following Jesus,, that 'cheek' thing was just for fun right?
 
it would help alot if one did clarify that years ago, drew.

while not always possible its the best to use the minimal forced needed to stop the opponent. the rage will come but one can stop that.

what i mean is one cant control what the other guys does when you counter their attack and also try joint locks.

but be warned even in the passive arts the techniques will maim or injure the guy if he does punch or attack you hard and that is unavoidable.
 
Drew said:
reba and jason:

I agree that childeye has demonstrated a "pro-choice" position. But where, and please be specific, has childeye argued for the pacifist position.

Not in this thread, unless I missed something.
Click to expand...
i will look again.
 
Mike said:
As I said, this isn't about "I'm right - you're wrong". It would be the height of hypocrisy for me to get all self-righteous on you, because I'm just trying to work this out myself. Hitch, I responded to you in my post, so I realize now it looked like I was calling you out. I wasn't.
Click to expand...
No problem
As I say, I'm working through a whole new perspective. Personally, I see too many times when we are told to seek peace, and no where in the new covenant that we are told to strike back. As I see it, there were clear OT calls for war and necessary violence, but there is nothing in the NT. Perhaps we are told that through Christ's Sacrifice, we are to sacrifice ourselves and be witnesses to His Peace. Once His Promise was to include gentlest, it seems a believer's witness to a violent world was to be more profound. All I know is there is nothing in the NT that calls us to strike back or models it.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you are telling us that while you wouldnt condone removing much of the OT you are wiling to pretend it doesnt matter. Got a model for that?
Hitch, the police are ordered not to use unnecessary force, and that is consistent with my stance. I don't believe it's forbidden to restrain someone who attacks or defend ourselves. In my mind, this separates me from a true pacifist.
Click to expand...
Mike if the use of violence is what is forbidden then the typical pacifist practice of hiring out the dirty work wont cut it. Those same police ordered not to use unnecessary force are trained willing and ordered to use deadly force. Reconcile that with ' turn the other cheek', can you? But then you're not a 'true' pacifist, hmmmm. Are you a fake pacifist? If you're trying to be a Jesus following pacifist then 'turn the other cheek' must take precedence over all else, yes? It certainly does not in your model- when did Jesus call the police? Where does the NT teach that you can restrain attackers? Or have a servant do it ?
Reba, if there was a call to strike back in the verses you cited, I don't see them. Honest. Little help! :shrug
Click to expand...
 
WIP said:
Probably the most sensible thing said in this entire thread. Defending one's self does not require one go on the offensive.
Click to expand...
If pacifism is what Jesus wants and we know He said to 'turn the other cheek' where do you find any support for Defending one's self ?
 
Mike said:
As I said, this isn't about "I'm right - you're wrong". It would be the height of hypocrisy for me to get all self-righteous on you, because I'm just trying to work this out myself. Hitch, I responded to you in my post, so I realize now it looked like I was calling you out. I wasn't.

As I say, I'm working through a whole new perspective. Personally, I see too many times when we are told to seek peace, and no where in the new covenant that we are told to strike back. As I see it, there were clear OT calls for war and necessary violence, but there is nothing in the NT. Perhaps we are told that through Christ's Sacrifice, we are to sacrifice ourselves and be witnesses to His Peace. Once His Promise was to include gentlest, it seems a believer's witness to a violent world was to be more profound. All I know is there is nothing in the NT that calls us to strike back or models it.

Hitch, the police are ordered not to use unnecessary force, and that is consistent with my stance. I don't believe it's forbidden to restrain someone who attacks or defend ourselves. In my mind, this separates me from a true pacifist.

Reba, if there was a call to strike back in the verses you cited, I don't see them. Honest. Little help! :shrug
Click to expand...
But you should infer that Reba has posted passages that are seldom if ever followed to the letter, and would not make good foundations for doctrine.
 
jasoncran said:
a cop killing a suspect that refuses to comply after escalating the threat matrix isnt what the lord had in mind if we are to take that think that way.

common sense if the guy has a knife and is going to stab you, trying to pin him wont cut it. hurt him enough to stop him or escape and if you have a gun fire until the threat ceases. if he lives then so be it.
Click to expand...
When common sense and Scripture are mixed the result is not pacifism.
 
Man oh man whew'''''' I would not want to be in a fox hole with more than half of you.:o Because we both would be dead.
 
i will kill the enemy of the united states with predujice.

kill zem all and let god sort them out,lol

i do hope that i dont have to fire that weapon but i will be seing my family if i go again and not in a green body bag or have my men take my green blanket and flip the us side up.
 
Lewis W said:
Man oh man whew'''''' I would not want to be in a fox hole with more than half of you.:o Because we both would be dead.
Click to expand...
I've never been in a fox hole but I know I'd much prefer Jason covering my back that any pacifist.
 
Man these people won't even fight for their own country, they will let the enemy come over here and kill us all. They won't even let their kids defend themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top