Kids Fighting Back

[Nick]

Thanks Lewis, that is an interesting read.

 

[Hitch]

This thread is gradually taking the taste of the other thread that was imprisoned'...our house...protected by...God...and...gun'

I think we are talking 'bout Kids Fighting Back, not Wives getting raped etc.

1 We want our kids to fight back. What if he retaliates and kills the bully?

What if space junk falls on his head?

2 How morally right is it to tell kids to fight back?

Pacifism always aids the aggressor, in case you didnt know that is morally wrong

'Yes, I hit him back - my parents told me to.' how would people look at me...a parent.

As though you had a connection with reality

3 Do we even know that walking away is less dangerous than doing a revengeful punch? If you walk away, the bully wins - bullying stops (tell me the bully does it again and again...the following week), if you fight back...the war has started, the bully is fiercer - blows become intense.

I hate to tell you this but Santa, is not real.

Walking away is not being stupid, walking away is morally winning the fight.

See #2.

 

[Hitch]

drew i seriously doubt you or any man would watch their loved ones die without at first attempting any means to escape or stopping them.

i live in reality. if you call the cops to stop that bully and he tases him or has to go hands on or kill him,. you are just as guilty in that act.

calling someone in to save your but in the time of trouble like paul did in acts isnt exactly pacifistic. paul invoked his rights as roman citizen and the romans were soft when they came in. they took him by force from the jews.

Drew like all good pacifists will hire out the dirty work.

 

[reba]

Jr was about 2 1/2. I am watching him and the other kids playing out the front window. Scotty and Jimmy, for some reason unknown to me, were punching Jr he stood there his hands/arms over his face. I am thinking this is what i get for teaching him to not hit! So i called him in told him you go punch Jimmy in the nose and Scotty in the tummy the next time they hit you. He did and then the boys were buddies.
Jr was big strong kid i did not want him fighting but tried to teach him if ya hit em hard enough with the first punch there will be no fight.....I never had the dreaded call from school because Jr started a fight.

When taking the scriptures to say we must always turn the other cheek we should then keep this passage in mind...

Mat 5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil

 

[handy]

Talk about a coincidence......

Today I got a call from the school principal. Viola was in the office, being suspended from school for two days because of fighting.

She and the "nice preacher's boy" had a falling out...kid stuff, but the boy took a private message of mine that I sent to his mother and showed it to a bunch of the girls and told them that Viola had told me lies and got him in trouble...(there were no lies...nothing was said that either Steve nor I hadn't personally witnessed.)

Anyway, Viola had also rushed to tell some friends her side of the story...until last night when I sat Viola down and told her in no uncertain terms that she was to no longer gossip about the boy and his parents had squashed him over the same thing. They actually were going to talk things over during lunch and settle things.

The thing about gossip though is that it's impossible to contain. The stories got passed around and around and I'm sure, as stories do, grew and grew.

So, at lunch, Viola sees the boy sitting across the way and was on her way to go talk things over with him when out of the blue this girl she hardly even knows comes barreling down at her screaming at her at the top of her lungs about "what she did" to the boy. Viola told her that it really wasn't any of her business and tried to walk away. Then the girl grabs Viola by the arm and spins her around. Viola twisted her arm up and out of the girl's grip. The the girl pushed Viola and Viola pushed back and they both lost balance and wound up on the ground. The girl then lunged at Viola on the ground but Viola sort of spun around and grabbed the girl by the back of the neck/head and pushed her down to the ground to keep the girl from hitting her...the girls was still, even face down on the ground, doing everything she could to hit or kick Viola. Viola called for help and a different boy who is a good friend of Viola's came and picked the girl up, but had to hold her in a bear hug as the girl was still trying to get at Viola. Viola's friends walked her over across to a different building and by that time, the principal came out. The girl's friends told the principal that Viola had started everything and had hit the girl. A teacher had witnessed things from a different building and thought she saw Viola pulling the girl's hair, but according to the kids that were there (except the girl's friends) Viola was simply holding the girl down, not pulling her hair. If what I've pieced together from what everyone has said is accurate, and I do believe it is, Viola did only defensive moves, she didn't hit, pull hair or do anything else except get the girl down on the ground.

I am going to go to the school tomorrow to see if I can get the suspension expunged from Viola's record. Even the principal admitted that the teacher only "thought" she saw Viola pulling hair and thought that perhaps Viola had punched the girl, but what the teacher thought was a punch was simply Viola countering the girl's shove...when they both lost balance and fell. Viola has promised us that she neither hit the girl nor pulled her hair...that she was simply trying to keep the girl from hurting her and, given what others who were right on the scene said, we believe her.

I thought of this thread when I was listening to all the various stories. Viola did keep her cool and didn't pummel the girl to a bloody pulp...which, she could have. Viola is a cattle rancher, she hauls and stacks 80-100 lbs bales of hay, pounds posts into the ground, does fencing, handles cattle and horses...She once was able to get a 1000 lb Thoroughbred mare who had been stung by a wasp back under control...that other girl was really quite foolish taking her on. But, I am glad that Viola didn't throw any punches or bloody any noses...she only moved to defend herself and keep the other girl under control until help could arrive.

I really hope I can get the suspension expunged...but even if I can't she is in no trouble from us.

 

[reba]

ut even if I can't she is in no trouble from us.

I do hope things level out. I hate to see kids fighting....And some how it is worser for girls....Have some fun baking Christmas cookies!

 

[Classik]

I like these smilies.

:fullauto:twopistols:armed

Good for video games and PS3, Nitendo etc.

But in reality:
Matthew 26:52 NKJV

But Jesus said to him, "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword...";)
;)

 

[jasoncran]

matthew 26

52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

and yet loony jesus as you just claimed that he is by that rendering of the verse.

also said this.
in luke 22

<SUP>36</SUP>Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

<SUP id=en-KJV-25902 class=versenum>37</SUP>For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. <SUP id=en-KJV-25903 class=versenum>38</SUP>And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

why would he tell them to buy a sword then not to use it?

 

[Classik]

Oh Jasoncan
Cool pic! Great avatar! The christmas baby! I just saw that angel! Wow!!
(That kid has the gentleness of Moses and not the look of Sampson)
Great pic

 

[Lewis]

Some of you need to read this and stop glossing over it. So that you can get some type of understanding about this subject.

I think this is the best article that I have ever found on this subject, so much so that I am posting it again. As a matter of fact it is the best one that i have ever found on this subject.



Below is a very interesting article that I found.

You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if anyone would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. (attributed to Jesus in Matthew 5:38-41, Revised Standard Version)

Many who have committed their lives to working for change and justice in the world simply dismiss Jesus' teachings about nonviolence as impractical idealism. And with good reason. "Turn the other cheek" suggests the passive, Christian doormat quality that has made so many Christians cowardly and complicit in the face of injustice. "Resist not evil" seems to break the back of all opposition to evil and counsel submission. "Going the second mile" has become a platitude meaning nothing more than "extend yourself." Rather than fostering structural change, such attitudes encourage collaboration with the oppressor.

Jesus never behaved in such ways. Whatever the source of the misunderstanding, it is neither Jesus nor his teaching, which, when given a fair hearing in its original social context, is arguably one of the most revolutionary political statements ever uttered.

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. They were translating nonviolent resistance into docility. The Greek word means more than simply to "stand against" or "resist." It means to resist violently, to revolt or rebel, to engage in an insurrection. Jesus did not tell his oppressed hearers not to resist evil. His entire ministry is at odds with such a preposterous idea. He is, rather, warning against responding to evil in kind by letting the oppressor set the terms of our opposition.

A proper translation of Jesus' teaching would then be, "Do not retaliate against violence with violence." Jesus was no less committed to opposing evil than the anti-Roman resistance fighters like Barabbas. The only difference was over the means to be used.

There are three general responses to evil: (1) violent opposition, (2) passivity, and (3) the third way of militant nonviolence articulated by Jesus. Human evolution has conditioned us for only the first two of these responses: fight or flight.

Fight had been the cry of Galileans who had abortively rebelled against Rome only two decades before Jesus spoke. Jesus and many of his hearers would have seen some of the two thousand of their countrymen crucified by the Romans along the roadsides. They would have known some of the inhabitants of Sepphoris (a mere three miles north of Nazareth) who had been sold into slavery for aiding the insurrectionists' assault on the arsenal there. Some also would live to experience the horrors of the war against Rome in 66-70 C.E., one of the ghastliest in history. If the option of fighting had no appeal to them, their only alternative was flight: passivity, submission, or, at best, a passive-aggressive recalcitrance in obeying commands. For them no third way existed.

Now we are in a better position to see why King James' servants translated antistenai as "resist not." The king would not want people concluding they had any recourse against his or any other sovereign's unjust policies. Jesus commands us, according to these king's men, to resist not. Jesus appears to say say that submission to monarchial absolutism is the will of God. Most modern translations have meekly followed the King James path.

Neither of the invidious alternatives of flight or fight is what Jesus is proposing. Jesus abhors both passivity and violence as responses to evil. His is a third alternative not even touched by these options. The Scholars Version translates Antistenai brilliantly: "Don't react violently against someone who is evil."

Jesus clarifies his meaning by three brief examples. "If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Why the right cheek? How does one strike another on the right cheek anyway? Try it. A blow by the right fist in that right-handed world would land on the left cheek of the opponent. To strike the right cheek with the fist would require using the left hand, but in that society the left hand was used only for unclean tasks. As the Dead Sea Scrolls specify, even to gesture with the left hand at Qumran carried the penalty of ten days penance. The only way one could strike the right cheek with the right hand would be with the back of the hand.

What we are dealing with here is unmistakably an insult, not a fistfight. The intention is not to injure but to humiliate, to put someone in his or her place. One normally did not strike a peer in this way, and if one did the fine was exorbitant (four zuz was the fine for a blow to a peer with a fist, 400 zuz for backhanding him; but to an underling, no penalty whatever). A backhand slap was the normal way of admonishing inferiors. Masters backhanded slaves; husbands, wives; parents, children; men, women; Romans, Jews.

We have here a set of unequal relations, in each of which retaliation would be suicidal. The only normal response would be cowering submission. It is important to ask who Jesus' audience is. In every case, Jesus' listeners are not those who strike, initiate lawsuits, or impose forced labor. Rather, Jesus is speaking to their victims, people who have been subjected to these very indignities. They have been forced to stifle their inner outrage at the dehumanizing treatment meted out to them by the hierarchical system of caste and class, race and gender, age and status, and by the guardians of imperial occupation.

Why then does Jesus counsel these already humiliated people to turn the other cheek? Because this action robs the oppressor of power to humiliate them. The person who turns the other cheek is saying, in effect, "Try again. Your first blow failed to achieve its intended effect. I deny you the power to humiliate me. I am a human being just like you. Your status (gender, race, age, wealth) does not alter that. You cannot demean me." Such a response would create enormous difficulties for the striker. Purely logistically, how can he now hit the other cheek? He cannot backhand it with his right hand. If he hits with a fist, he makes himself an equal, acknowledging the other as a peer. But the whole point of the back of the hand is to reinforce the caste system and its institutionalized inequality.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/fo...sage665517/pg1

 

[stovebolts]

"Do not return evil for evil" was the first thing that came to my mind. Nothing I can find states that returning evil for evil is okay some of the time.

Duane or Drew,

I agree that we should not return evil for evil. Regardless if the other kid takes the first punch or not, we should always, always avoid physical and verbal bullying.

However, it's tougher to ignore physical abuse than it is verbal abuse. So my question is this. If a kid comes up and starts pounding on your kid, when did defending oneself become an evil response?

My point is this. It's not evil to defend oneself. So if one is defending himself I don't see a problem with that going against the gospel, let alone any commandment of God.

Actually, I see defending oneself healthier than just trying to stuff the anger. You know, it's the quiet guys that stuff their anger that end up doing the crazy stuff like columbine etc.

 

[reba]

Stove

What is the difference of throwing a fist or throwing term like you are a liar around?


Jas 3:8 But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.

 

[GojuBrian]

Duane or Drew,

I agree that we should not return evil for evil. Regardless if the other kid takes the first punch or not, we should always, always avoid physical and verbal bullying.

However, it's tougher to ignore physical abuse than it is verbal abuse. So my question is this. If a kid comes up and starts pounding on your kid, when did defending oneself become an evil response?

My point is this. It's not evil to defend oneself. So if one is defending himself I don't see a problem with that going against the gospel, let alone any commandment of God.

Actually, I see defending oneself healthier than just trying to stuff the anger. You know, it's the quiet guys that stuff their anger that end up doing the crazy stuff like columbine etc.

Thank you!

 

[stovebolts]

Great point Reba. But I don't think Drew is too concerned with name calling

This reminds me of an incident I had about 15 + years ago in Hollywood Ca. It was late evening and me and two friends were out and about when I noticed a young man in his early 20's yelling and pushing a well dressed older man who was with his wife. This was occurring in front of a church on the grass.

As I watched, I saw the wife terrified for her husband, and it was everything the old man could do to hold himself back. But he was a wise old man and I think he knew he didn't stand a chance against this young man, so he kept himself in check, even when the young man taunted him, and was shoving him.

Finally, I had enough. I couldn't take it any longer so I walked up to the young man and my two friends told me not to do anything. I told them I had to, so I walked up to the younger man who was way bigger than me and I stood strong and said very directly, "Leave the old man alone". The guy turned to me and said something or another, so I repeated myself. Again, I stood strong and wasn't moving. He started toward me and I took my fighting stance (I was in boxing when I was younger) and said something like, "I'm not going anywhere" or probably something to that effect. And I waited while he came toward me.

He stopped about 5 feet in front of me, looked at me and I wasn't budging. I guess he really didn't want to fight that night, and he said something, crossed the street and that was the end of it.

Come to find out from the old man who spoke very poor and broken English that it was their anniversary and he had went to the church's flower bed to pick his lovely wife a flower... and that's what started it.

I'm glad I stood up for that old man, and I'm teaching my son to always defend those who can't defend themselves.

I firmly believe that when we pray for something, God uses people to be the answer to those prayers. We can pray to be protected from the evil people of this world, and I think that God uses people to do just that.

.02

 

[Classik]

Women + mouth = power
men + fist = power
fist + mouth = murder

Stovebolt, you are welcome. Did you race today?

Stove, a child can still defend himself/herself by simply walking away.
Bolts, punches of revenge should never be made a culture or an alternative or the only way out.
stovebolts, If the other child revengefully attacks the bully and kills him...he is just a kid - He is/(colul be) set free, you will be arrested for encouraging a revenge....true or false?

Stovebolt, Stove, Bolts, please answer this:

You dressed corperately, moved outside and headed straight to work. You got to your company, someone suddenly hit you at the back. He did it again and again and again. You turned around and glared at him.
What would you do? Would you drop your gentility and return the blows or get the cops;)

 

[Drew]

Well first I would have to go to the Old Testament and Jesus said He did not come to take anything away from it.

I doubt Jesus ever said anything like this.

Are you referring to Matthew and the statement on the law lasting "till heaven and earth pass away"?

Well, the case can be easily made that Jesus is using a literary device here - the Old Testament is chock full of statements about "cosmic" events that are clearly coded statements that refer to much more mundane things. So, for example, Isaiah describes the fall of Babylon as involving the stars falling from the heavens.

Jesus lived in the culture that used such "end of the world" language to actually denote socio-political change. When he says "the law will not pass away till heaven and earth pass away", I am quite confident He is saying "the law will not pass away until the kingdom of God is fully here" And that happened 2000 years ago.

Besides, there are many, many other texts that make it clear that the prescriptions of the Law of Moses - including all the 'rough stuff' - ceased to apply as of the Cross.

Not to mention that Jesus clearly did "take away the Old Testament stuff" in many ways - not least His representation of Himself as a replacement for the temple. And the temple was central to the Old Testament mode of sacrifice, atonement, etc.

 

[Drew]

why would he tell them to buy a sword then not to use 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:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p
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:p</O:pIt is that He been seen as a transgressor. Jesus is intentionally orchestrating things so that the Jewish authorities will have plausible grounds for arresting Him. Of course, appearing as part of an armed band would be precisely the ideal scenario to ensure Jesus’ arrest. Remember the “for” at the beginning of verse 37. If we are to be careful students of what Jesus is saying, we need to take seriously what Jesus says in verses 37 and 38 as qualifying and explaining his statement about buying a sword. We cannot simply gloss the text and conclude “Look, Jesus is making some kind of general statement about the right to self-defence with weapons”.

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 arms”, 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.

 

[Mike]

Lewis, I would have copied your post in replying to you, but it would have taken up unnecessary space to make my point. Your whole post was commentary. Scripture says what it says. I'm not knocking you, because it's only been recently that I stopped making the same arguments. Personally, I had to stop ignoring very clear scripture that tells us otherwise. Honestly, I see this as a refreshing commitment to taking in everything He tells me, and not focusing on the scripture I agree with.. In my opinion, it takes a lot of ignoring to set aside clear scripture.

Jason, you know I've used those verses too, but I was extrapolating from them to draw my own conclusion. There is no need to draw my own conclusions from Jesus' very clear edicts to deny my inclination to meet force with force. It's right there in red and white.

 

[reba]

Mike are you will to stand by and allow your family to be victimized? You are willing as the man of the house the leader to lead by observing their beatings if that is what it comes to?
1Ti 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
Is this passage only speaking of food and not shelter from the wicked of mankind?


I think also there is a big difference between kids learning how to settle things and adults who should know.

 

[GojuBrian]

There's no need to go overboard and against common sense.

IT's ingrained, you KNOW you are supposed to protect yourself and your loved ones already. Just like you KNOW the difference between right and wrong.

No ONE, in their right mind, would let harm come to his loved ones, much less the person God appointed as the head of the family.

Again, you do no more than necessary to defend yourself. You stop the threat until there is no more threat. You DO NOT bash someones face for calling you names or shoving you. Avoid fighting at all costs. Sometimes, it can not be avoided.