Kids Fighting Back

[Mike]

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.

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.

 

[Drew]

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

There are many things about the road we Christians are called to follow that go against common sense:

1. Love your enemies;
2. Die to self;
3. Think of others as more important than yourself;
4. Turn the other cheek;
5. Return evil with good;
6. etc., etc., etc.

 

[Classik]

There are many things about the road we Christians are called to follow that go against common sense:

1. Love your enemies;
2. Die to self;
3. Think of others as more important than yourself;
4. Turn the other cheek;
5. Return evil with good;
6. etc., etc., etc.

Gold Medal

 

[Classik]

Kids fighting back
totopic :toofunny

 

[handy]

Stove, a child can still defend himself/herself by simply walking away.

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.

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 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.

I'm not sure that in every situation where one is being attacked one can only defend and subdue without going on the offensive. And, if one is being attacked and in the attempt to defend and subdue, one does go on the offensive if necessary, I'm not sure that is sin.

 

[reba]

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 is assault if not violence?
I am sure i have told the story of the guys with guns kicking in our door. I have always been thankfull John did not have to kill any one but he used physical force when the butt of our gun came up under the chin of the bad guy... This was one of those few times an adult needed to be physical. Had John killed one of those 3-4 bad guys just maybe they would not have killed the old couple they hit next. Door busting shotgun home invasions rape and murder they hit a couple more times after us before finely hitting the 'wrong ' house...

I think we know when we are out of line or over the top. It is totally wrong to carry a chip on your shoulder looking for a battle so you can justify your physical want to smash someone. I would very much like to think if i was physically challenged over the Cross of Christ i could turn the other cheek.

Goju said it very will never more than what is needed....

 

[jasoncran]

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 weaponsâ€.

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.

so paul was kidding when he said to avoid the VERY APPEARANCE EVIL? YOU JUST SAID that jesus appeared and lied to be something that he isnt.

making it appear to be something that isnt is a form of deception. so jesus tell us to lie to be pacifists.

 

[Mike]

What is assault if not violence?
I am sure i have told the story of the guys with guns kicking in our door. I have always been thankfull John did not have to kill any one but he used physical force when the butt of our gun came up under the chin of the bad guy... This was one of those few times an adult needed to be physical. Had John killed one of those 3-4 bad guys just maybe they would not have killed the old couple they hit next. Door busting shotgun home invasions rape and murder they hit a couple more times after us before finely hitting the 'wrong ' house...

I think we know when we are out of line or over the top. It is totally wrong to carry a chip on your shoulder looking for a battle so you can justify your physical want to smash someone. I would very much like to think if i was physically challenged over the Cross of Christ i could turn the other cheek.

Goju said it very will never more than what is needed....

Reba, what you say makes perfect sense to both of us, but is it biblical? Can we look at everything Jesus told us about responding to violence and conclude that we have more support for it or against it? It would be hypocritical for me to berate you with accusations of ignoring scripture, because I'm just now working it out AND I've never been tested to know if I'd practice what I'm preaching.

Just focusing on the butt-end of the gun to the jaw of the guy, can we look at how Jesus Himself responded to force and conclude that He would do it? I can't. Is there anything He or His apostles told us that would clearly endorse it? Myself? I don't see it. I do see Him and them telling us very clearly not to return evil with evil.

Matthew 5:38 "You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ <sup class="versenum" id="en-NKJV-23270">39</sup> But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."

I've always pointed to Christ telling His apostles to carry a sword, though He said nothing about what to do with it. But He makes a pointed remark here:

Matthew 26:52 “Put your sword back in its place,†Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."

2 Corinthians 10
"<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-28973">1</sup> By the humility and gentleness of Christ, I appeal to you—I, Paul, who am “timid†when face to face with you, but “bold†toward you when away! <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-28974">2</sup> I beg you that when I come I may not have to be as bold as I expect to be toward some people who think that we live by the standards of this world. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-28975">3</sup> For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-28976">4</sup> The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds."

Again, we have tacit references to a sword or Jesus talking about a king going to war in a point He was making (Luke 14:31), and I've taken this as my biblical support to strike back at the enemy. These are vague at best. His condemnation for striking back is bold and straight forward.

So, yes, it makes perfect sense to cave in their skulls with the butt-end of a gun. But is it biblical? I've had to come to grips with the reality that it's not. This would probably be one of the biggest tests of my convictions if it were to happen.

 

[reba]

I will ask back to you Would Jesus stood there while His friends Mary and Martha were raped then shot? We sorta just know that would not have happened.

This is one of those times when each person must follow their convictions. I do well understand that!

Mike if it is your true confection to "turn the other cheek" I say good for you! I will also hope/pray you are never in the situation our family was.


The bad guy had a shot gun it went off in the ceiling..

 

[reba]

Not ignoring scripture, but coming to an understanding.... as When we post more then Yea yea we are not ignoring scripture

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

 

[Mike]

I will ask back to you Would Jesus stood there while His friends Mary and Martha were raped then shot? We sorta just know that would not have happened.

I've already responded to a hypothetical scenario about someone who attacks my family. I believe it's biblical to defend them without responding with violence. It would be best to restrain the attacker without violence. I think this was unfair of you to throw at me. Your posts usually include scripture, but in this thread, you're depending on emotions. I'm don't mean to be disrespectful, but you are validating (to me) what I have been saying.

If I rely on scripture (rather than my emotions), I find more support for peace than for return violence.

 

[Lewis]

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.

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.

 

[Mike]

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.

Okay, this is a good opportunity for me to step out of this thread. I've no doubt that you, reba and everyone else love the Lord and others. This has never been to comment on anyone's commitment to Him or say anyone has it all wrong. I've just been describing my personal walk through scripture.

I think I've been among the biggest contributors to getting this thread way off topic. I would challenge my children to be steadfast to Him in what we see spelled out in scripture.

Blessings to everyone!

 

[Lewis]

Mike before you go let me ask you something, wouldn't you protect your family ?

 

[Mike]

Mike before you go let me ask you something, wouldn't you protect your family ?

Lewis, you must have missed these posts. If I'm honest, I can only say I hope I will defend them without striking out myself. But I know my nature. I try not to fall short in many areas of my life when my desire is to be faithful to Him. It would take everything in me to control myself.

I've already responded to a hypothetical scenario about someone who attacks my family. I believe it's biblical to defend them without responding with violence. It would be best to restrain the attacker without violence. I think this was unfair of you to throw at me. Your posts usually include scripture, but in this thread, you're depending on emotions. I'm don't mean to be disrespectful, but you are validating (to me) what I have been saying.

If I rely on scripture (rather than my emotions), I find more support for peace than for return 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.

 

[Hitch]

I've already responded to a hypothetical scenario about someone who attacks my family. I believe it's biblical to defend them without responding with violence. It would be best to restrain the attacker without violence.

What did you have in mind, a stern look ?

I think this was unfair of you to throw at me. Your posts usually include scripture, but in this thread, you're depending on emotions. I'm don't mean to be disrespectful, but you are validating (to me) what I have been saying.

If I rely on scripture (rather than my emotions), I find more support for peace than for return violence.

Scripture; A time for peace and a time for war

 

[jasoncran]

i think i will post some videos on that idea.

hmm hey gojobrian some basic mma pins and lets make it the defender or the attacked on the bottom with a weight difference of 100 lbs and armed.

[video=youtube;eAEnWil5bW8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAEnWil5bW8[/video]

he is teaching darce choke from sit out and its pin first then attack. given my son and some fat kid thats weighs as much as me and knows something or doesnt and is just strong its not easy to pin someown strong you have to let them push you and take the arms or legs and attack them. there is no way i can hold or allow 300 lbs person sit on me like that for long. even with some training a 100 man can get me with training and hold me.

i have wrestled kids that weight 110 and they get out from their training. for the record i wiegh 190 approx.

now imagine that same situation with an knife,he has me on the ground and has me pinned, i cant escape but he cant submit me. yet he has the knife ready.

i aint taking no chance of that.

 

[jasoncran]

there was whole argument then that the sages were saying and we gentiles dont know as no jews of today that DO KNOW WILL TELL us.

yup guess what the sages and so forth are recorded and jeff has gott the goods and i intento as well. the pharisees from what i have heard and also i have been told perverted the law and made it into something it wasnt meant to be.

in the ot it was like unto are fourth ammendment. no cruel and usunual punishment. and eye for eye is was never done like that. it means the right punishment for the crime. if he steals then he restores and if he murders then he dies.no bribes to the officials no easy punishment.he pays the price .

context is the key and reading the that ot!in the ot theres this often ignored statement

exodus 23:4

<SUP>4</SUP>If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again

and then theres this

proverbs 25

<SUP id=en-KJV-17135 class=versenum>21</SUP>If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink: <SUP id=en-KJV-17136 class=versenum>22</SUP>For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the LORD shall reward thee

@ MIKE this is why i take self defense arts and or mma they teach when to fight and when not and you know when the guy has had enough. rather then go into a brawl you know when it will come and how to channel it and when not to act.

i have used my stuff a few times as a kid and also recently as my wife being angered has hit me and i didnt overreact i took her back and kept her from hitting me and talked her down.

she slapped me in the head and hit my temple with a hammer fist. it made me mad but not enough to strike.

 

[Drew]

so paul was kidding when he said to avoid the VERY APPEARANCE EVIL? YOU JUST SAID that jesus appeared and lied to be something that he isnt.

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.

Second, there are many problems with your counterargument. Both Jesus and Paul tell us to be "kind, honest, straightforward, gentle, etc., etc.

But unless you are going to carve a lot of material out of your Bible, we have cases where Jesus was:

1. evasive (refusing to directly answer questions about His status);
2. rude (calling the Pharisees all sorts of names);
3. un-gentle (scourging the temple);
4. "deceptive" (the instruction to buy swords to give the appearance of being threat)

So things are not as simple as you suggest. Our Sunday School teachers will paint a picture of Jesus as never exhibiting any of the kinds of characteristics.

And yet the New Testament records tells otherwise.

And I choose to go with the New Testament, as opposed to the Sunday School teachers.

I am not prepared to try to "defend" these "un-Christian" actions on the part of Jesus (perhaps this is not the best adjective, but I hope you know what I mean). But we have to face facts: Jesus did indeed engage in them at various times and for various reasons. So the analysis that the "buy a sword" instruction was intended to deceive is entirely consistent with other behaviours that Jesus engaged it.

 

[Drew]

IAnd guess who designed me to protect myself, yep you guessed it God.

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".

Is that a valid reason to fool around?

You simply ignore the possibility that the "inclination to fight" is a consequence of the fall.