Kids Fighting Back

[Drew]

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.

I empathize with you but I see no Biblical support for your position here.

On the contrary, we have clear teachings that we are not to respond to evil with evil. And when you physically strike out at one of God's creations, you are using the weapons of the enemy.

Yes, we are to fight evil. But not with his weapons!!

Violence damages God's beautiful and beloved creation. God created the person who attacks you. When you smack him in the face, you are "breaking God's stuff".

Let me be clear about something: There is no doubt in my mind that, as a last resort, I would probably intervene physically to protect my loved ones or myself. However, the fact that I would probably do so does not mean its right!!

We should not be surprised at this!!! Why does everyone seem to assume that the gospel path should "make sense" when it is so clear that we are called to "take up our crosses"?

Look - I am not certain that some forms of "violent" self-defence are really "sin" - after all, the victim is also one of God's creations, and needs to be protected.

What concerns me is the over-the-top embracing of a culture of violence that the church seems to buy into - things like supporting imperial militarism and guns.

 

[jasoncran]

ah here read it all and weap

http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_mishpatim.html


and for the record drew.

i do read and dig into the word as lead the spirit. i wasnt taught in sunday school and seldom was in sunday school.

i check my biases.

now then how does one expect law enforcement to act with weapons? let alone maintain order

and you all really need read up on the pharisees. and how of they really are and were. guess what you might learn why jesus often corrected them. and what the law was for instead of this perverted missunderstood concept of jewish think we have from years of killing the jews.

they often mock us for not gettin it and they are right. i for the life never see why god was depicted as such a cruel being in the ot and yet when i dig the law was just and did work when the actual isrealites believed and were faithful. otherwise no bible would have been written!

so i ask that drew being ill informed of that please read that link the jews of today all know that eye for and eye wasnt meant to be literal and so forth.

 

[Drew]

so i ask that drew being ill informed of that please read that link the jews of today all know that eye for and eye wasnt meant to be literal and so forth.

Jason, are you, or are you not going to actually deal with my detailed argument about the sword?

If you do not, you are in good company - many here seem to feel no obligation at all to respond to clear Biblical arguments that challenge their position.

 

[jasoncran]

For centuries, beginning at the time of Yehoshua, courts had to deal with issues of bodily injuries. The question of how an assailant is punished must have come up many times each year. Even if one were to (incorrectly) assume that this did not come into existence until the time of the rabbis/Pharisees, Rabbi Eliezer lived at the end of the first century CE. This was after the time of Hillel and Shammai, Rabban Gamliel Hazaken, and the destruction of the Temple. There was undoubtedly an established law in this case. Rabbi Eliezer knew this as did all of his students and colleagues. When he created the phrase "an eye for an eye - really", he must have known that no one would have thought that he was contradicting established law that had been in existence for centuries. He knew that no one would believe that he would disagree with every other major sage on a basic matter such as this. He therefore felt comfortable using this phraseology and knew that with a little study his economic phrase could be understood.

duh from that link. hmm it seems they all know what he meant.

and given that context that no means what if WHAT IF IT INJURED AND DEMANDING JUSTICE YOU SUFFER THE LOSS NOT TO NOT TO RESIST.


MEANING IF YOU ARE IN COURT AND ARE ASKED WHAT PRICE IS TO BE PAID , show the guy mercy!

 

[jasoncran]

For centuries, beginning at the time of Yehoshua, courts had to deal with issues of bodily injuries. The question of how an assailant is punished must have come up many times each year. Even if one were to (incorrectly) assume that this did not come into existence until the time of the rabbis/Pharisees, Rabbi Eliezer lived at the end of the first century CE. This was after the time of Hillel and Shammai, Rabban Gamliel Hazaken, and the destruction of the Temple. There was undoubtedly an established law in this case. Rabbi Eliezer knew this as did all of his students and colleagues. When he created the phrase "an eye for an eye - really", he must have known that no one would have thought that he was contradicting established law that had been in existence for centuries. He knew that no one would believe that he would disagree with every other major sage on a basic matter such as this. He therefore felt comfortable using this phraseology and knew that with a little study his economic phrase could be understood.

hmm given that fact,

and what jesus said. hmm we are to in court to show mercy in a court of law.

nothing there about to laying one lifes down.

i am curious what about law enforcement since they didnt have it then and this statement then deals with that since jesus quoted that sage"eye for and eye" christians per the christian pacifists ought not to use the law then.

yay or nay.

how does any law be enforced without the sword needed?

 

[Drew]

I am not sure I understand Jason's argument. But he appears to be mistaken in believing that Jesus would not "contradict" the Law of Moses.

Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses in the sense of completing it so that it is no longer needed and is therefore abolished.

So any of these argument from the Old Testament simply do not stand up to Biblical muster. There is a new convenant with Jesus - the Law of Moses is retired.

 

[jasoncran]

Jason, are you, or are you not going to actually deal with my detailed argument about the sword?

If you do not, you are in good company - many here seem to feel no obligation at all to respond to clear Biblical arguments that challenge their position.

i did drew. you may choose to be ignorant of the ACTUAL ARGUMENTS AMONGSTS THE JEWS when christ came and what he had to deal with.

after i am just dumb poor floridian who likes to know the bible and reasearch it. and handy dealt your sword argument a blow.

why would god need to lie to man to make it appear like a he was a thief?

theres this verse that you ignore

isiah 53:7

<SUP>7</SUP>He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

he didnt respond to his accusers. so why would make it appear that he was a thief and then act all innocent? he would and he didnt. he never lied or acted decietfully.

remember you say that he tells them to buy swords where is the instructions ere the capture telling them not to use it? given they were human and didnt really understand spiritual things.

hmm nothing there on that is there. so you have to assume that he did it in deciept. or that he lied to peter and made peter to sin when he didnt him. yet he just went with with the pharisees.

odd

 

[jasoncran]

I am not sure I understand Jason's argument. But he appears to be mistaken in believing that Jesus would not "contradict" the Law of Moses.

Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses in the sense of completing it so that it is no longer needed and is therefore abolished.

So any of these argument from the Old Testament simply do not stand up to Biblical muster. There is a new convenant with Jesus - the Law of Moses is retired.

he didnt.

instead he deal with when they had a crime commited in isreal and had(after that is the governing power over the jews) they took it to the courts


and that was what he meant by and eye for and eye, in those days they didnt show mercy in court they took the payment whereas jesus said show mercy.

so where in the nt is any christian law to based on for societies?

punishment for adultery?
lying?
stealing? theres is none so we have to look at the bible for principals and here in lies what jesus said..

show mercy from the victim said. the courts can be lenient but given some common sense if a guy is a criminal acts must be contained and so forth per romans 13

surely drew isnt gonna argue for slaps on the wrist for murder.

trust me the death penalty is merciful compared to the the life in a 4 by 8 ft cell with not much sunlight when rec time is often cancelled.

did i say he contradicted the old testament nope. try to understand what the argument was and what was and why jesus said the argument but as usual most christians dont want to go to the jews to learn what exactly went on then to see what was the hub bub about then learn and why and what jesus really meant by

"ye have heard it said and eye for eye"

gotta know what was being talked about first then make the right choices.justice isnt a thing that is bad but common sense evil needs to be contained by the powers in place.

gee here is a story of compasion.

http://www.managingpain.org/luyaoguilty.htm

in the first trial a good friend of mine testified that her. son ,daughter, sister and brother all died at the hands of that doctor. she told her that she needed to repent and also asked the court for mercy.

she couldnt handle the second trial and didnt make a statement. i know these persons the daughter i dated and i went to church with her mother.

yet despite the fact that she good have asked for the chair she didnt. that is what christ meant.

 

[Drew]

We're done on this one, Jason. No hard feelings.

 

[jasoncran]

We're done on this one, Jason. No hard feelings.

ok. same here.

 

[Hitch]

I am not sure I understand Jason's argument. But he appears to be mistaken in believing that Jesus would not "contradict" the Law of Moses.

Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses in the sense of completing it so that it is no longer needed and is therefore abolished.

So any of these argument from the Old Testament simply do not stand up to Biblical muster. There is a new convenant with Jesus - the Law of Moses is retired.

The Law is no longer necessary to point toward the coming Messiah. The wholesale disregard for the Law that Dave and Christ taught and loved enminates from the which was spoken in the garden ;' Did God say??"

 

[Lewis]

Yeah I am done on this one too. Whew

 

[felix]

I am not sure I understand Jason's argument. But he appears to be mistaken in believing that Jesus would not "contradict" the Law of Moses.

Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses in the sense of completing it so that it is no longer needed and is therefore abolished.

So any of these argument from the Old Testament simply do not stand up to Biblical muster. There is a new convenant with Jesus - the Law of Moses is retired.

he didnt.

He did.

View attachment 2198

 

[GojuBrian]

I wanted to comment on Jason's earlier post about self defense and mma/martial arts training.
Some are under the impression that martial arts trains to hurt people or it teaches how to go out and beat others up. That couldn't be further from the truth.
It's instinctual to start throwing punches when you are attacked, but martial arts teaches the best course of action.
You truly can learn to defend yourself without causing great harm to your attacker by controlling them instead of getting into a fist o cuffs brawl.
They teach a lot of these techniques in boys homes and juvenile facilities for good reason.
Or, would you rather they be pacifists too and allow the kids to rape and kill each other ?

 

[GojuBrian]

Oh, and cops don't carry guns to protect you or your family. They carry them to protect themselves. Just food for thought on an earlier post.

 

[jasoncran]

He did.

View attachment 2557

you all really dont understand what he came to do? it was to redeem man, not change the law. by fulfilling the law he then was able to go to the gentiles. and what are the gentiles to do? i can show the very things the jews then knew and ironically its nearly what paul commands

and uh what of this?

jesus said not to eat food offered to idols. so then why does jesus also say that the early christian church in revalation 2 was to repent of the worship of baal?

revalation 2

<SUP>12</SUP>And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges;

<SUP id=en-KJV-30731 class=versenum>13</SUP>I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth. <SUP id=en-KJV-30732 class=versenum>14</SUP>But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

hmm? so the law was abolished and GOD ISNT A jealous god anymore?

the parts that was change is the parts that only applied to the jews , the gentiles such as noah and nahor and laban were never to idol worship. eat blood and commit the sins listed in the books of the nt that pauls says one shouldnt do. the jews call these the noahide laws. funny thing isnt it.

and brian you are right. martial arts teaches one to control the opponent and stop him and do as little harm as possible. if he is punching you , you dont kill him . you use joint locks.

 

[jasoncran]

Oh, and cops don't carry guns to protect you or your family. They carry them to protect themselves. Just food for thought on an earlier post.

yup and its officer safety first, so if you are or they are so outnumbered they wont go in till back up arrives. i know as i am an mp and we are taught the same.

 

[jasoncran]

you all really dont understand what he came to do? it was to redeem man, not change the law. by fulfilling the law he then was able to go to the gentiles. and what are the gentiles to do? i can show the very things the jews then knew and ironically its nearly what paul commands

and uh what of this?

jesus said not to eat food offered to idols. so then why does jesus also say that the early christian church in revalation 2 was to repent of the worship of baal?

revalation 2



hmm? so the law was abolished and GOD ISNT A jealous god anymore?

the parts that was change is the parts that only applied to the jews , the gentiles such as noah and nahor and laban were never to idol worship. eat blood and commit the sins listed in the books of the nt that pauls says one shouldnt do. the jews call these the noahide laws. funny thing isnt it.

and brian you are right. martial arts teaches one to control the opponent and stop him and do as little harm as possible. if he is punching you , you dont kill him . you use joint locks.

after some reasearch i understand what they are saying. and agree we are under a new convenant

that said.

which one of you would let a murder go if he said i repent.

which one of you would just let the criminal not pay any price for his crime.

answer none. so there has to be some time paid or pentanance. people lie and common sense just because they say i repent doesnt excuse the dead.

we can ask the court be lienient and since the nt is adressing persons not a goverment we must take that as such.

common sense. but we must also contain evil.

lets devle into this concept of mercy for the criminal pedophile so he is put in solitary confinement. sorry even with the law being done away with it doesnt mean we let evil reign. common sense.

he is hated by his inmates and also hated by society, can he repent, but the goverments function isnt for saving souls the church is.

the goverment is for maintaing law and order and so forth not saving souls.



but does it make sense

 

[felix]

you all really dont understand what he came to do? it was to redeem man, not change the law.

(Heb 7:12) For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.

 

[jasoncran]

(Heb 7:12) For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.

ok. let me say this. what do you then and how do you tell the the lost that they are a sinner.

if you dont tell nor teach them that why jesus died on the cross for them they get this nt is only for me deal. and really dont understand the ot at all and how it all ties together.

lets be real here. if do something along the lines of robbing your money and your car are going to really not call the cops. if i say im sorry.

i dont think so.

and i corrected myself on that position but again kindly adress the laws of nations if the entire legal system is based on that poistion

ie if a christian commits murder he says im sorry and doesnt do it again he doesn to any time in the slammer

if he steals, lies etc.

with me i would ensure the law would punish him.i dont ask for mercy when i broke the law. and i did. if they came and arrested me on the charges of those crimes i wouldnt ask for leniency. but do the time.


felix, let me ask you this if the guy with the knife wants to rape your daughters(and you know what rape has done to my sister) would you then just let him?


would if he said i will kill you, take the knife willingly from him and kill yourself or attempt escape?