Kids Fighting Back

[Boidae21]

Again, what seems to "work" in terms of making our lives better is not the appropriate criteria!!!

Jesus said the way of the gospel was one of bearing our own crosses. So why do you seem to think that if using force enabled you to escape a problem, that this is what Jesus would approve of?

Did Jesus "fight back"?

I'm not going to tell my children to not fight back and just stand there and get beat to a bloody pulp.

That is what happened to me and it never worked, never!

It wasn't until I fought back that I was left alone.

You can be a pacifist all you want, but I will not allow my children to be a punching bag while I am alive!

 

[Drew]

I'm not going to tell my children to not fight back and just stand there and get beat to a bloody pulp.

That is what happened to me and it never worked, never!

Again, you seem to think that what "works" for you is the appropriate criteria.

How is this Biblical?

 

[Boidae21]

Again, you seem to think that what "works" for you is the appropriate criteria.

How is this Biblical?

You also seem to think that what "works" for you is the appropriate criteria.

Tell me, is everything you do Biblical? I mean everything? Are you going to tell me you never sin?

I do not believe that defending yourself goes against the Bible.

Apparently, in my situation it was the appropriate criteria as it never happened again.

Also, you're not going to change my mind. I was that punching bag, being a pacifist didn't work. Defending myself did.

You know what the definition of insanity is? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

 

[Drew]

Becoming a Christian does not simply mean that you get your "ticket to heaven", and then you try to follow the 10 commandments. It is much more than this - the Christian is now a citizen of an inbreaking kingdom, where fundamentally different principles apply. One of these principles relates to the use of force to achieve even desirable goals:

Consider this interaction between Jesus and Pilate shortly before the crucifixion:

Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" <SUP>34</SUP>"Is that your own idea," Jesus asked, "or did others talk to you about me?" <SUP>35</SUP>"Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?" <SUP>6</SUP>Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." <SUP>37</SUP>"You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."

As has been argued extensively elsewhere, when Jesus asserts that His kingdom is not “of this worldâ€, He is not talking about the realm or scope of that kingdom. Instead, He is talking about its source. Many read this “not of this world†statement as Jesus affirming that the jurisdiction of His kingdom excludes the real world of the here and now. That is not his point – He is rather asserting that the origin of the underlying principles of His kingdom is heaven. He is not denying that He is king over this present world. There are extensive arguments that could be made about this.

But just to get the gist, when someone says “I would like to introduce to you to Fred of <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

</st1:State>New York, there is ambiguity about what is really meant. The speaker could mean “Fred is originally from N<st1:State w:st="on">ew York</st1:State> (regardless of whether he still lives there). Or he could mean that Fred lives in <st1:State w:st="on">New York</ST1</st1:State>. My point is that Jesus’ statement is of the first variety – He is claiming where the source of the kingdom values lies. He is not denying kingship over this physical world. This is strongly affirmed by his follow-on statement “My kingdom is from another placeâ€.

Now for the point more immediately relevant to the general issue of the use of force. Jesus points to the fact that his supporters are not fighting as evidence of the claim that His kingdom is from another place. Two things are clear. First, “fightingâ€, the use of force, is not a kingdom value. Second, Jesus’ supporters realize that His kingship is already in force – and they enact this by not fighting. Unlike many in this thread, the disciples understand that the kingdom value of shunning the use of force is for the present.

Note the alternative that Jesus gives us. When Peter used the sword to cut off the guard’s ear, Jesus rebuked him and then demonstrated the kind of power the <st1laceName w:st="on">God</st1laceName> uses to advance its cause by healing the guards ear.

 

[Drew]

Apparently, in my situation it was the appropriate criteria as it never happened again.

This is not the point. Jesus could have avoided the cross and ensured that "it never happened again".

You appear to insist that fighting back is justified precisely because it "worked" at letting you escape. I see no evidence at all that Jesus tells us to "do what makes you safe".

Quite the opposite, in fact. We are called not to "take care of ourselves" but rather to be obedient to gospel calling to "turn the other cheek", "love our enemies", and "take up the cross". These are hard things, and following them will indeed place us at some risk.

That is what we are called to do.

 

[Boidae21]

This is not the point. Jesus could have avoided the cross and ensured that "it never happened again".

You appear to insist that fighting back is justified precisely because it "worked" at letting you escape. I see no evidence at all that Jesus tells us to "do what makes you safe".

Quite the opposite, in fact. We are called not to "take care of ourselves" but rather to be obedient to gospel calling to "turn the other cheek", "love our enemies", and "take up the cross". These are hard things, and following them will indeed place us at some risk.

That is what we are called to do.

Drew, you're not going to change my mind. I will continue to tell my children that they are to defend themselves if needed.

As I stated, they will not be punching bags as long as I am alive.

 

[Drew]

Let's talk a bit more about this "let's do what works" line of thinking. Consider the three options available to Jews under Roman persecution:

1. Compromise: this is the path taken by Herod. He went along with the Romans. This certainly "worked" for him to a point - he became wealthy and powerful;

2. Escape: This is what the Essenes did - they withdrew from the threat and created their own community in the desert;

3. Fight: This is what the Sicari did - they undertook violent means to deal with the Romans.

Its interesting that Jesus took none of these approaches to dealing with "evil". He neither compromised, took flight, or fought. Instead he "faced" evil, allowed it to exert its full force on Him, and returned love.

This is the path that some of you would call "insane", precisely because it did not "work".

But it did work!! Jesus emerges from the grave victorious over His enemies.

I really do wish we were given a more "pleasant" calling, but Jesus is quite clear - we are to follow his "passive yet engaged" model for dealing with evil.

 

[Boidae21]

Let's talk a bit more about this "let's do what works" line of thinking. Consider the three options available to Jews under Roman persecution:

1. Compromise: this is the path taken by Herod. He went along with the Romans. This certainly "worked" for him to a point - he became wealthy and powerful;

2. Escape: This is what the Essenes did - they withdrew from the threat and created their own community in the desert;

3. Fight: This is what the Sicari did - they undertook violent means to deal with the Romans.

Its interesting that Jesus took none of these approaches to dealing with "evil". He neither compromised, took flight, or fought. Instead he "faced" evil, allowed it to exert its full force on Him, and returned love.

This is the path that some of you would call "insane", precisely because it did not "work".

But it did work!! Jesus emerges from the grave victorious over His enemies.

I really do wish we were given a more "pleasant" calling, but Jesus is quite clear - we are to follow his "passive yet engaged" model for dealing with evil.

Yes, and me standing there as a punching bag for 10 years, coming home bloodied up certainly didn't work to keep from getting beat up. Being passive didn't work for me at all.

What worked was standing up for myself. Not being a punching bag. Perhaps, it was what I supposed to do all along, yet didn't and it wasn't until I did that got it to stop.

As I said, you go ahead and be a pacifist, I'm not stopping you.

 

[Hitch]

Yes, and me standing there as a punching bag for 10 years, coming home bloodied up certainly didn't work to keep from getting beat up. Being passive didn't work for me at all.

What worked was standing up for myself. Not being a punching bag. Perhaps, it was what I supposed to do all along, yet didn't and it wasn't until I did that got it to stop.

As I said, you go ahead and be a pacifist, I'm not stopping you.

Well said.


I reckon there is a vast difference between accepting persecution and dealing with criminal/political violence.

 

[Boidae21]

Well said.


I reckon there is a vast difference between accepting persecution and dealing with criminal/political violence.

Exactly, I wasn't being persecuted for my beliefs (I didn't have any then to be honest). The reason I stayed passive is because I was told to not ever fight back, to run and tell the teacher or Principal, but that just made things worse.

My mom met my step-father and he told me that I can defend myself, but to never start it.

This is what I have told my own children. They will never be in trouble from us for defending themselves, but will be in a boatload of trouble if they start it.

 

[Drew]

Being passive didn't work for me at all.

Do you really believe that what "works" for you should be the prime criteria that drives your behaviour?

What would have "worked" for Jesus would have been to call down legions of angels to rescue Him from the Cross.

But He rejected that option. One reason, I suggest, is that He knew that the way to defeat evil was not to pick up the very tools of evil - the tools of violence - and try to be better at wielding them.

 

[Boidae21]

Do you really believe that what "works" for you should be the prime criteria that drives your behaviour?

What would have "worked" for Jesus would have been to call down legions of angels to rescue Him from the Cross.

But He rejected that option. One reason, I suggest, is that He knew that the way to defeat evil was not to pick up the very tools of evil - the tools of violence - and try to be better at wielding them.

I'm sorry Drew, but you're not convincing me of anything.

Jesus had to die for us, that was the plan. He couldn't get out of it.

My kids while I am alive are not going to be punching bags for bullies.

End of story!

 

[WIP]

Its interesting that Jesus took none of these approaches to dealing with "evil". He neither compromised, took flight, or fought. Instead he "faced" evil, allowed it to exert its full force on Him, and returned love.

I'm not sure about this.

Compromise means to come to some middle ground understanding. On more than one occasion he responded to accusation intent on convicting him with counter arguments that left his accusers unable to acheive their goals. That sounds like compromise to me. Ex.: "Why do your disciples not wash their hands?" "Why do you and your disciples not fast?" "Why do you and your disciples do what is unlawful on the Sabboth?" "This women was caught in the act of adultery. What do you say is right?"

Took flight? On more than one occasion the Bible tells about how people took up stones to stone him and he left.

I agree that there is no record of him ever resorting to physical force but he didn't always just let his opponents do whatever they wished.

 

[reba]

Well said.

I reckon there is a vast difference between accepting persecution and dealing with criminal/political violence.

Sheesh Hitch common sense? No cant be right


There are times when compromise is the right way. There are things i will not compromise on/with... I hope i taught my children the same...

 

[reba]

Some of the folks here who say don't fight back. Support the government models that support abortion. I would guess that is because the unborn have no way of fighting back... What hypocrisy 2

 

[Drew]

Some of the folks here who say don't fight back. Support the government models that support abortion. I would guess that is because the unborn have no way of fighting back... What hypocrisy 2

I am reminding you that you have not supported this claim.

I await the evidence for this claim.

 

[Drew]

Jesus had to die for us, that was the plan. He couldn't get out of it!

True - Jesus had to die.

But He did not have to tell us to follow His example by taking up our crosses.

But, of course, He did.

 

[Boidae21]

True - Jesus had to die.

But He did not have to tell us to follow His example by taking up our crosses.

But, of course, He did.

Still not buying the pacifist mantra.

I will continue telling my kids to defend themselves. They will not be punching bags.

 

[Drew]

I'm not sure about this.

My intent was to address how Jesus engaged evil.

In this respect:

(1) I suspect he never compromised;

(2) While He may have "run away" before His time (i.e. to avoid getting stoned), I suggest He needed to do this to finish His work. At the end of the day, in the sense that counted, He "faced" evil;

(3) He never used force to engage evil.

 

[Drew]

Still not buying the pacifist mantra.

I will continue telling my kids to defend themselves. They will not be punching bags.

You are free to do as you please, of course. Jesus does not force us to follow His commands.