Can violence be justified?

[enoob57]

...and the guy never answered the question about what he would do if he saw a child being attacked. That kind of says it all, doesn't it?

 

Men have a word for that thinking. I won't use it here.

You shouldn't even have it in your mind if you were in the Spirit... huh! Guess that explains the post! Love, Steven Edited April 5, 2014 by enoob57

[nebula]

 

 

The most famous people of the 20th Century are Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Mother Theresa, all people who were against violence and overcome oppressors through the use of non-violence. this is the way of Jesus.

I don't believe anyone here as advocated violence when seeking social change or when protesting.

Do you know of any accounts where either of them had their home broken into where they just let the intruder have his way with their possessions and their family?

Yes. Mandela's house was broken into by the police and his wife was removed in front of his children and she was taken away and beaten. The difference between Winnie and Nelson was Nelson choose to forgive and Winnie didn't. Winnie is remembered for her failings while Nelson is honoured around the world.

After reading what Fez pointed out, things might not be what they seem here.

 

 

 

Jesus comments about having a sword, is purely to show that when Peter used it, it was the wrong thing to do!

This reminds me of a parent who gives their children matches to play with, with the intent of the children causing fire damage just to show them why they should not be playing with matches to begin with.

Sorry, but I have a very difficult time accepting your interpretation of this account.

I don't see what is so difficult about understanding this. The sword was used once by Peter. Jesus not only told him to stop, but healed the hurt it caused. Clearly Jesus was against what was happening and loved his enemies.

The difficulty is that what you said claims Jesus originally told the disciples to carry swords with the intention of a disciple using the sword just so that Jesus can teach him a lesson about it.

That reasoning is troublesome.

 

 

 

The only violent thing Jesus ever did was removing the traders from the temple. This was against 'God's people' - not others and was a one-off prophetic event.

It still holds, however, that Jesus used physical force when and where it was necessary to do so.

If you think you need to go to the temple to prophetically act out God's word to the nation of Israel, feel free to do so. It is a stretch to say this then condones violence.

Force is force, that's all I'm saying.

 

 

 

He never used violence when people wanted to take him or make him king before his time - he just walked away. God was with him!

Does that mean God is not with the Christians being ruthlessly killed in Uganda, Egypt, Syria, India, etc.?

How on earth does that follow? Are you saying God wasn't with Jesus when he was killed?

Try reading Rev 12:11 - martyrs are part of the church and their dead is extremely significant in the book of Rev.

I was responding to your note that Jesus was able to just walk away from getting hurt because God was with Him.

The fact of the matter is that it wasn't His time yet.

And you seemed to have negated His own power and authority in the matter.

 

 

 

When did the church in Acts ever use violence? They were attacked and beaten but never once used violence in self-defense, or to protect others in the church. They totally trusted God.

A few years ago, a man killed some people at a church with his gun and going after more when a security guard stopped him by shooting at him with her gun. (Account here) Would you tell the people at the church who are alive today because of her actions that she sinned by doing so?

(1) So you are equating what someone did in a church today with the book of Acts?

(2) IF the security guard did his job then good for him.

(3) For the first three hundred years of the church, people who were in the army (which was basically the police or security forces) where not allowed to be part of the church. It was only with the merging of church and state did the church allow such people to be called 'Christians'.

(1) No, I was asking you a question.

(2) Firstly, it was a she. Secondly, if you read the report, she gives glory to God for having been able to stop the man (which did involve killing him with a gun). Thirdly, how can you support what she did in light of the other things you are saying?

(3) What about the centurion Cornelius whom Peter led to the Lord? Is there any evidence or indication he was instructed to quit his job in order to be accepted as a brother?

But as for your claim, what is your resource for this information?

Continued...

[nebula]

Although David was a man after God's heart, it was forbidden from building the temple because he was violent. What does that say about what God thinks about violence?

 If this was a consistent message found in Israel's history, you would have a point. But numerous times God commanded His people to conquer and even kill the peoples of cities and nations. King Saul was even punished for not slaying a king. How do you reconcile this?

The only violence sanctioned by Israel was for the conquering of the Holy Land.

No, that is not so.

Exodus 17:8-16

Esther 9

Nehemiah 4

 

 

And don't forget that Solomon, the one whom the lord blessed to build the Temple, commanded a few traitors to be put to death.

[Guest LadyC]

people who believe the old testament passages are irrelevant (unless they think it will support their claims) aren't worth the time and effort to debate. God says ALL of His word is profitable for teaching and correcting, and rebuking. (and that IS in the NT.)  God also says He is the same yesterday, today and forever. He doesn't change. (also a NT passage.) and He ALSO says that Jesus didn't come to fulfill the law, not to abolish it. that, too, is NT.

 

those who reject the OT intentionally pick and choose verses out of context to support their arguments.

 

so having said that in response to the accusation directed at me, i will now leave this thread in the capable hands of nebula, fez, and many others. i've enjoyed a day out of town and won't let the evening be spoiled by ridiculous bickering. i'm confident in my position (and God's) regarding this issue, and am glad i don't have to rely on someone here who rejects the scriptures where God instructs us to protect others if i'm ever in danger.

[Taker]

...and the guy never answered the question about what he would do if he saw a child being attacked. That kind of says it all, doesn't it?

 

Men have a word for that thinking. I won't use it here.

"I'm done with this topic of debate. My view is that (as the Bible has proven countless times) the Lord will protect his children. I can't see myself changing my mind about this topic again." - Taker

 

Read that quote until you understand that I did respond to this question.

[The_Patriot21]

@hashe, your still misquoting that scripture. Let me point out, even when Peter used the sword, Jesus did NOT chastise him for having the sword-or even using it, but for having bad timing. Keep in mind the God of the new testament is the God of the old testament-and God never changes, and the God of the Old testament was definetly not against violence. You still haven't answered the example of Jesus using violence.

 

Everyone thinks of violence as pulling a gun out and shooting someone, that's often not the case. Jesus used a whip and words and didn't hurt anyone-just used a display of violence, to get His point across. A good deal of criminals-like in the example of a man raping a young girl, will run at the mere sight of a gun-before having to pull the trigger. My question is, how much do you have to hate that young girl, to stand by and let that criminal rape her?

[Sevenseas]

I'm done with this topic of debate. My view is that (as the Bible has proven countless times) the Lord will protect his children. I can't see myself changing my mind about this topic again.

 

Thank you all very much for providing your own views and experiences on this topic.

 

 

 

How about all the Christian martyrs?  Why didn't an angel of the Lord step in and close the mouth of lions as He did for Daniel's friends?  

 

Armchair Christianity just is not very real IMO.  The reality is when you are faced with what you THINK you have all the answers for and then find out it was only

between your ears and the experience is just not the same as you thought it would be

 

 

God will test you and at that time you will find out exactly what you really believe

 

You may be running for your life and you may not remember this conversation because you will be too busy trying to save your life instead of surrendering it.

 

But He gives a greater grace. Therefore it says, "GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE."  James 4:6

[Hashe]

 

The most famous people of the 20th Century are Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Mother Theresa, all people who were against violence and overcome oppressors through the use of non-violence. this is the way of Jesus.

 

 

Actually that statement is not correct. I am South African and I know Nelson Mandela saved our country from a bloodbath. He is one of my role models and I have met him and sat down to lunch with him.

 

But he did advocate violence, and it was he who stated that the ANC's military wing Mkonto we Siswe (the spear of the nation), should take up arms. He was arrested in the Rivonia trial for planning to set bombs on power pylons.

 

I am no saying that the south African government was correct or moral, and that his life term as a terrorist was right, but we need to get our facts correct.

 

 

 

 

this is a complete misunderstanding of Mandela's position.

He attacked civil physical structures.

He was completely against attacking people.

It part of the white propaganda to say he was a terrorist.

Edited April 8, 2014 by OneLight
No ratial statements allowed.

[JustinM]

Depends on how you define violence.

 

Should someone intervene when another person is in the process of killing, assaulting or stealing from them, or another person?  Yes, but I don't believe that would be "violence" in the literal since.

 

But, if you find yourself alone, facing someone who is trying to kill, assault, or steal from you and believe that it is sinful to defend yourself, then by all means, live or die by your principles.

 

 

[OneLight]

This thread will be closed if personal attacks/insults continue.  Remember, debate the subject, not the person.