should CHRISTIANS OWN WEAPONS OR FIGHT BACK AGAINST THE SYSTEM?

[enoob57]

The whole reason we are here is to be a light of the life that 'IS' eternal under God's directives...

John 18:36 (KJV)

[36] Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

So the real question remains is this now Jesus' kingdom?   Because the answer to this would be to follow His lead!  Love, Steven

[The_Patriot21]

5 hours ago, Churchmouse said:

No he didn't use force. Force is an object physically being acted upon another object. I see no reason to suggest that contact was ever made. He drove them, which is more intimidation, but him being God, i don't think he needed much.

I don't think that you can state emphatically that pacifism which was termed conscientious objectors way as far as I can see is a secular ideal, since there were religious groups way back in the civil war that were religious groups against violence all the way back to The Revolutionary War and most likely beyond that

http://classroom.synonym.com/group-refused-fight-american-revolution-because-religious-beliefs-5514.html

There are accounts of that in every war that America has fought in and pretty much all of these groups were religious in one form or another.

Also you forget the history of Christianity in Roman times, how many Christians were rounded up and slaughtered , fed to animals  and the like.

https://billmuehlenberg.com/2007/03/23/were-the-early-christians-pacifists/

 

No I really don't have a problem with my quote/unquote pacifism theory. I am talking about Christ teaching Christianity and not making himself known to the world as he did in the old testament. 

 

Why do you think he hardened Pharaohs heart. Egypt was a power to recon with and the other kingdoms knew it. The tales of what God did to them spread far and wide and the destruction of the Egyptian Army  at the Red Sea simply placed the icing on the cake.

The fighting that The Israelite done to claim the land that God gave to them was done to further that reputation and If God was war-like don't you think he would have spread out to the entire world, instead of stopping at the borders of Israel. 

It was the situation that had unfolded through the wickedness of man that created conflict, when you don't take into account what his purposes in creating man. Did he bread us for war? if so, why did he have us naked and placed us in a garden that from what I recall grew of it's own accord. We didn't even have to till the soil until Adam and Eve was kicked out of paradise.

 

In every action that God took which lives were lost it was because of the wickedness of men and that was to establish himself as the protector of the Isrealites, not the conqurer of the world.

No, force is not just an object. It is also an action. No, I doubt Jesus made physical contact but He was obviously using force. Those money changers had no choice but to leave. Physical contact or not, he was very forceful and it was an act of aggression, regardless of what you say.

As far as my next point you made it for me. No, God has never been for world domination. You bring up a valid point-that God only used war on certain circumstances, usually either to protect or improve the life of His chosen people. But see, that in itself proves that God (and Jesus) is not a pacifist. A pacifist would never go to war or orchestrate war, no matter what. It goes against everything that is pacifism.

You note from the start I'm not for the blind use of violence. It is something that should be avoided at all cost. However, it is something that in certain circumstances, is justified, biblical, and I believe sanctioned, by the will of God. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that owning a weapon is wrong, in fact according to the words of Jesus, we are told to. Self defense is allowed under the law, and there are times when going to war is allowed.

[Churchmouse]

2 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

So far, you have not really demonstrated that my logic is wrong.  Complaining isn't a refutation.  So far, you have not proven that the Bible speaks against self-defense.
 

So you expect your take on things to be accepted and you expect your views to be considered without you having to be an authority on the Bible, but since you disagree with me, I have to be an authority on the Bible in order for to you listen to me.   That's called a double standard.

So how is self-defense opposed to the teachings of Jesus on peace?   How not letting someone kill your family opposed to the teachings of Jesus?

 

 

I'm not complaining and thank you very much for trying to reduce mt argument down it that. I'm telling you that you can't assume that what you do assume will automatically follow the facts in the Bible. It's simply not presentable to anyone who hasn't made up their minds beforehand. What you've presented is a Non Sequitur argument which is a Logical Fallacy meaning 'Does not Follow" The first prt of your argument which is what is in The Bible doesn't follow what is scriptural sound for the rest of The Bible.  From what I've concluded from most of this is that the changes between the old testament and the new Testament, as follows the teachings of Christ seemed to be limited to to what you believe.

No, I don't believe that my take on things should be taken as literally fact. Why would you assume that based on my wanting to learn if you are an authority on scripture or just a person with an opinion. I don't follow where you came up with that from what you quoted. It sounds more like a red herring than anything else.

That is the crux of the matter and to date. All I can do is point to the history of what the Apostles went through as a reference. How many times where they mistreated, jailed and untimatly killed and how many times does the Bible, record anything about them defending themselves. From what I've read, they just moved on with the help of The Holy Spirit. and a few angels opening up some doors.

 

[Guest shiloh357]

11 minutes ago, Churchmouse said:

I'm not complaining and thank you very much for trying to reduce mt argument down it that. I'm telling you that you can't assume that what you do assume will automatically follow the facts in the Bible. It's simply not presentable to anyone who hasn't made up their minds beforehand. What you've presented is a Non Sequitur argument which is a Logical Fallacy meaning 'Does not Follow" The first prt of your argument which is what is in The Bible doesn't follow what is scriptural sound for the rest of The Bible.  From what I've concluded from most of this is that the changes between the old testament and the new Testament, as follows the teachings of Christ seemed to be limited to to what you believe.

Yeah, but it remains that you cannot refute the assumption that the Bible never speaks against self-defense.

Quote

No, I don't believe that my take on things should be taken as literally fact. Why would you assume that based on my wanting to learn if you are an authority on scripture or just a person with an opinion. I don't follow where you came up with that from what you quoted. It sounds more like a red herring than anything else.

No, that's not the point.  The point is that you feel you should be listened to even though you're not an authority, but you can reject what I say based on the fact that I am not an authority.   You operate from a standard you don't hold others to.

 

Quote

That is the crux of the matter and to date. All I can do is point to the history of what the Apostles went through as a reference. How many times where they mistreated, jailed and untimatly killed and how many times does the Bible, record anything about them defending themselves. From what I've read, they just moved on with the help of The Holy Spirit. and a few angels opening up some doors.

Yes, but that pertains to persecution.  I am talking about defending one's family from a rapist or a murderer that breaks into one's house.  That is not the same as being persecuted for one's faith.

Show where the Bible forbids self-defense or defense of one's family in that kind of situation.

[mikefromwichita]

11 hours ago, Churchmouse said:

What's the elongated so all about? You can't speak to my without the condescention. If you want to treat with me then I suggest you come at me i the way you wish to be treated. I'm not going to respond in kind, infact this is about as much of a response as you will get until you change your tune.

OK, you have no answer. Got It.

[mikefromwichita]

15 hours ago, The_Patriot2016 said:

Lol. Also important to note that you can buy both body armor and armor piercing bullets.

The question is still open-How does one tell the difference between Caesar and the head of a criminal conspiracy? I will further contend that the Christian is required to submit to 'caesar' only to the extent that government law is in sync with God's Law.

 

I. INTRODUCTION

Christians have traditionally interpreted the famous passage "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God, the things that are God’s," to mean that Jesus endorsed paying taxes. This view was first expounded by St. Justin Martyr in Chapter XVII of his First Apology, who wrote,

And everywhere we, more readily than all men, endeavor to pay to those appointed by you the taxes both ordinary and extraordinary, as we have been taught by Him; for at that time some came to Him and asked Him, if one ought to pay tribute to Caesar; and He answered, u2018Tell Me, whose image does the coin bear?' And they said, u2018Caesar's.'

The passage appears to be important and well-known to the early Christian community. The Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke recount this "Tribute Episode" nearly verbatim. Even Saying 100 of non-canonical Gospel of Thomas and Fragment 2 Recto of the Egerton Gospel record the scene, albeit with some variations from the Canon.

But by His enigmatic response, did Jesus really mean for His followers to provide financial support (willingly or unwillingly) to Tiberius Caesar — a man, who, in his personal life, was a pedophile, a sexual deviant, and a murderer and who, as emperor, claimed to be a god and oppressed and enslaved millions of people, including Jesus' own? The answer, of course, is: the traditional, pro-tax interpretation of the Tribute Episode is simply wrong. Jesus never meant for His answer to be interpreted as an endorsement of Caesar's tribute or any taxes......................................................

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/03/jeffrey-f-barr/render-unto-caesar-amostmisunderstood-newtestamentpassage/

 

Interesting exposition on the question at hand.

Edited November 23, 2016 by mikefromwichita

[Churchmouse]

44 minutes ago, mikefromwichita said:

OK, you have no answer. Got It.

Nice wash job. You take no responsibility for the way you came at me and them assume I have no responce because I didn't fold up and allow your activity. That's not constructive, that's misdirection.

[Churchmouse]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

Yeah, but it remains that you cannot refute the assumption that the Bible never speaks against self-defense.

No, that's not the point.  The point is that you feel you should be listened to even though you're not an authority, but you can reject what I say based on the fact that I am not an authority.   You operate from a standard you don't hold others to.

 

Yes, but that pertains to persecution.  I am talking about defending one's family from a rapist or a murderer that breaks into one's house.  That is not the same as being persecuted for one's faith.

Show where the Bible forbids self-defense or defense of one's family in that kind of situation.

I'm not adding to scripture, which is what assuming does.

 

I feel that I should be listened to because I am a member here and want to understand as much of it as possible. That is why I asked you if you were an authority on the Bible. Reversing that and throwing in more assumptions of my intent here doesn't bolster your argument.

 

The persecution of ones own self is what you speak about when you take about self defense. I am arguing from what I've understood from the Bible and from what I've read in history. Some of that history I presented and to date it hasn't been responded to. Only a plea for emotionalism.

[Churchmouse]

2 hours ago, The_Patriot2016 said:

No, force is not just an object. It is also an action. No, I doubt Jesus made physical contact but He was obviously using force. Those money changers had no choice but to leave. Physical contact or not, he was very forceful and it was an act of aggression, regardless of what you say.

As far as my next point you made it for me. No, God has never been for world domination. You bring up a valid point-that God only used war on certain circumstances, usually either to protect or improve the life of His chosen people. But see, that in itself proves that God (and Jesus) is not a pacifist. A pacifist would never go to war or orchestrate war, no matter what. It goes against everything that is pacifism.

You note from the start I'm not for the blind use of violence. It is something that should be avoided at all cost. However, it is something that in certain circumstances, is justified, biblical, and I believe sanctioned, by the will of God. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that owning a weapon is wrong, in fact according to the words of Jesus, we are told to. Self defense is allowed under the law, and there are times when going to war is allowed.

I'm sorry if my writing skills has lead you to believe I said that force is an object. Force is the action applied to an object. That is what I intended to say.  The rest of this is bringing up my own assumptions against yours which is counter to what my main argument which is not to assume things from scripture.

I would ask of you this.  Is it your assumption that the intent that the person being moved towardst is more valid than the intent of the person approaching them. I've fallen into fear by my own assumptions based on my gut feelings and have been wrong before.

 

You are forgetting one thing about Jesus. His appearance was a sea change to the way people looked and treated others and some of that was love.  My argument is that God did what he had to in order to bring the situation that ultimately, brought him to Earth as our lord and savior.  It was his teachings that changed the world and one of those changes was to ferment the ideals of Christianity in every human being on the world. From what I've read and interpreted from The Bible is that we as Christian's should be loving, kind considerate and non assuming in our own lives. That include assuming that scripture says more than it does, based on our own interpretations. That is why I've brought this up, because from all I've read of those who have posted here, assumptions is all anyone has. Me included.

That is why I've been doing research and from the web sites I've googled your side is winning out, but I can't assume that is correct just because more people think the way you do than think the way I do. Look at how many people thought that Hillary would win.  Truth is truth. It is not consensus.

Edited November 23, 2016 by Churchmouse

[other one]

Churchmouse, if you really expect God to take care of your every need, why are you not sitting on the street corner homeless waiting for food/clothing and shelter to come your way?