-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
IMO there is not a definite yes or no to that question. It would depend upon circumstances. But to the question if violence can be justified under some circumstances, then I think the Bible is very clear on the positive.
As the law of God (yes, that old despised law that Jesus said He did not come to destroy, even the five books of Moses) defines what is sin, and where there is no sin there is no transgression. This gives:
1. To use violence, to use weapons, even to the point of lawfully killing the guilty, is not a sin at all. In fact it is commanded by God in some cases (Gen.6:9).
2. The primary source of using violence should be with those that have been authorized to do so, as implied both in the law and by Paul.
3. The law does not allow for self-revenge, but for self-defense (Exo.22:2).
The huguenots in France had armed guards at their meetings (to defend themselves from papist raiders, who would have killed them if they could). An example of self-defense.
I will add that I believe that we are only bound to be subject and obey the powers that be in as much as these in their turn fulfill their God-given duties, namely to be ministers for us to good, a terror for evil works and a praiser of good works.
Also, we are only to render honour and pay taxes for aims that are lawfu and due. Not to support things like abortions and other abominations. Yes, they force us to pay taxes for those ends anyway in most countries, which is unlawful and those responsible for it will give account.
As the law of God (yes, that old despised law that Jesus said He did not come to destroy, even the five books of Moses) defines what is sin, and where there is no sin there is no transgression. This gives:
1. To use violence, to use weapons, even to the point of lawfully killing the guilty, is not a sin at all. In fact it is commanded by God in some cases (Gen.6:9).
2. The primary source of using violence should be with those that have been authorized to do so, as implied both in the law and by Paul.
3. The law does not allow for self-revenge, but for self-defense (Exo.22:2).
The huguenots in France had armed guards at their meetings (to defend themselves from papist raiders, who would have killed them if they could). An example of self-defense.
I will add that I believe that we are only bound to be subject and obey the powers that be in as much as these in their turn fulfill their God-given duties, namely to be ministers for us to good, a terror for evil works and a praiser of good works.
Also, we are only to render honour and pay taxes for aims that are lawfu and due. Not to support things like abortions and other abominations. Yes, they force us to pay taxes for those ends anyway in most countries, which is unlawful and those responsible for it will give account.
C
Jesus said let him without sin cast the first stone., either we are under the law or we are under grace
Who authorised who to use such violence? where does this authority come from? Do you serve Caeser or Jesus?
And Jesus said render unto Caeser that which is Caesers., what Caeser uses his money for is not for for us to determine
Who authorised who to use such violence? where does this authority come from? Do you serve Caeser or Jesus?
And Jesus said render unto Caeser that which is Caesers., what Caeser uses his money for is not for for us to determine
Last edited:
You cannot "use" scripture that way, making polarizations between verses and then choose from what would be so-called contradictive statements.
In the law it is clear that there was orderly procedures to handle legal offense matters. God did authorize this. This institution has not been abolished since Christ came. Although it would seldom be in the theocratic sense, as it was for Israel as a theocracy.
Also, your confusing offenses with the nature of sin is irrelevant to the issue.
It seems that your questioning here is more of a political nature.
In the law it is clear that there was orderly procedures to handle legal offense matters. God did authorize this. This institution has not been abolished since Christ came. Although it would seldom be in the theocratic sense, as it was for Israel as a theocracy.
Also, your confusing offenses with the nature of sin is irrelevant to the issue.
It seems that your questioning here is more of a political nature.
This is not wholly accurate. We are to render unto Caeasar what is his due, what is lawfully his. What is lawfully his is not murdering babies or promoting damnable and perverse lifestyles. Yes, we do not always know what Caesar is gonna use his money for, but we are not obliged to finance wickedness. That is the difference.
Last edited:
C
So lets pursue this explanation to its logical insanity shall we
The authority you speak of is theocratic in nature., as in the law still stands
So murderers should be put to death., an eye for an eye
Adulterers stoned to death.., rebellious children taken outside of town and thrown from the clifftops
Rape victims should be sold to their rapists., etc etc
Correct?
The authority you speak of is theocratic in nature., as in the law still stands
So murderers should be put to death., an eye for an eye
Adulterers stoned to death.., rebellious children taken outside of town and thrown from the clifftops
Rape victims should be sold to their rapists., etc etc
Correct?
It is only insanity for those that conceitedly think they are smarter than God and knows better than Him what is right and wrong.
And again you're off-topic. The issue here is not what way the powers that be today should treat every example of legal offense, but how we are to relate to these same powers.
And again you're off-topic. The issue here is not what way the powers that be today should treat every example of legal offense, but how we are to relate to these same powers.
C
So lemme get this right
Somehow in your mind the Unholy Roman Empire has God established dominion over the whole world and anyone who doesn't bow down and serve this abomination is a heretic?
Lemme understand you correctly.., whoever the League of Nations claims to have dominion over is thence forth under the dominion of the League of Nations? Is this how you perceive it?
Any kingdom or individual which doesnt lay down and worship the almighty anglo-saxon empire cannot be of God?
I think perhaps it is you who is speaking vanities
Somehow in your mind the Unholy Roman Empire has God established dominion over the whole world and anyone who doesn't bow down and serve this abomination is a heretic?
Lemme understand you correctly.., whoever the League of Nations claims to have dominion over is thence forth under the dominion of the League of Nations? Is this how you perceive it?
Any kingdom or individual which doesnt lay down and worship the almighty anglo-saxon empire cannot be of God?
I think perhaps it is you who is speaking vanities
Last edited:
