-
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.
Don't worry...he will pay for that one in the day of his accounting..it is one thing to use the bible to rebuke someone, it is an entirely different ball game to quote a book of lies against believers in the Lord.....not to mention it places said book ABOVE the BIBLE as a rule of faith and authority...A true saved child of God will quote scripture...not the Koran!
It as also equally apparent that you have gone to seed on your own theology and have not read everything in context, while rejecting what is being said....
1. NO ONE SAID anything about killing someone in COLD BLOOD
2. This is about defending a child, woman or little old lady being raped or murdered which results in the death of said attacker<--NOT COLD BLOODED MURDER
3. You better hope that you are not being robbed and murdered one day soon and for sure hope your buddy Jason isn't there as it will not come out good for you!
Amazes me how both of you are ignorant to what is being said and defended while blindly following that which is contrary to given truth in scripture!
1. NO ONE SAID anything about killing someone in COLD BLOOD
2. This is about defending a child, woman or little old lady being raped or murdered which results in the death of said attacker<--NOT COLD BLOODED MURDER
3. You better hope that you are not being robbed and murdered one day soon and for sure hope your buddy Jason isn't there as it will not come out good for you!
Amazes me how both of you are ignorant to what is being said and defended while blindly following that which is contrary to given truth in scripture!
NO DOUBT...Don't worry there will be some spiritualized answer that denies the truth....God called and asked WHO WILL GO FOR ME......
To be a pacifist when one is being persecuted for the cause of Christ is one thing....TO NOT defend a defenseless child who is being raped and murdered is another.....What amazes me is the inability to separate the two and know how to respond biblically to BOTH situations......ignorance for sure!
To be a pacifist when one is being persecuted for the cause of Christ is one thing....TO NOT defend a defenseless child who is being raped and murdered is another.....What amazes me is the inability to separate the two and know how to respond biblically to BOTH situations......ignorance for sure!
M
Have you ever experienced even when God may forgive, one must still endure consequences for their actions?
I have, even though I may be forgiven and so have many of Gods people.
If you proceed to question this fact I will proceed to school you in this fact.
They can be forgiven, but the action of forgiveness does not exempt or excuse them from discipline of their actions.
Better for their actions of imminent danger to another to be addressed WHILE in progress rather than after the deed has been done and its kinda just a little late.
Self defense and vengeance are two different things.
Discover what this means.
We can start with these two scriptures:
Psalm 82:4 Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.
Ezekiel 33 "... [SUP]6[/SUP] 'But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and a sword comes and takes a person from them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require from the watchman's hand.'
Therefore If you know danger is coming to others, and you deliberately fail to warn the others of the danger, you are guilty of harming the victims.
If you idly stand by and watch an attack on an innocent person, this is doing nothing out of love for the victim.
---When it says to love our enemies:
IT DID NOT SAY TO FORSAKE THE GODLY, THE WEAK AND THE INNOCENT In FAVOR OF THE WICKED IN ORDER TO DO SO.
Romans 5:7
Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die.
One cannot be willing to die for another unless you are willing to die for another.
Enuff said.
I have, even though I may be forgiven and so have many of Gods people.
If you proceed to question this fact I will proceed to school you in this fact.
They can be forgiven, but the action of forgiveness does not exempt or excuse them from discipline of their actions.
Better for their actions of imminent danger to another to be addressed WHILE in progress rather than after the deed has been done and its kinda just a little late.
Self defense and vengeance are two different things.
Discover what this means.
We can start with these two scriptures:
Psalm 82:4 Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.
Ezekiel 33 "... [SUP]6[/SUP] 'But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and a sword comes and takes a person from them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require from the watchman's hand.'
Therefore If you know danger is coming to others, and you deliberately fail to warn the others of the danger, you are guilty of harming the victims.
If you idly stand by and watch an attack on an innocent person, this is doing nothing out of love for the victim.
---When it says to love our enemies:
IT DID NOT SAY TO FORSAKE THE GODLY, THE WEAK AND THE INNOCENT In FAVOR OF THE WICKED IN ORDER TO DO SO.
Romans 5:7
Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die.
One cannot be willing to die for another unless you are willing to die for another.
Enuff said.
Last edited:
K
I think you have me confused with Jason.
I never said self defense, or warning some one of danger is not to be done.
I believe in self defense and also punishment for correction, but what I said is that in using self defense or punishment some people use unnecessary force or unneeded or unwarranted justice in their actions. They turn and make what they do acceptable, but what I point out is that by our Lord's standards if you use force or a form of justice that is not needed then you would be in the wrong.
If you are in a war situation, where you go to another country and defend the people from persecution, and death then you are not in the wrong. For you are protecting the innocent, which we are called to do.
If you go over there with a mindset of hatred and just wanting to kill somebody, then you are in the wrong in your thinking.
If you see somebody being raping another, and you can stop them with out killing them then you that is how you are to do.
Let the law system take over and send them to prison.
If you can stop them without killing them, but you kill them any way you are initiating a misuse of force.
In this situation you will be held accountable for using force that was not necessary.
Same way with murder, if you see some one trying to kill somebody and you can stop them before they do it without killing them then you go that route, if you are left with no choice but to take their life then that is what you have to do.
Now if the murderer has already committed that murder, you are not to later go after them and kill them. That would be vengeance.
Also if the murderer has already committed the act, and is caught and put in jail/prison does there really need to be a death penalty to put him to death. No he is already serving his punishment in prison, and should be kept there for life.
The death penalty only adds to the punishment and kills somebody that does not need to be killed now, for they are already locked up away from society.
Now if you don't like the fact that tax payers taxes will be used to feed and house him, then blame the system.
They can be put to work to earn their own housing and food needs.
I never said self defense, or warning some one of danger is not to be done.
I believe in self defense and also punishment for correction, but what I said is that in using self defense or punishment some people use unnecessary force or unneeded or unwarranted justice in their actions. They turn and make what they do acceptable, but what I point out is that by our Lord's standards if you use force or a form of justice that is not needed then you would be in the wrong.
If you are in a war situation, where you go to another country and defend the people from persecution, and death then you are not in the wrong. For you are protecting the innocent, which we are called to do.
If you go over there with a mindset of hatred and just wanting to kill somebody, then you are in the wrong in your thinking.
If you see somebody being raping another, and you can stop them with out killing them then you that is how you are to do.
Let the law system take over and send them to prison.
If you can stop them without killing them, but you kill them any way you are initiating a misuse of force.
In this situation you will be held accountable for using force that was not necessary.
Same way with murder, if you see some one trying to kill somebody and you can stop them before they do it without killing them then you go that route, if you are left with no choice but to take their life then that is what you have to do.
Now if the murderer has already committed that murder, you are not to later go after them and kill them. That would be vengeance.
Also if the murderer has already committed the act, and is caught and put in jail/prison does there really need to be a death penalty to put him to death. No he is already serving his punishment in prison, and should be kept there for life.
The death penalty only adds to the punishment and kills somebody that does not need to be killed now, for they are already locked up away from society.
Now if you don't like the fact that tax payers taxes will be used to feed and house him, then blame the system.
They can be put to work to earn their own housing and food needs.
K
I agree with what you have said here.
Using only as much force as is necessary and issuing grace or mercy if that be possible.
Defense is an act of logic and reason not emotion since emotions will fuel anger leading to vengeance.
My apologies for any confusion Kenneth
Using only as much force as is necessary and issuing grace or mercy if that be possible.
Defense is an act of logic and reason not emotion since emotions will fuel anger leading to vengeance.
My apologies for any confusion Kenneth
That is ok, I know what I have said may have been a little confusing.
I was locked into a rebuking effort to show a couple who said they have a kill first mentality, how that form of thinking is wrong. Kill first mentality is based on anger, hatred, and an unforgiving heart.
Our Lord Jesus forgave us of our sins, so why do so many want to apply judgment, condemn, and kill others for theirs ?
We are suppose to show the same forgiveness to others, He has shown us.
I think you have me confused with another Jason that exists only within your mind. I in NO WAY said I would not warn someone of danger. I said I would call the cops if necessary; For I believe they are God's ministers of justice (all be it unsaved ministers). I also said that if a Christian happens to know Aikido, it is not wrong to employ such a self defense tactic because it is non violent in nature. For it uses an attacking opponents own momentum against them. Granted, I am not big on encouraging people to practice martial arts because many times there is a dark spiritual aspect to it. But if the believer happens to know it, and they employ such non violence to protect those who are in danger, I see that being within the confines of loving our enemies because no real critical harm would befall them.
I also believe in punishment of criminal activites as outlines in Romans 13. I do not believe believers are the ones to execute this punishment, though. Romans 13 is not about believers. It is about unbelieving nations put into power by God and how we are to submit to that authority (Unless it conflicts with God's Laws). God is uses the unbelieving world to punish criminals. Our Judgment is to tell people that they need to repent because they are lost. Our Judgment can include the correcting of the body of believers (2 Timothy 3:16).
I also believe in punishment of criminal activites as outlines in Romans 13. I do not believe believers are the ones to execute this punishment, though. Romans 13 is not about believers. It is about unbelieving nations put into power by God and how we are to submit to that authority (Unless it conflicts with God's Laws). God is uses the unbelieving world to punish criminals. Our Judgment is to tell people that they need to repent because they are lost. Our Judgment can include the correcting of the body of believers (2 Timothy 3:16).
Last edited:
K
Yes, but you did say at first when you started the thread that you would stand there and pray for the person being attacked, rather than stop the attacker.
While you prayed;
What if God said to you that was the reason I had you there at that very moment, was so that you could use the force necessary to stop that attacker and if he left you no choice but to take his life then you will have to do that.
While you prayed;
What if God said to you that was the reason I had you there at that very moment, was so that you could use the force necessary to stop that attacker and if he left you no choice but to take his life then you will have to do that.
M
So what you're suggesting is that God has appointed un-believers...of un-believeing nations, to be in charge of Gods people...
Unless the demands of un-believers happens to conflict with Gods laws.
Does this not conflict with the fact that we are told not to subject our grievances before the authority of un-believers (as in 1 Cor. 6 below) while saying we're somehow still suppose to submit to their authority?
Rather than believing God would rather be appointing his people to be in charge of Gods people?
When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your shame.
Unless the demands of un-believers happens to conflict with Gods laws.
Does this not conflict with the fact that we are told not to subject our grievances before the authority of un-believers (as in 1 Cor. 6 below) while saying we're somehow still suppose to submit to their authority?
Rather than believing God would rather be appointing his people to be in charge of Gods people?
When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your shame.
You don't seem to understand. Prayer is probably one of the believer's most powerful weapons at his disposal. However, by the way you are talking about prayer: It gives me the strong impression that you don't think God will answer your prayer in times of trouble; But I do.
Also, I would go by the leading of the Spirit on the situation because not every situation is cut and dry. For example: The person being attacked could be on the other side of a river or I could realize that by me moving, my attackers would just shoot me in the head. Prayer is the answer in these cases, my friend. For prayer is not ineffectual as you think. Our God is not a powerless God. He answers prayer. For Hezekiah prayed so as to be protected against an invading army that would have easily destroyed them unless God intervened to destroy them; And He did destroy Hezekiah's invading army. The Messenger of the Lord destroyed that army!
That is just silly. That would be like the Lord telling me to do something that is contrary to His Word. It's not possible. If I did receive such a communication, I would ask that entity to confess that Jesus is Lord and that Jesus is God Almighty in the flesh. In addition, God would have to open my eyes to those Scriptures in the New Testament that talk about how physical violence would be justified in relation to loving my enemy and not render evil for evil. But I know no such verse exists that would refute what the Lord taught us about overcoming evil with good. Killing your enemy in self defense is not overcoming evil with good.
Also, I would go by the leading of the Spirit on the situation because not every situation is cut and dry. For example: The person being attacked could be on the other side of a river or I could realize that by me moving, my attackers would just shoot me in the head. Prayer is the answer in these cases, my friend. For prayer is not ineffectual as you think. Our God is not a powerless God. He answers prayer. For Hezekiah prayed so as to be protected against an invading army that would have easily destroyed them unless God intervened to destroy them; And He did destroy Hezekiah's invading army. The Messenger of the Lord destroyed that army!
That is just silly. That would be like the Lord telling me to do something that is contrary to His Word. It's not possible. If I did receive such a communication, I would ask that entity to confess that Jesus is Lord and that Jesus is God Almighty in the flesh. In addition, God would have to open my eyes to those Scriptures in the New Testament that talk about how physical violence would be justified in relation to loving my enemy and not render evil for evil. But I know no such verse exists that would refute what the Lord taught us about overcoming evil with good. Killing your enemy in self defense is not overcoming evil with good.
Last edited:
1 Corinthians 6 is talking about judging matters internally within the church versus taking a fellow believer to a wordly court of law. Romans 13 is talking about believers submitting to the governing authorites in power under general matters of law because those unbelieving nations were placed into authority or power by God. As long as the Laws of that nation does not conflict with God's laws, we are to submit to that nation's laws. Romans 13 speaks of these authorities as God's ministers (twice in verse 4 in using the words "minister of God" and once in verse 6 with the words "God's ministers." These ministers are talking about nations because they referenced as being the "higher powers" in verse 1 and "rulers" in verse 3. This submitting to governing authorities is also talked about by Peter, too (1 Peter 2:13-20). Although Peter does not talk about how the governing powers are God's ministers; However, Isaiah 10:5-12 essentially says that using different words, though. For it says,
5 “What sorrow awaits Assyria, the rod of my anger.
I use it as a club to express my anger.
6 I am sending Assyria against a godless nation,
against a people with whom I am angry.
Assyria will plunder them,
trampling them like dirt beneath its feet.
7 But the king of Assyria will not understand that he is my tool;
his mind does not work that way.
His plan is simply to destroy,
to cut down nation after nation.
8 He will say,
‘Each of my princes will soon be a king.
9 We destroyed Calno just as we did Carchemish.
Hamath fell before us as Arpad did.
And we destroyed Samaria just as we did Damascus.
10 Yes, we have finished off many a kingdom
whose gods were greater than those in Jerusalem and Samaria.
11 So we will defeat Jerusalem and her gods,
just as we destroyed Samaria with hers.’”
12 After the Lord has used the king of Assyria to accomplish his purposes on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, he will turn against the king of Assyria and punish him—for he is proud and arrogant.
(Isaiah 10:5-12 NLT).
5 “What sorrow awaits Assyria, the rod of my anger.
I use it as a club to express my anger.
6 I am sending Assyria against a godless nation,
against a people with whom I am angry.
Assyria will plunder them,
trampling them like dirt beneath its feet.
7 But the king of Assyria will not understand that he is my tool;
his mind does not work that way.
His plan is simply to destroy,
to cut down nation after nation.
8 He will say,
‘Each of my princes will soon be a king.
9 We destroyed Calno just as we did Carchemish.
Hamath fell before us as Arpad did.
And we destroyed Samaria just as we did Damascus.
10 Yes, we have finished off many a kingdom
whose gods were greater than those in Jerusalem and Samaria.
11 So we will defeat Jerusalem and her gods,
just as we destroyed Samaria with hers.’”
12 After the Lord has used the king of Assyria to accomplish his purposes on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, he will turn against the king of Assyria and punish him—for he is proud and arrogant.
(Isaiah 10:5-12 NLT).
Last edited:
M
Authorities, rulers and Kings:
Was David a Godly man?
Was David acting righteously being instrumental in protecting Gods people from oppressors?
One may say, but David was a king
When an 18[SUP]th[/SUP] century British king issued a grant, his name always appeared at the top signifying the Authority being exercised.
You may be surprised to learn who holds the final authority in the country in which you reside and where the sovereignty of that authority remains.
This is not Great Britain
In the United States...
whose name appears at the top of the document concerning supreme law of Land in the one nation under God?
The very first words of the Constitution appearing in LARGE ORNATE LETTERS make this clear.
Not ME the president
Was David a Godly man?
Was David acting righteously being instrumental in protecting Gods people from oppressors?
One may say, but David was a king
When an 18[SUP]th[/SUP] century British king issued a grant, his name always appeared at the top signifying the Authority being exercised.
You may be surprised to learn who holds the final authority in the country in which you reside and where the sovereignty of that authority remains.
This is not Great Britain
In the United States...
whose name appears at the top of the document concerning supreme law of Land in the one nation under God?
The very first words of the Constitution appearing in LARGE ORNATE LETTERS make this clear.
Not ME the president
Last edited:
Okay. This is pretty basic stuff, my friend. I can tell you didn't read the passage in Isaiah. God used the king of Assyria for his purposes even though he was a proud man who was an unbeliever. But once God fulfilled His purpose with him, he destroyed the king of Assyria. Most pastors and scholars agree to the plain written meaning of this passage. Your issue is not with me, but it is with Scripture. What part of the verses (Did I quote) don't you understand? For I will help to explain it to you. Or don't you want to know?
Last edited:
M
With all due respect
You're going off on a tangent to try and prove your stance Jason.
but what it appears that you are claiming is the authority of defense of the righteous is somehow delegated to non-believers.
That's like saying when you're being attacked:
"I am a godly peaceful man so I wont defend myself in order to not hurt an attacker but hey you, over there
yes sir you look like a sinning ungodly man, since you don't know Jesus anyways perhaps you can come over and assist me.
Afterward I shall thank you for your help then I will witness to you about turning the other cheek so in the future you will not assist others from now on."
Do you happen to see the discrepancies present therein?
Yes I understand God uses all for his purpose.
The rain falls on both the righteous and the wicked.
What I feel it is you may not be understanding is:
YOU are the ruler of your household
YOU are the delegated authority over your family
You are the King
NOT your govt. and NOT an officer of the law.
There is a reason the term every man is king of his castle came about.
This is because of the way our country is set up.
The country you live in Jason was set up for your own better good.
People are unknowingly being misled to improperly delegate their Godly authority to others.
You have been lied to all your life regarding this matter.
By who? The enemy who wishes you to think this way.
Each man is free and designated as sovereign with the SAME RIGHTS as a King.
You have unwittingly delegated your rights and authorities to allow others to exercise them for you.
While you are suggesting it is only the non-believer who is an agent of wrath as Gods servant to punish the wrongdoer.
Show us where it says non-believer in Romans 13.......
Take your time, or did you add that portion yourself?
I have provided examples that it is ALSO the Godly who God uses for this purpose
So I ask you
Who would God rather use for his purposes
The Godly or the ungodly?
Who better to execute fair and righteous punishment on those who oppress and murder?
The Godly or the ungodly.
It is understood not all are the same member of the body.
Not all are an agent of wrath
As well not all are evangelists
or preachers
or called to be on the worship team.
When God issued his angels to destroy Sodom, were they not also acting as agents of Gods wrath?
Would you have us believe those angels were non-believing Angels?
There is a principle involved here so let me get to the main point.
~Self-defense
If you're suggesting it is only those appointed under authority by rulers to be able to defend the weak and innocent or even your own life you are ignoring who the real authority is under the laws of the land.
My point is I am reminding you that YOU ARE that very authority instituted by God under the articles of declaration by the laws of the country you live in.
Furthermore, suggesting it is only police or military who should carry a weapon, may I ask if you believe an officer can also be a Christian?
May I also point out to you that under the laws which rule the land, (since as we know people do not rule the land willy nilly but the bible defaults to law of the land) the constitution of many states address the fact that even military is subordinate to the public.
Again which makes it clear where the true authority stands,
The citizen in our country which is different than other countries, holds the authority.
This is the way our country is set up...
You have delegated your authority to others to take care of for you as THEY see fit, non-believers at that.
In doing so you have given away not only your right to liberty but life as well.
Life is valuable. Your life should be valuable enough for you to defend it yourself instead of expecting others to.
Don't expect others to take care of your life for you
May I also remind you that a citizen witnessing a felony in progress by law holds the same authority as an officer of the law to arrest the situation by force if needed. Perhaps even more authority since by the time an officer arrives on the scene he has to assess the situation before making a judgement call.
You already being present and witnessing such a crime have the ability and right to do what's necessary.
If you so choose not to that is up to you.
It is not a requirement of you but a right.
Again a right is not a privilege which can be granted or taken away by another man.
Thats the main point.
Law has been instituted to prevent depriving another of their rights.
Law is not for policing peoples rights.
Therefore law cannot police your right to life or the protection of it.
You are allowed to Defend yourself
I don't see how it is loving but more selfish to assert to place that responsibility on another to do for you
and by doing places their own life at jeopardy forcing them to bring themselves under judgement to God.
I am not suggesting everyone call themselves to hurt others in their own defnse if that conflicts with their own internal faith.
Some can eat meat some can not etc.
What I am suggesting is within teaching turn the other cheek and issuing mercy and grace we do not influence others to fail to defend themselves or their loved ones from the hands of the wicked.
God is Just
A just society is necessary to prevent chaos of wicked men.
Self defense in the heat of the moment is Just.
Jesus did not fight back because he was accepting what we deserve
Turning the other cheek also means to humbly accept your justly deserved punishment without an attitude of retaliation.
He could not retaliate for the same reason we should not retaliate against God for any punishment we bring upon ourselves.
Not all situations call for violence
Not all punches need to be retaliated to bring upon escalation.
Although If a man attempts to take your life such as an armed intruder in your home he has now acted outside of Gods laws
(which as you stated going against Gods laws is wrong)
Back to my post #774 would you dare rather bring this before the court to have it judged by the unrighteous.
In that moment you are the righteous member of the church to judge the situation.
A clear cut obvious situation at that.
My issue isn't with scripture, my issue is with people who have issues with the rights granted to people by the law of the land and thereby almost deny the reason our country was even founded to be the way it is.
Don't give the pearl of your rights away to be trampled by the swine of the earth.
You're going off on a tangent to try and prove your stance Jason.
but what it appears that you are claiming is the authority of defense of the righteous is somehow delegated to non-believers.
That's like saying when you're being attacked:
"I am a godly peaceful man so I wont defend myself in order to not hurt an attacker but hey you, over there
yes sir you look like a sinning ungodly man, since you don't know Jesus anyways perhaps you can come over and assist me.
Afterward I shall thank you for your help then I will witness to you about turning the other cheek so in the future you will not assist others from now on."
Do you happen to see the discrepancies present therein?
Yes I understand God uses all for his purpose.
The rain falls on both the righteous and the wicked.
What I feel it is you may not be understanding is:
YOU are the ruler of your household
YOU are the delegated authority over your family
You are the King
NOT your govt. and NOT an officer of the law.
There is a reason the term every man is king of his castle came about.
This is because of the way our country is set up.
The country you live in Jason was set up for your own better good.
People are unknowingly being misled to improperly delegate their Godly authority to others.
You have been lied to all your life regarding this matter.
By who? The enemy who wishes you to think this way.
Each man is free and designated as sovereign with the SAME RIGHTS as a King.
You have unwittingly delegated your rights and authorities to allow others to exercise them for you.
While you are suggesting it is only the non-believer who is an agent of wrath as Gods servant to punish the wrongdoer.
Show us where it says non-believer in Romans 13.......
Take your time, or did you add that portion yourself?
I have provided examples that it is ALSO the Godly who God uses for this purpose
So I ask you
Who would God rather use for his purposes
The Godly or the ungodly?
Who better to execute fair and righteous punishment on those who oppress and murder?
The Godly or the ungodly.
It is understood not all are the same member of the body.
Not all are an agent of wrath
As well not all are evangelists
or preachers
or called to be on the worship team.
When God issued his angels to destroy Sodom, were they not also acting as agents of Gods wrath?
Would you have us believe those angels were non-believing Angels?
There is a principle involved here so let me get to the main point.
~Self-defense
If you're suggesting it is only those appointed under authority by rulers to be able to defend the weak and innocent or even your own life you are ignoring who the real authority is under the laws of the land.
My point is I am reminding you that YOU ARE that very authority instituted by God under the articles of declaration by the laws of the country you live in.
Furthermore, suggesting it is only police or military who should carry a weapon, may I ask if you believe an officer can also be a Christian?
May I also point out to you that under the laws which rule the land, (since as we know people do not rule the land willy nilly but the bible defaults to law of the land) the constitution of many states address the fact that even military is subordinate to the public.
Again which makes it clear where the true authority stands,
The citizen in our country which is different than other countries, holds the authority.
This is the way our country is set up...
You have delegated your authority to others to take care of for you as THEY see fit, non-believers at that.
In doing so you have given away not only your right to liberty but life as well.
Life is valuable. Your life should be valuable enough for you to defend it yourself instead of expecting others to.
Don't expect others to take care of your life for you
May I also remind you that a citizen witnessing a felony in progress by law holds the same authority as an officer of the law to arrest the situation by force if needed. Perhaps even more authority since by the time an officer arrives on the scene he has to assess the situation before making a judgement call.
You already being present and witnessing such a crime have the ability and right to do what's necessary.
If you so choose not to that is up to you.
It is not a requirement of you but a right.
Again a right is not a privilege which can be granted or taken away by another man.
Thats the main point.
Law has been instituted to prevent depriving another of their rights.
Law is not for policing peoples rights.
Therefore law cannot police your right to life or the protection of it.
You are allowed to Defend yourself
I don't see how it is loving but more selfish to assert to place that responsibility on another to do for you
and by doing places their own life at jeopardy forcing them to bring themselves under judgement to God.
I am not suggesting everyone call themselves to hurt others in their own defnse if that conflicts with their own internal faith.
Some can eat meat some can not etc.
What I am suggesting is within teaching turn the other cheek and issuing mercy and grace we do not influence others to fail to defend themselves or their loved ones from the hands of the wicked.
God is Just
A just society is necessary to prevent chaos of wicked men.
Self defense in the heat of the moment is Just.
Jesus did not fight back because he was accepting what we deserve
Turning the other cheek also means to humbly accept your justly deserved punishment without an attitude of retaliation.
He could not retaliate for the same reason we should not retaliate against God for any punishment we bring upon ourselves.
Not all situations call for violence
Not all punches need to be retaliated to bring upon escalation.
Although If a man attempts to take your life such as an armed intruder in your home he has now acted outside of Gods laws
(which as you stated going against Gods laws is wrong)
Back to my post #774 would you dare rather bring this before the court to have it judged by the unrighteous.
In that moment you are the righteous member of the church to judge the situation.
A clear cut obvious situation at that.
My issue isn't with scripture, my issue is with people who have issues with the rights granted to people by the law of the land and thereby almost deny the reason our country was even founded to be the way it is.
Don't give the pearl of your rights away to be trampled by the swine of the earth.
Last edited:
So now you admit that God can use government authorities for his purpose of justice?
If this is the case then who am I to question how God wants to deal with the situation He puts me in?
But you would rather not love your enemy and take his life for your life. Did Jesus do that?
In other words, if you are going to fault me, you have to also fault my Lord, too.
If this is the case then who am I to question how God wants to deal with the situation He puts me in?
But you would rather not love your enemy and take his life for your life. Did Jesus do that?
In other words, if you are going to fault me, you have to also fault my Lord, too.
Last edited: