*having been seen, the canadians scatter and scurry to take cover under the nearest rocks*
Until we ask them about guns. Then we know.
BTW I got that line from the movie Canadian Bacon. Its kind of funny if you ever get the chance to see it...
-
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.
*having been seen, the canadians scatter and scurry to take cover under the nearest rocks*
Until we ask them about guns. Then we know.
BTW I got that line from the movie Canadian Bacon. Its kind of funny if you ever get the chance to see it...
Ok I see we would get nowhere without history... The British made the white colonies in South Africa British, but they only wanted the land to be British colonies, and did not care how the people suffered. The farmers lost many stock to the thieving natives, so Piet Retief decided to move north into the Wild Africa, where no white man ventured....
After many years there were quite a civilised country and of coarse the British wanted that again, specially after GOLD was found on the Witwatersrand.... So they came but the Boers (White African people) did not want to give up the land they fought far against the black people. So the Boer War started. The English soldiers met thier match in the warzone and diverted their ataacks to the women and children of the Boer commando's.
They set up the concentration camp where worse things happen than what Hitler did 40 years later. The first DIRTY fighters were the allies that stopped Hitler. The British soldiers raped and killed and mistreated the Boer wives and children. My grandmother told me as a lot of what happened there. She lost two sisters and her mother in the camps, and two brothers and her father in the field. She was 11 when she shot her first Englishman.
Whne the English mistreated the wives and children the Boer's was beaten. If they fight the war, they will all lose their families, and if they Stop they will be under the hated British rule again.... So there came the "hensoppers" and the bittereinders. the ones that went hands up and surrendered, and the ones that wanted to go to the bitter end.
Only the ones that already lost all were the bitter enders. The ones that had wives still alive, were the hands - uppers. Just what we all would have done I suppose. And today, There are so many farm murders in South Africa.... Brutal! They tie up the husband and rape his wife while he watch. They rape 80 yearold women, and kill whole families. Why? Why is democracy so expensive? Why does killings happen so often that it does not even reach news and newspapers any more. The only time it does is if one of the original murderers (hero's against apartheid) is killed. Then it is a BIG issue! But when a farmer and his family gets raped and killed and mamed, it does not even reach the news.
And I should protect my family? They come and let gas into the house that puts all people and animals asleep. They light certain stuff, and then they have a lot of time to enter and break in. This happens when people are asleep, and when they wake up, they are captured.... Mean and dirty like HELL!
I am just glad I am not to answer for them one day.... I was a big sinner, but NEVER that mean to another human! WAR has no rules, DEAD people cannot talk, but my grandmother, NEVER forgave the English, and she was the biggest Christian I EVER knew! First you experience what she did before you blabber something about her....
May God have mercy on us with the killing part....
After many years there were quite a civilised country and of coarse the British wanted that again, specially after GOLD was found on the Witwatersrand.... So they came but the Boers (White African people) did not want to give up the land they fought far against the black people. So the Boer War started. The English soldiers met thier match in the warzone and diverted their ataacks to the women and children of the Boer commando's.
They set up the concentration camp where worse things happen than what Hitler did 40 years later. The first DIRTY fighters were the allies that stopped Hitler. The British soldiers raped and killed and mistreated the Boer wives and children. My grandmother told me as a lot of what happened there. She lost two sisters and her mother in the camps, and two brothers and her father in the field. She was 11 when she shot her first Englishman.
Whne the English mistreated the wives and children the Boer's was beaten. If they fight the war, they will all lose their families, and if they Stop they will be under the hated British rule again.... So there came the "hensoppers" and the bittereinders. the ones that went hands up and surrendered, and the ones that wanted to go to the bitter end.
Only the ones that already lost all were the bitter enders. The ones that had wives still alive, were the hands - uppers. Just what we all would have done I suppose. And today, There are so many farm murders in South Africa.... Brutal! They tie up the husband and rape his wife while he watch. They rape 80 yearold women, and kill whole families. Why? Why is democracy so expensive? Why does killings happen so often that it does not even reach news and newspapers any more. The only time it does is if one of the original murderers (hero's against apartheid) is killed. Then it is a BIG issue! But when a farmer and his family gets raped and killed and mamed, it does not even reach the news.
And I should protect my family? They come and let gas into the house that puts all people and animals asleep. They light certain stuff, and then they have a lot of time to enter and break in. This happens when people are asleep, and when they wake up, they are captured.... Mean and dirty like HELL!
I am just glad I am not to answer for them one day.... I was a big sinner, but NEVER that mean to another human! WAR has no rules, DEAD people cannot talk, but my grandmother, NEVER forgave the English, and she was the biggest Christian I EVER knew! First you experience what she did before you blabber something about her....
May God have mercy on us with the killing part....
New Testament Passages on Lethal Force and Self-defense
At this point, you may be thinking this is all relegated to Old Testament principles and thinking. Let's turn to some passages in the New Testament dealing with lethal force and self-defense.
Buying and carrying a sword
Luke 22:35-39
And He said to them, "When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?" So they said, "Nothing." [SUP]36[/SUP] Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. [SUP]37[/SUP] "For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: 'And He was numbered with the transgressors.' For the things concerning Me have an end." [SUP]38[/SUP] So they said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough." [SUP]39[/SUP] Coming out, He went to the Mount of Olives, as He was accustomed, and His disciples also followed Him.
Here's the context. Picture this. Jesus and his disciples have just had communion. They are about to go to a time of prayer in the garden. Jesus says these words to His disciples, and it's as if they are saying, "Look what we have with us, Lord. Two guns!" Jesus responds, "It is enough."
If you read commentaries on this passage, there are a number of questions which are not clearly answered. There are questions about the applicability of this passage, of the intent of Jesus, of the meaning of His response.
Whatever your interpretation of this passage, there are a few broad-stroke observations we can make about this passage.
Jesus expected them to have swords and anticipated a time when those without swords would need to acquire them.
Among eleven disciples, they did have two swords--in almost a 1:5 ratio.
Jesus expected them to carry the swords on their person as they traveled from the city to the garden prayer meeting.
It is difficult to make absolute claims beyond these observations, but the observations themselves have significance. Namely, among those closest to Jesus, some carried personal weapons in His presence with His consent to communion and to prayer meetings. We cannot make absolute claims as to the reasons, right or, wrong, for the carriage of these weapons. Perhaps it was in anticipation of trouble from the Jewish leadership. Perhaps it was protection against mere robbers. Paul in 2 Cor. 11:26 cites the "perils of robbers". Though there are questions we can't answer, we do know they possessed these weapons, that they carried these weapons, and that Jesus knew and consented. Furthermore, Jesus spoke of some time, present or future, when disciples would need to acquire personal weapons, even more urgently than garments.
The Garden of Gethsemene
Now, the next passage we come to follows these events. Jesus and the disciples are in the garden, and the men come to arrest Jesus. At least two of the disciples are armed, with the knowledge and consent of Jesus. Here is the question: Will they use the sword against the armed multitude which has come against Him? Let's look at the three passages which recount this event.
Luke 22:49-53 (NAS)
[SUP]49[/SUP] And when those who were around Him saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, shall we strike with the sword?" [SUP]50[/SUP] And a certain one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear. [SUP]51[/SUP] But Jesus answered and said, "Stop! No more of this." And He touched his ear and healed him. [SUP]52[/SUP] And Jesus said to the chief priests and officers of the temple and elders who had come against Him, "Have you come out with swords and clubs as against a robber? [SUP]53[/SUP] "While I was with you daily in the temple, you did not lay hands on Me; but this hour and the power of darkness are yours."
Matthew 26:51-56
[SUP]51 And suddenly, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear. 52 But Jesus said to him, "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 "Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? 54 "How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?" 55 In that hour Jesus said to the multitudes, "Have you come out, as against a robber, with swords and clubs to take Me? I sat daily with you, teaching in the temple, and you did not seize Me. 56 "But all this was done that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled."[/SUP]
John 18:10-11
[SUP]10 Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus. 11 So Jesus said to Peter, "Put your sword into the sheath. Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?"[/SUP]
In these three passages, you get a sense that Jesus is saying, "Though we have a right to employ our swords in defense of this unrighteous arrest, we are intentionally putting aside our lawful right, and I am allowing myself to be taken without resistance." See how this is expressed: "Lord shall we strike with the sword?" "No more of this." "This is your hour, and the power of darkness." "Put up your sword... or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father... all this was done that the Scriptures...might be fulfilled." "Put your sword into the sheath. Shall I not drink the cup...?"
Why Christ tells Peter to put up the sword:
Christ is willingly laying down His life, though He has the right to use sword and angelic legions to deliver Himself from this unjust arrest (Luke 22:51, John 18:11).
Those who are quick to resort to violence will die by violence (Matt 26:52). The Lord hates the one who "loves violence" (Psalm 11:5).
The sword is not always the appropriate response, especially in persecution for Christ.
There is greater protection than swords.
Possession of weapons and skills with weapons a good and useful thing
Having looked at a number of passages that deal with weapons and self-defense, let's spend a little time discussing Scripture's view of owning weapons and being skilled in their use. The imagery of weapon use and skill at weapons use is often employed in Scripture, and it is often portrayed as a positive or desirable thing. The Lord's might is something good, and it is often depicted using martial terms (Zec. 9:14, Psa. 7:13, 18:14, 21:12, 64:7, Hab. 3:11, Deu 32:42, 2 Sam 22:15). The Scriptures are a sword (Eph. 6:17; Heb 4:12). A sword comes out of the mouth of Christ (Rev. 1:16, 2:16, 19:15).
Possession of weapons is never discouraged in Scripture. In fact, in 1Sam 13:19ff, it is negatively reported that no spears or swords were found in Israel because of the Philistines:
1 Samuel 13:19-22
[SUP]9 Now there was no blacksmith to be found throughout all the land of Israel, for the Philistines said, "Lest the Hebrews make swords or spears."... 22 So it came about, on the day of battle, that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people who were with Saul and Jonathan. But they were found with Saul and Jonathan his son. [/SUP]
Let's look at two verses from the Psalms:
Psalm 144:1
Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:
Psalm 18:34
He teaches my hands to make war, So that my arms can bend a bow of bronze
Skill and ability to use weapons here, whether literal and/or metaphorical, is positively portrayed in these verses.
Further, we have accounts of David, not a soldier, not a law enforcement officer, but a youth, employing ranged weapons skillfully (with God's help) against bears and lions. This is domestic use of lethal weaponry, non-military use, with non-military training. The weapons used by young David are not "kiddie" slingshots. They are powerful enough to kill a bear and lion--in today's market, we're talking about a .44 magnum, not a .22, in the hands of someone too young to be in the army.
We might be tempted to think that was just for dealing with animals that could threaten sheep. But aren't humans worth even more protection than sheep?
We understand that according to Scripture, in matters not of worship or church government, whatever is not forbidden is permitted. I'm not making a claim that ownership of weaponry for the purpose of self-defense is required of the believer. It is not required, but it is permitted by Scripture.
Warnings
Now, let's conclude with some warnings.
Trusting in the sword
First of all, it would be a mistake to leave this class trusting in the sword. Guns, knives, weapons... these are mere tools, and none of these things can guarantee protection, any more than owning a fire extinguisher guarantees that your house won't burn down.
Psalm 44:6-7 For I will not trust in my bow, Nor shall my sword save me. 7 But You have saved us from our enemies, And have put to shame those who hated us.
We see in Nehemiah 4:14 that the people were armed and willing to use their weapons, but they were also trusting in the Lord:
"Do not be afraid of them; remember the Lord who is great and awesome, and fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your houses.... [SUP]20[/SUP] "At whatever place you hear the sound of the trumpet, rally to us there. Our God will fight for us."
Do not put your trust in weapons. They are tools that are useful, but they are only dead, inanimate tools, at the end of the day.
"...the LORD does not deliver by sword or by spear; for the battle is the LORD's." (1Sa 17:47 NAS)[/QUOTE]
i wanted to wait and let the many of you post your thoughts on this matter,,,,in the part of your post "in the garden/Gethsemane" these 3 quotes are very important(tho overlooked),,,,another preacher a few years ago and i speaking,,,pointed out to me something(overlooked here)
that is in both Matthew and Luke,,,the one who drew his sword and cut off the ear was "one of those who was with Jesus",,and "one who was with them",,,,,,,"that is they all were there and knew peter was who did it" ,,,,but in johns book he names the one who did it as "simon peter" this seems to make no difference at first.
now as we were researching the dates of the writing of the Gospels,letters ect. there are certain "earmarks of writing style",,each person has their own and "time has a bearing on the matter",,,"that is if we notice,Matthew nor Luke give peters name",,,,,why?,,peter is still alive and what he did was a crime punishable by death",,,,"so they did not tell on peter" now by the time john wrote the same "peter was already martyred" so it made no difference if he stated his name.
so here is a "pattern to look for",,,that is,,if some of them would have gotten arrested "if mentioned by name",,,their name was not given. but after they died they were always mentioned "by name",,,now this is a very hard thing for even me to look into,,,that is "they knew peter had committed a crime,punishable by death and protected him by hiding his identity",,,that is until after his death.
so they knew they only had "two swords",,,fact one
and we know they knew who cut off the servents ear,(jesus admonished him in front of them),,,fact two
we know they wernt carring them to avoid the law(they were in the temple daily and were not arrested)so they were not defending themselves against any government,rome or jewish.,,fact three
we know from matthew and luke not mentioning peters name(while still alive),,,that they hid his identaty,,fact four
we know john knew the whole time who did it,,becouse he states his name twice in his gosphul,fact five
and we could go on and on with this,,,,but,,mabe it's not good if we do.
1christianwarrior316,,,i only chose to post quoting you becouse you listed the three scriptures in your post,,,,i am quite glad you saw them pertaing to this matter.,,,,but i do not want you to think i am singling your post out "negative",,,that is these three scriptures are "very important in understanding self defence according to christianity",,,,that is why were they carring the swords?,,,that is they had them on their person at the arrest of christ,,,,snakes?,,robbers?,,,,lions?,,,,defence.
but the thing he had himself armed with became a weapon of defence in affect by chance against men instead by circomstance. now we know this becouse the best attempt that peter could muster up against the slave in the act of defence was,,,,after swinging a leathel blow,,it only cut off his ear.(so makes you consider,,,take the sword from peter he's no good with it),,,
well now i saved this part till last,,,,,that is all scripture is "given by the holy spirit,,through ect,ect,",,,,and we believe the gosphul of matthew and of luke are inspired by the holy spirit.,,,,that is matthew nor luke decided to not give the name of peter,god did.,,,,,,and after peter was dead john did not decide to tell you it was peter,,,god did.
now i am a believer in that no government or king will rise without the aproval of god. and that we are to submit to the athority set above us. romans 13,,book of barach,,,ect. and also whosoever rule over you today,will be subject to you tommarrow. i give you the same defence as peter,sumit,be crucafied upside down. and the same defence as paul,submit,let them cut off your head. that is whosoever you are in subjection to today,will be subject to you the marrow.
as christ was led to the cross as an lamb,go also,here is the witness of two swords. one man say's pull them from the sheath and conquor!,,,the other set them back in the sheath. one is the victor over the carcas of the lamb,that is,"the witness of two swords is true",,return them to the sheath.,,,the witness of one sword is not true. whosoever you are brought into subjection to,,will be made subject to you.
the lord did not dodge the spit,he did not fight to free himself,,as they dragged him,he yealded. ten thousand angels were standing there with swords,yet they stayed them in their sheaths on his command,,,and two others,peter and supposadly you.,,,,,,,here are all the swords accounted for,ten thousand,peters,and yours,ten thousand and two swords,they are enough.
1 Samuel 17:34-35.
"And David said to Saul, Your servant kept his father's sheep, and there came a lion, and a bear, and took a lamb out of the flock:35And I went out after him, and smote him, and delivered it out of his mouth: and when he arose against me, I caught him by his beard, and smote him, and slew him."
"And David said to Saul, Your servant kept his father's sheep, and there came a lion, and a bear, and took a lamb out of the flock:35And I went out after him, and smote him, and delivered it out of his mouth: and when he arose against me, I caught him by his beard, and smote him, and slew him."
Luk 22:35 And He said to them, "When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?" They said, "No, nothing."
Luk 22:36 And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag,and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.
Luk 22:36 And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag,and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.
All of the above and yet...
Mat 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Mat 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
Mat 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
Mat 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Mat 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Mat 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
Mat 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
Mat 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Correct translation is:
Mat 5:39 "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps[G4474] you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. NASB
G4474
rhapizō
From a derivative of ῥέπω rhepō, a primary word, (to let fall, “rap”); to slap (with the palm of the hand): - smite (with the palm of the hand). Compare G5180.
This was obviously intended to be a 'sign of disrespect' in those days; and not actually hitting someone intending to cause them harm. The verse, verses and contexts need to be seen in a right order and perspective...
Many things were a certain way 'while' Christ was on earth, as was the above verse, but He changed things ... when He was LEAVING ...saying yet again...
Luk 22:36 And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag,and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.
Christ stated not to 'live by the sword' ie: settle any and every dispute with fighting or worse; ...but He also said to buy one implying that if you need to use it you will have to...so simple...why is that so hard to understand ???
Mat 5:39 "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps[G4474] you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. NASB
G4474
rhapizō
From a derivative of ῥέπω rhepō, a primary word, (to let fall, “rap”); to slap (with the palm of the hand): - smite (with the palm of the hand). Compare G5180.
This was obviously intended to be a 'sign of disrespect' in those days; and not actually hitting someone intending to cause them harm. The verse, verses and contexts need to be seen in a right order and perspective...
Many things were a certain way 'while' Christ was on earth, as was the above verse, but He changed things ... when He was LEAVING ...saying yet again...
Luk 22:36 And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag,and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.
Christ stated not to 'live by the sword' ie: settle any and every dispute with fighting or worse; ...but He also said to buy one implying that if you need to use it you will have to...so simple...why is that so hard to understand ???
A
If you ever have to call the police for help or protection, make sure you chastise them for having guns
Courthouse News Service
"HOUSTON (CN) - Texas lawmen broke into a woman's house without a warrant to arrest her on bogus marijuana charges, and filmed it for a constable's YouTube reality show, the 61-year-old woman claims in court.
Perla Carr sued Montgomery County, Texas, its District Attorney Brett Ligon, its Precinct 4 Constable Kenneth "Rowdy" Hayden, Precinct 4 Chief Barry Welch and three other deputy constables, in Federal Court.
Carr claims that "loud noises of someone breaking into her home" woke her up at around 10:15 p.m. on Sept. 22, 2011.
"The intruders called Perla out of her bedroom and when she came out of the bedroom there was at least one gun with laser sights pointed at her chest by law enforcement officers with Precinct 4, Montgomery County, Texas," the complaint states.
The five constables searched every room and arrested Carr's son for felony marijuana possession, Carr says in the lawsuit.
"Perla was put into handcuffs and made to sit in a lawn chair outside the residence," according to the complaint. "The handcuffs were very tight and caused extreme pain.
"After searching Perla's residence and finding alleged marijuana plants deputy Eric McHugh under the direction and knowledge of at least Constable Hayden, Chief Welch and Supervisor Berglund wrote up a materially false and misleading affidavit to support a search warrant."
The affidavit falsely stated the constables saw marijuana through the window the home and smelled before breaking in, and left out that they had searched the residence without a warrant, Carr says.
The phony affidavit worked, Carr says, as a judge signed a search warrant that arrived two hours after the break-in.
Carr was charged with felony marijuana possession, but it was dismissed for lack of evidence, she says. (Graph 20)
"Sometime after Perla's case was dismissed in her favor, Perla discovered a video on YouTube of the defendants breaking into her home with a crowbar through the front door. ... The video was for a reality television show called 'Texas Takedown' and is currently available to view on the Internet," the complaint states. "All defendants were aware of the filming of the incident involving Perla and 'Texas Takedown.'
"Also, the recently discovered video shows Constable Hayden talking on the phone to DA Ligon prior to the crowbar break-in, who advises Constable Hayden to 'force entry.'"
[video=youtube_share;auV49VTuXDo]http://youtu.be/auV49VTuXDo[/video]
H
True.
Here in Australia we have had strict gun laws in place for about 15 years and it has done nothing to reduce killings by guns.
Criminals are using other types of weapons and are even still getting guns through illegal imports.
The strict gun laws that were introduced here were simply an issue for political gain.
Here in Australia we have had strict gun laws in place for about 15 years and it has done nothing to reduce killings by guns.
Criminals are using other types of weapons and are even still getting guns through illegal imports.
The strict gun laws that were introduced here were simply an issue for political gain.
N
yeah theres nothing wrong with having a gun . They had swords , spears, bows and fire, rocks. etc. I would say its fine to own weapons. you need to be able to protect yourself and family etc.
Just think a bad guy is not thinking weather or not he should have a gun, hes just going to get it. Good people should have weapons not the bad.
H
Thanks for this account of history.
In Australia I recall as a child hearing the British account of the evils of the Boers. Later as I got older and became a critical thinker I started to question what I had been taught after hearing some of the other side of the story.
As they say, history is written (or more likely distorted) by the victors.
In Australia I recall as a child hearing the British account of the evils of the Boers. Later as I got older and became a critical thinker I started to question what I had been taught after hearing some of the other side of the story.
As they say, history is written (or more likely distorted) by the victors.
M
I agree. I've read the Nazis were pretty evil, but when I read about the Communists, these guys were even worse. We're always taught that our own countries/peoples were the force for good in past wars, but it seems to me now that the victors are usually those who are prepared to plumb the deepest depths of depravity.
I don't know a lot about the Boer war, although again, it seems to me the British were the villains. Did the bittereinders ever consider an IRA type thing? That seemed to be pretty successful for a while.
I don't know a lot about the Boer war, although again, it seems to me the British were the villains. Did the bittereinders ever consider an IRA type thing? That seemed to be pretty successful for a while.
H
History should be an objective search for the truth, but instead we continue to see the distortion of history here in Australia.
The leftists dominate the mainstream media and also university faculties such as history. Is it any wonder that Australian history we're taught reflects the agenda of the Left.
Have you heard of historian Keith Windshuttle? He formerly believed the version of Aboriginal history that we are commonly taught here in Australia, until he was commissioned to do research on it. After his research he changed his view as the evidence contradicted what we have all been taught.
For example, the alleged "stolen generation" were actually victims of child abuse, neglect, etc.
Sadly, history is often just a political tool for political gain.
The leftists dominate the mainstream media and also university faculties such as history. Is it any wonder that Australian history we're taught reflects the agenda of the Left.
Have you heard of historian Keith Windshuttle? He formerly believed the version of Aboriginal history that we are commonly taught here in Australia, until he was commissioned to do research on it. After his research he changed his view as the evidence contradicted what we have all been taught.
For example, the alleged "stolen generation" were actually victims of child abuse, neglect, etc.
Sadly, history is often just a political tool for political gain.
What a load of rationalizations, trying to make Republican ideology fit with the bible.
Jesus specifically spoke against self-defense, telling people to love their enemies and simply allow their enemies to strike both cheeks. When put in such a situation himself where a crowd was going to push him off a cliff, he didn't touch them.
Oh ye of little faith, who believe that you have angels guarding you and an omnipotent God watching over you, and yet you only see the defense that you provide yourself. What a great testimony to unbelievers, guys.
Jesus specifically spoke against self-defense, telling people to love their enemies and simply allow their enemies to strike both cheeks. When put in such a situation himself where a crowd was going to push him off a cliff, he didn't touch them.
Oh ye of little faith, who believe that you have angels guarding you and an omnipotent God watching over you, and yet you only see the defense that you provide yourself. What a great testimony to unbelievers, guys.
M
I think you're misunderstanding the context. Certainly, I support turning the other cheek. However, the context is the enemy striking one on one's right cheek. Not the enemy attacking one with a sword, or the enemy striking one's innocent neighbour. At one stage, Jesus even commanded his disciples to take swords (selling their cloaks if necessary to buy one). For what purpose is a sword, but protection of one's self and one's loved ones from murderers?
Scripture must be read in context with scripture. Loving one's enemies does not mean letting the innocent, or even yourself, be walked over by murdering scoundrels. God expects the righteous to stand up for the widow and the fatherless.
Scripture must be read in context with scripture. Loving one's enemies does not mean letting the innocent, or even yourself, be walked over by murdering scoundrels. God expects the righteous to stand up for the widow and the fatherless.
Hmmm, automobiles kill more people each year than guns, maybe we need to ban cars. Do you know what kills approximately twice as many people a year than cars? Medical malpractice. Let's start by banning doctors.
This gets rather silly doesn't it? What really needs changed is human nature. What we really need to do is pray for the Kingdom of God to come...
Mat 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Mat 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
Notice that after praising the Father our first request is for the Kingdom to come? Gun violence is not the issue, it is a symptom. What we need is this...
Isa 11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.
This gets rather silly doesn't it? What really needs changed is human nature. What we really need to do is pray for the Kingdom of God to come...
Mat 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Mat 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
Notice that after praising the Father our first request is for the Kingdom to come? Gun violence is not the issue, it is a symptom. What we need is this...
Isa 11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.