-
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.
- Status
This question often comes up in debates over self defense. IMO it's comparing apples to oranges. The persecution of the early church as we see it in the scriptures was at the hands of the civil authorities. If it becomes illegal to be a Christian I will gladly die for my faith rather than turn my back on my Lord, however in the case of criminal brutality i will stand my ground.
Also, have you guys seen that news recently about Central African Republic?
Where a Christian mob decided to retaliate against victimization?
Victimized Christians Take Revenge in Central African Republic; Man Eats Muslim After Christian Mob Attack
It's worth reading.
EDIT- This may probably deserve another thread if people want to be contentious about this. However, I wouldn't enter that. It's very late here in India.
It's also our Republic Day. Happy Republic Day to all my fellow Indians
Where a Christian mob decided to retaliate against victimization?
Victimized Christians Take Revenge in Central African Republic; Man Eats Muslim After Christian Mob Attack
It's worth reading.
EDIT- This may probably deserve another thread if people want to be contentious about this. However, I wouldn't enter that. It's very late here in India.
It's also our Republic Day. Happy Republic Day to all my fellow Indians
Last edited:
The apostles were not martyred on the day of pentecost where everyone was gathered. But in various countries that they ended up preaching the Gospel. Some historical study and using a map of where they were Martyred would help you a great deal to get a better picture of scripture, timelines, environments and people involved in various historical events recorded.
M
Because God had a greater plan for him, God always offers a chance for a person to turn around.
Usually right before being forced to remove them from the situation, (reference Balaam as well)
We also desire mercy rather than sacrifice, If That be Possible
Who places the ones in authority, man or God?
Who is one to assert that citizens have no authority over their own life or the well-being of their own family?
Who assigned David or any number of willing men called to Gods purpose as servants of good under his authority?
The argument for gun control seems to be that the availability of guns causes crime. By extension, the availability of any weapon would have to be viewed as a cause of crime. What does the Bible say about such a view?
Perhaps we should start at the beginning, or at least very close to the beginning—in Genesis 4. In this chapter, we read about the first murder. Cain had offered an unacceptable sacrifice and Cain was upset that God insisted that he do the right thing. In other words, Cain was upset in the mind due to improper motives.
Cain decided to kill his brother rather than get right with God. There were no guns available, although there may well have been a weapon of some sort. Whether a knife or a rock or his fist, the Bible does not say. The point is, the evil in Cain’s heart was the cause of the murder, not the availability of the murder weapon.
God’s response was not to ban rocks or knives, or whatever, but to banish the murderer.
Many people, Christians included, assume that Christ taught pacifism. They cite Matthew 5:38-39 for their proof. In this verse Christ said: "You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."
The Sermon on the Mount from which this passage is taken deals with righteous personal conduct. In this passage, Christ is clearing up a confusion that had led people to think that conduct proper-
is, taking vengeance—He was clearing up that it is not.
The choice of words used by Christ indicates that He was addressing a confusion, or a distortion, that was commonplace at the time. Several times in the rest of the Sermon on the Mount, Christ used this same
"you have heard it said"
figure of speech to straighten out misunderstandings or falsehoods being taught by the religious leaders of the time.
Contrast this to Christ’s use of the phrase "it is written" when He was appealing to the Scriptures for authority (for example, see Matthew 4 where on three occasions during His temptation by the devil, Christ answered each one of the devil’s lies or misquotes from Scripture with the words:
"it is written").
To further emphasize the point that Christ was correcting the religious leaders( as sometimes leaders need correcting) on their teaching that "an eye for an eye" applies to private revenge.
Consider that in the same sermon, Christ strongly condemned false teaching: "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. . ." (Mt. 5:19).
Clearly, then, Christ was not teaching something different about self-defense than is taught elsewhere in the Bible.
Otherwise, He would be contradicting Himself in instructing his disciples to purchase swords, for He would now be teaching men to break one of the commandments.
The reference to "an eye for an eye" was taken from Exodus 21:24-25, which deals with how the magistrate must deal with a crime.
---Namely, the punishment must fit the crime. If it is excessive it is wrong. Christ own death being the perfect example of excessive corporal punishment that was unjustified and unfitting since no crime was even committed.
The religious leaders of Christ’s day had twisted a passage that applied to the government and misused it as a principle of personal revenge.
---THIS is why Rachel, I made mention that if one actually DESERVES their punishment,
To accept it and turn the other cheek without fighting back.
This is different than individual self-defense in a physical context.
Without fighting back and accepting ones punishment by those in authority also sets up the stage for accepting the authority of Gods punishment without fighting back or being rebellious.
Christ is saying not to take vengeance, against justice.
Also if a lesson or point can be made by showing peace in extreme circumstances. He desires mercy not sacrifice, I agree.
So why pray tell...did Christ instruct some to sell their cloak to purchase a sword?
It wasn't to hang over the mantle.
Stephen's death was the death of a martyr. Not all are called to be a Martyr.
What I'm trying to help people understand is peace if possible.
But--- there are some called to ensure the peace of others as well as themselves
As well as for their own family, also within the biblical context of providing for their own family because lets face it.
If one is dead you can no longer provide for your children or wife or husband right?
You have a right to the life God gave you.
That's what I'm trying to help some realize.
It's not city or country specific but a worldwide right, which is so fundamental it shouldn't even have to be fought for.
LIBERTY- the quality individuals have to control their own actions. Should not have to be fought for.
If one wishes to die for Godly cause, I am all for it, and I do greatly respect anyone's position of promoting peace. If at all possible.
I have turned the cheek many times in the name of mercy, taking more than I deserve to help promote peacefully understanding and a person to reconsider their actions in arresting a situation. Often in the defense of another being subject to physical harm.
For instance Having a shotgun pointed at you from a guy hopped up on crank that is attacking your girlfriend doesn't settle well when you have no other means of defending yourself at the time than your words.
Just for the sake of argument Rachel, lets put this into the scenario of if you and I were dating, and an attacker did the same to you, would you have me sit idle by and say, "that's strong of you to be willing to be attacked so peacefully"
Lol I'm going to do what needs to be done and accept God's judgement for such. Sorry I'm not called to be one to sit down and watch it happen. Mainly because it would hurt me inside to see a fellow sister attacked by an evil person.
Through the course of life and situations and much experience, God showed me that both that there are times to not resort to mortal harm, and there are times when having yourself a form of backup insurance is justified, especially when your loved one is being attacked.
Sorry Rachel I'm not going to advocate allowing a loved one to be subject to such things while I sit there and say
"allllll right thats is it!!! Im calling the police!"
When we are perfectly capable of arresting said situation at the time when witnessing it.
Let us relate this back to Jesus
It's difficult to imagine Jesus telling his disciples to buy swords if he didn't expect them to use them, considering that he would soon state,
". . . for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword."
In explaining that one who carry's or takes up or lives by a sword would die by the sword, did Jesus say it is against his word to have a sword though? No, and when he told one of his followers who cut the ear off the soldier
"'Put your sword back in its place,' Jesus said to him, 'for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.'
Jesus did not instruct him to throw away his sword, but more that it was not needed at that time for that particular circumstance.
At the time of Jesus' capture,....Jesus never intended any resistance to his capture, nor to allow such a weapon to be used on the occasion. He had a purpose to fulfill. Resisting would only prolong Gods plan.
But when Jesus was no longer with them, their journey would not be temporary. They would need certain provisions, including a knife for preparation of food, cutting wood for fuel, and possibly as sword to fend off robbers for which the area was noted. So, once Jesus' ordeal was over, they should make sure they each had some form of protection.
Because Jesus was no longer with them physically.
As Harpy so well noted...Some are called to know how to use a weapon and do so tactfully and efficiently, some are not capable, nor were called to by God.
Some are called to be an Olympian Gold medalist, some are not.
Some are called to die a Martyrs death, not all are.
Romans 13:4
For the one in authority is God's servant for your good.
It would stand to reason that servant must be on Gods side to be used for good.
Usually right before being forced to remove them from the situation, (reference Balaam as well)
We also desire mercy rather than sacrifice, If That be Possible
Who places the ones in authority, man or God?
Who is one to assert that citizens have no authority over their own life or the well-being of their own family?
Who assigned David or any number of willing men called to Gods purpose as servants of good under his authority?
The argument for gun control seems to be that the availability of guns causes crime. By extension, the availability of any weapon would have to be viewed as a cause of crime. What does the Bible say about such a view?
Perhaps we should start at the beginning, or at least very close to the beginning—in Genesis 4. In this chapter, we read about the first murder. Cain had offered an unacceptable sacrifice and Cain was upset that God insisted that he do the right thing. In other words, Cain was upset in the mind due to improper motives.
Cain decided to kill his brother rather than get right with God. There were no guns available, although there may well have been a weapon of some sort. Whether a knife or a rock or his fist, the Bible does not say. The point is, the evil in Cain’s heart was the cause of the murder, not the availability of the murder weapon.
God’s response was not to ban rocks or knives, or whatever, but to banish the murderer.
Many people, Christians included, assume that Christ taught pacifism. They cite Matthew 5:38-39 for their proof. In this verse Christ said: "You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."
The Sermon on the Mount from which this passage is taken deals with righteous personal conduct. In this passage, Christ is clearing up a confusion that had led people to think that conduct proper-
is, taking vengeance—He was clearing up that it is not.
The choice of words used by Christ indicates that He was addressing a confusion, or a distortion, that was commonplace at the time. Several times in the rest of the Sermon on the Mount, Christ used this same
"you have heard it said"
figure of speech to straighten out misunderstandings or falsehoods being taught by the religious leaders of the time.
Contrast this to Christ’s use of the phrase "it is written" when He was appealing to the Scriptures for authority (for example, see Matthew 4 where on three occasions during His temptation by the devil, Christ answered each one of the devil’s lies or misquotes from Scripture with the words:
"it is written").
To further emphasize the point that Christ was correcting the religious leaders( as sometimes leaders need correcting) on their teaching that "an eye for an eye" applies to private revenge.
Consider that in the same sermon, Christ strongly condemned false teaching: "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. . ." (Mt. 5:19).
Clearly, then, Christ was not teaching something different about self-defense than is taught elsewhere in the Bible.
Otherwise, He would be contradicting Himself in instructing his disciples to purchase swords, for He would now be teaching men to break one of the commandments.
The reference to "an eye for an eye" was taken from Exodus 21:24-25, which deals with how the magistrate must deal with a crime.
---Namely, the punishment must fit the crime. If it is excessive it is wrong. Christ own death being the perfect example of excessive corporal punishment that was unjustified and unfitting since no crime was even committed.
The religious leaders of Christ’s day had twisted a passage that applied to the government and misused it as a principle of personal revenge.
---THIS is why Rachel, I made mention that if one actually DESERVES their punishment,
To accept it and turn the other cheek without fighting back.
This is different than individual self-defense in a physical context.
Without fighting back and accepting ones punishment by those in authority also sets up the stage for accepting the authority of Gods punishment without fighting back or being rebellious.
Christ is saying not to take vengeance, against justice.
Also if a lesson or point can be made by showing peace in extreme circumstances. He desires mercy not sacrifice, I agree.
So why pray tell...did Christ instruct some to sell their cloak to purchase a sword?
It wasn't to hang over the mantle.
Stephen's death was the death of a martyr. Not all are called to be a Martyr.
What I'm trying to help people understand is peace if possible.
But--- there are some called to ensure the peace of others as well as themselves
As well as for their own family, also within the biblical context of providing for their own family because lets face it.
If one is dead you can no longer provide for your children or wife or husband right?
You have a right to the life God gave you.
That's what I'm trying to help some realize.
It's not city or country specific but a worldwide right, which is so fundamental it shouldn't even have to be fought for.
LIBERTY- the quality individuals have to control their own actions. Should not have to be fought for.
If one wishes to die for Godly cause, I am all for it, and I do greatly respect anyone's position of promoting peace. If at all possible.
I have turned the cheek many times in the name of mercy, taking more than I deserve to help promote peacefully understanding and a person to reconsider their actions in arresting a situation. Often in the defense of another being subject to physical harm.
For instance Having a shotgun pointed at you from a guy hopped up on crank that is attacking your girlfriend doesn't settle well when you have no other means of defending yourself at the time than your words.
Just for the sake of argument Rachel, lets put this into the scenario of if you and I were dating, and an attacker did the same to you, would you have me sit idle by and say, "that's strong of you to be willing to be attacked so peacefully"
Lol I'm going to do what needs to be done and accept God's judgement for such. Sorry I'm not called to be one to sit down and watch it happen. Mainly because it would hurt me inside to see a fellow sister attacked by an evil person.
Through the course of life and situations and much experience, God showed me that both that there are times to not resort to mortal harm, and there are times when having yourself a form of backup insurance is justified, especially when your loved one is being attacked.
Sorry Rachel I'm not going to advocate allowing a loved one to be subject to such things while I sit there and say
"allllll right thats is it!!! Im calling the police!"
When we are perfectly capable of arresting said situation at the time when witnessing it.
Let us relate this back to Jesus
It's difficult to imagine Jesus telling his disciples to buy swords if he didn't expect them to use them, considering that he would soon state,
". . . for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword."
In explaining that one who carry's or takes up or lives by a sword would die by the sword, did Jesus say it is against his word to have a sword though? No, and when he told one of his followers who cut the ear off the soldier
"'Put your sword back in its place,' Jesus said to him, 'for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.'
Jesus did not instruct him to throw away his sword, but more that it was not needed at that time for that particular circumstance.
At the time of Jesus' capture,....Jesus never intended any resistance to his capture, nor to allow such a weapon to be used on the occasion. He had a purpose to fulfill. Resisting would only prolong Gods plan.
But when Jesus was no longer with them, their journey would not be temporary. They would need certain provisions, including a knife for preparation of food, cutting wood for fuel, and possibly as sword to fend off robbers for which the area was noted. So, once Jesus' ordeal was over, they should make sure they each had some form of protection.
Because Jesus was no longer with them physically.
As Harpy so well noted...Some are called to know how to use a weapon and do so tactfully and efficiently, some are not capable, nor were called to by God.
Some are called to be an Olympian Gold medalist, some are not.
Some are called to die a Martyrs death, not all are.
Romans 13:4
For the one in authority is God's servant for your good.
It would stand to reason that servant must be on Gods side to be used for good.
Last edited:
1
Your train of logic is very much beyond me Sir.
This implies this, that implies that. We should be this and not that. I am kind of a simple person.
This is what Jesus said
Matthew 11:29
Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
The yoke of carrying a gun is too much for me.
Well I don't claim to know the heart of every person. That's why I ask questions about people, curious about their integrity etc. It's usually highly offensive.
Again your train of thought is far advanced.
Should Christians support justice? Yes. Are they supposed to submit to the authorities? Yes. Then a Christian who doesn't stop a woman from being attacked by a rapist is not following the Word of God.
Is it impossible to do that, without using a gun to kill someone?
That is my question to you.
This implies this, that implies that. We should be this and not that. I am kind of a simple person.
This is what Jesus said
Matthew 11:29
Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
The yoke of carrying a gun is too much for me.
Well I don't claim to know the heart of every person. That's why I ask questions about people, curious about their integrity etc. It's usually highly offensive.
Again your train of thought is far advanced.
Should Christians support justice? Yes. Are they supposed to submit to the authorities? Yes. Then a Christian who doesn't stop a woman from being attacked by a rapist is not following the Word of God.
Is it impossible to do that, without using a gun to kill someone?
That is my question to you.
Maybe for you carrying a gun is a heavy yoke.
But for others enduring a sexual assault would be a heavy yoke.
Part of the easy yoke, and light burden may be the option to own and use a gun which can repel the heavy yoke of a sexual assault.
Indeed there are other options.
But does presence of other options negate the other option that can repel the heavy yoke of a sexual assault?
Pepper spray may fail, but I doubt anyone would say no pepper spray because it fails.
A taser may fail, but i doubt many would say no taser because they fail.
Likewise, yes guns may not work 100%, but surely we can't deny that option which can prevent the heavy yoke of a sexual assault.
Absolutely there were, Christ was crucified between two thieves.
It is commonly believed that Saul was a member of the Sanhedrin (the Jewish civil authority). He was present at the stoning of Stephan by the Sanhedrin (Acts7), imprisoned believers (Acts 8), and was enroute to Damascus with letters from the High Priest authorizing him to imprison converts (Acts 9) when he was confronted by Christ. The last time I checked a private citizen cannot "imprison" someone, only someone who acts under the authority of the civil authority.
It is commonly believed that Saul was a member of the Sanhedrin (the Jewish civil authority). He was present at the stoning of Stephan by the Sanhedrin (Acts7), imprisoned believers (Acts 8), and was enroute to Damascus with letters from the High Priest authorizing him to imprison converts (Acts 9) when he was confronted by Christ. The last time I checked a private citizen cannot "imprison" someone, only someone who acts under the authority of the civil authority.
M
Simply put, one has the right to defend themselves in various manners, whether it be:
privately between 2
in court before a judge
or physically in a confrontation
---regardless of what anybody else may "lead you to believe"
God gives and asserts this right including on judgement day in heaven when each person will give their account before the Father
Peace out
privately between 2
in court before a judge
or physically in a confrontation
---regardless of what anybody else may "lead you to believe"
God gives and asserts this right including on judgement day in heaven when each person will give their account before the Father
Peace out
D
Praus you and I are men, we are not God, neither of us can see the others heart. If you had understood the verse I quoted you would have recognized that what it tell's us, is that the Lord looks at the heart, not outward appearances. As humans we all fall short, and as men we see where ourselves and others fall short but that does not mean their heart cannot be in the right place. Now I don’t know for sure how long you have been saved but based on you saying in an earlier post you were not saved yet in 2006 it is reasonable to believe it has been less then 8 years. Concerning Rachel20 her profile says she was born again at the age of 13 and is now 20 years old. So in both cases that would mean both of you are relatively young in Christ. None of us have a perfect understanding of Scripture. We don’t instantly understand all of Scripture the moment we are born again. Scripture tells us to study to shew ourselves approved rightly dividing the word of truth. Hopefully the longer we sudy the word, the better our understanding will become. Should I expect some one like you and Rachel20 to have a better understanding then another believer who has been studying for say 15, 30 or 45 years? It’s certainly possible but unlikely. I know that my knowledge and understanding of the word has increased with the years and many of the views I held 10, 15 even 20 years ago have changed and suspect yours and Rachel20’s views will change too as you grow in the Lord. So as I said before as you are led friend, as you are led. If it is the Holy Spirit leading then hopefully as you mature in Christ your understanding will grow just as I hope mine will grow with continuing study. If you or I are not being led by the holy spirit then I shudder to think what the consequences will be. It isn’t for me to know, who will be saved I am not the judge, Christ is. It is my responsibity to work out my own salvation in fear and trembling (Php2:12) and Christ will decide if I am worthy.
Clearly you and Rachel20 have made up your minds and are choosing not to listen to others who have used various methods to show that a firearm is just a tool, that when used properly can be a deterrent to crime (in this case rape). Scripture instructs us that if one does not want to hear our words to shake the dust off our feet and move on. So I think I will join my friend AOK, shake the dust off my feet and move on.
As you are led friend, as you are led!
**begins to question Elizabeth's mental stability
we should begin to question our own seein we agree with her.
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[SUP][1][/SUP] by posting inflammatory,[SUP][2][/SUP] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[SUP][5][/SUP] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[SUP][6][/SUP]
Does this mean we just acted in a trollish manner?
1
In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[SUP][1][/SUP] by posting inflammatory,[SUP][2][/SUP] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[SUP][5][/SUP] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[SUP][6][/SUP]
Does this mean we just acted in a trollish manner?
Does this mean we just acted in a trollish manner?
- Status