Make no mistake, I'm not on the fence. I'm against violence, hatred and the condemning of the innocent. I'm against it when radical Islam perpetrates it and I'm against it when so called "Christians" try to condemn 1.5 billion people for the actions of a few.
Rupert Murdoch: All Muslims must be held responsible for French attacks
- Thread starter David_1
- Start date
-
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.
O
oldernotwiser
Guest
A
AgeofKnowledge
Guest
What you said below is 100% your words NOT mine. You said them so you own them, I have nothing to do with them. How you managed to falsely misrepresent what I said so badly is despicable.
Certainly Christ has many titles but king of the militant pacifism is not one of them. That's a fake title liberals have invented.
Now Christ is the Prince of Peace but read how he ultimately accomplishes that in Revelations 19:11-21. Understand? At the end of this age Christ leads a heavenly war party to destroy the anti-Christ, the false prophet, and the denizens of the world who have allied with them against God. That's how the Prince of Peace finally secures peace.
Yet He didn't mandate war to spread God's kingdom while He was here. The point: there is a sensible moral balance in Christianity which is seen clearly in contrasting and comparing scripture.
On one hand you have a gospel message exhorting peace among men and of good will (Lk 2.14) with brotherhood in Christ and sonship of God the Father. However, Christ warned His disciples that His Gospel would set men at variance in (Mt 10.34).
Christ blessed the peacemakers and rejected the lex talionis of an eye for an eye urging His followers to turn the other cheek, love enemies, do good to them that hate them, and pray for those that persecute (Mt 5.9, 38–39, 44).
But He did not condemn necessary and sensible use of physical force and, in fact, demonstrated it on more than one occasion including (Jn 2.14–16).
He did not judge the centurion (Lk 3.14) or his profession nor regard the military profession as an impediment to discipleship. In other words, Christ accepted Roman soldiers, their faith, and did not forbid them from killing people as members of the Romany military. Got it? That's not the behavior of a "militant pacifist."
But He certainly did set parameters. As Augustine points out, war should only be undertaken when necessary and always have as its goal the establishment of justice and the restoration of peace. It must be fought under the authority of the legitimate ruler and be conducted in a just manner.
So it's no surprise that Jesus demonstrated responsibility toward His disciples, knowing He was on His way to be with God the father, and permitted them swords. Obviously Jesus wasn't a negligent person preaching an ungodly "militant pacifism" that put everyone around Him at great risk for assault, robbery, rape, and murder.
Yet He was on a cosmic mission to reconcile humanity with God and, in His perfect wisdom, did not permit them to be used to prevent Him from accomplishing what He had come to do. In the process, he reminded us all that though the sword is useful, one who lives by it perishes by it (Mt 26.52) which history records is what happened to the Jewish zealots in the Great Revolt (66-70 CE).
The subsequent attitude of the Apostles to the use of force was similarly qualified. St. Paul wrote: ‘‘If it be possible, as far as in you lies, be at peace with all men’’ (Rom 12.18); yet he acknowledged the right and duty of rulers to wield the sword, as God’s ministers, in defense of the public good (Rom 13.4). So too Peter preached peace (1 Pt 3.8–11), but he baptized the centurion Cornelius without requiring him to seek another profession (Acts 10.47).
In fact, in the first three centuries of Christendom, military converts continued to serve. They killed people in military service as Christians and this and they were accepted in the early Christian church. Those who left military service after becoming Christians are recorded as doing so not from any conscientious objection to war as such but rather to avoid the idolatrous practices occurring in the Roman Army and to devote themselves more directly to the service of God. And Christians both killed in self-defense and were martyred during this period.
The latter is more interesting than is commonly understood for the English word martyr is derived from the Greek martys, which in the Christian tradition is to maintain one's “witness” to Christ. But this never equated to pacifism in the early church as some mistakenly believe today.
Christian martyrs sometimes died fighting and sometimes were put to death as captives. The one thing they all had in common was that they chose to die rather than renounce their Christian principles and commitment to Christ.
Now read this: Was Jesus a pacifist?
Certainly Christ has many titles but king of the militant pacifism is not one of them. That's a fake title liberals have invented.
Now Christ is the Prince of Peace but read how he ultimately accomplishes that in Revelations 19:11-21. Understand? At the end of this age Christ leads a heavenly war party to destroy the anti-Christ, the false prophet, and the denizens of the world who have allied with them against God. That's how the Prince of Peace finally secures peace.
Yet He didn't mandate war to spread God's kingdom while He was here. The point: there is a sensible moral balance in Christianity which is seen clearly in contrasting and comparing scripture.
On one hand you have a gospel message exhorting peace among men and of good will (Lk 2.14) with brotherhood in Christ and sonship of God the Father. However, Christ warned His disciples that His Gospel would set men at variance in (Mt 10.34).
Christ blessed the peacemakers and rejected the lex talionis of an eye for an eye urging His followers to turn the other cheek, love enemies, do good to them that hate them, and pray for those that persecute (Mt 5.9, 38–39, 44).
But He did not condemn necessary and sensible use of physical force and, in fact, demonstrated it on more than one occasion including (Jn 2.14–16).
He did not judge the centurion (Lk 3.14) or his profession nor regard the military profession as an impediment to discipleship. In other words, Christ accepted Roman soldiers, their faith, and did not forbid them from killing people as members of the Romany military. Got it? That's not the behavior of a "militant pacifist."
But He certainly did set parameters. As Augustine points out, war should only be undertaken when necessary and always have as its goal the establishment of justice and the restoration of peace. It must be fought under the authority of the legitimate ruler and be conducted in a just manner.
So it's no surprise that Jesus demonstrated responsibility toward His disciples, knowing He was on His way to be with God the father, and permitted them swords. Obviously Jesus wasn't a negligent person preaching an ungodly "militant pacifism" that put everyone around Him at great risk for assault, robbery, rape, and murder.
Yet He was on a cosmic mission to reconcile humanity with God and, in His perfect wisdom, did not permit them to be used to prevent Him from accomplishing what He had come to do. In the process, he reminded us all that though the sword is useful, one who lives by it perishes by it (Mt 26.52) which history records is what happened to the Jewish zealots in the Great Revolt (66-70 CE).
The subsequent attitude of the Apostles to the use of force was similarly qualified. St. Paul wrote: ‘‘If it be possible, as far as in you lies, be at peace with all men’’ (Rom 12.18); yet he acknowledged the right and duty of rulers to wield the sword, as God’s ministers, in defense of the public good (Rom 13.4). So too Peter preached peace (1 Pt 3.8–11), but he baptized the centurion Cornelius without requiring him to seek another profession (Acts 10.47).
In fact, in the first three centuries of Christendom, military converts continued to serve. They killed people in military service as Christians and this and they were accepted in the early Christian church. Those who left military service after becoming Christians are recorded as doing so not from any conscientious objection to war as such but rather to avoid the idolatrous practices occurring in the Roman Army and to devote themselves more directly to the service of God. And Christians both killed in self-defense and were martyred during this period.
The latter is more interesting than is commonly understood for the English word martyr is derived from the Greek martys, which in the Christian tradition is to maintain one's “witness” to Christ. But this never equated to pacifism in the early church as some mistakenly believe today.
Christian martyrs sometimes died fighting and sometimes were put to death as captives. The one thing they all had in common was that they chose to die rather than renounce their Christian principles and commitment to Christ.
Now read this: Was Jesus a pacifist?
Last edited:
S
Sirk
Guest
Fair enough....so if I wanna take from you I can be assured that you will just roll over for me in the name of peace?
You wouldn't defend him? Sad, you claim the idea of defending others, but in the end you are only willing to defend those who will defend themselves?
P
prodigal
Guest
[SUP]compare [/SUP]
for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.[SUP]
which gives this conclusion
[/SUP]
[SUP]Now clearly God upholds that the sword be used to "revenge" and execute wrath on the criminals... and those who go bring justice to these people are doing the work of God!
to the full quote..
addressed to the christians in rome
3 [/SUP]For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. [SUP]4 [/SUP]For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. [SUP]5 [/SUP]Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
always a blessings when a scripture is given in full . which gives quite a different conclusion
as we can see its an instruction that is addressed to believers in Rome to uphold the law of the land they are in or except the consequences from the governing bodies .
for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.[SUP]
which gives this conclusion
[/SUP]
[SUP]Now clearly God upholds that the sword be used to "revenge" and execute wrath on the criminals... and those who go bring justice to these people are doing the work of God!
to the full quote..
addressed to the christians in rome
3 [/SUP]For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. [SUP]4 [/SUP]For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. [SUP]5 [/SUP]Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
always a blessings when a scripture is given in full . which gives quite a different conclusion
as we can see its an instruction that is addressed to believers in Rome to uphold the law of the land they are in or except the consequences from the governing bodies .
Last edited:
M
Mitspa
Guest
You are assuming because I believe in justice that's is based on hate and that people who want to defend others want to kill? That's just silly logic! We know who hates and wants to kill...and you seem to want to uphold evil and condemn the righteous? No one here needs you to lecture us on your ideas of what is right before God...we know what is right and we know that love does not allow criminals to destroy the weak, love stands against such things and takes up the sword if need be to bring Gods justice upon such people.
S
Sirk
Guest
Nice try but you can't be a thief and an honest man at the same time.
Last edited:
M
Mitspa
Guest
So do you believe if God gives this warning to believers...its not true for all criminals? When it says in plan words that God has placed the sword in the hands of authority to do this very thing? Are these people criminals? Does God not say they should be punished by the sword?
M
Mitspa
Guest
I can't argue scripture with authority because I don't know it well enough, so prehaps you could clear a few things up.
"Matthew 5:38-42King James Version (KJV)
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
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.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
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;"
Now he specifically mentions that in contradiction to the idea of an eye for eye. Atleast as far as we are concerned, I understand vengeance to belong to God and God alone. Which brings me to revelations.
“Deuteronomy 32:35King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]35 [/SUP]To me belongeth vengeance and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.”
(Matthew 18:21-35)
14Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not. 15Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep. 16Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits. 17Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. 18If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. 19Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. 20Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. 21Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
As for what people have done in the name of Christ or as people calling themselves as followers of Christ have done it's often appalling. I hardly believe every person or church that claimed to follow Christ to be infallible.
The closest I see in your examples that God approves of us taking vengeance is that God himself does and will wield judgement over men in the form of the authority that belongs to him alone. But I'm sure I don't wield the power God does. That is you've given examples that in the end that judgement and vengeance will be ordained by him alone. Whatever he commands and army to do will be his decision, as it is of now, the new testament teaches against such actions and I see no where in your examples that contradicts the overwhelming message of it.
Anyway I've probably sounded more sure of this than I am. I am really just trying to learn and can't reconcile the little I know with what you teach.
Okay so I'll get to revelations after this but why is it such a stretch to call Jesus a militant pacifist based on the gospels? Again I'll ask about revelations after. So from the gospels, was his purpose not to become the word in the flesh as an example what is possible with God? Did he not reject the authorities at the time, in the form of the pharisees and rejected calls from those whom wanted him to free them from the Romans in the form of war? I'll quote the sermon on the mount.
"Matthew 5:38-42King James Version (KJV)
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
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.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
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;"
Now he specifically mentions that in contradiction to the idea of an eye for eye. Atleast as far as we are concerned, I understand vengeance to belong to God and God alone. Which brings me to revelations.
Now first of all doesn't Revelations 19:11-21 talk about Christ leading this war party by being the word of God and having a sword in his mouth? Now I don't take revelations literally and prehaps I'm mistaken but that particular verse sound more like he will conquer with truth in the form of the word of God. Now even if I am way off base there, is it not taught that vengeance belongs to God?
“Deuteronomy 32:35King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]35 [/SUP]To me belongeth vengeance and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.”
(Matthew 18:21-35)
14Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not. 15Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep. 16Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits. 17Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. 18If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. 19Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. 20Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. 21Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
But at what point does he condone man condemning man?
Again that's Gods own decree is it not? Vengeance belongs to him. He doesn't tell us in that scripture, that before end times are upon us, that we are to condemn one another.
He did not condone it either. He did not condemn Mary Magdalene for adultery but that doesn't mean he condoned adultery.
But did he permit them to take up arms in his or their own defence? The only evidence you've shown that he did, is prophecy about end times, the final judgement which belongs to God alone and will be ordained by him alone.
He reminded us that God's authority was present not that we are to take it upon ourselves to wield the sword and condemn our neighbours. The example you have given there is actually a warning that if you use the sword you shall perish by the sword is it not?
We believe in original sin, that this is a fallen world, that God has authority over us and over the final judgement of us. We don't claim there won't be hardships and that earth is as God wants it but I fail to see even from your examples where Christ commands men to judge one another or take up arms against other men. Sure we are told that authority exist from God but that is a long way away from commanding people to codemn one another.
As for what people have done in the name of Christ or as people calling themselves as followers of Christ have done it's often appalling. I hardly believe every person or church that claimed to follow Christ to be infallible.
The closest I see in your examples that God approves of us taking vengeance is that God himself does and will wield judgement over men in the form of the authority that belongs to him alone. But I'm sure I don't wield the power God does. That is you've given examples that in the end that judgement and vengeance will be ordained by him alone. Whatever he commands and army to do will be his decision, as it is of now, the new testament teaches against such actions and I see no where in your examples that contradicts the overwhelming message of it.
Anyway I've probably sounded more sure of this than I am. I am really just trying to learn and can't reconcile the little I know with what you teach.
P
prodigal
Guest
just personally i become weary of people that misquote scripture, we know who the letter was addressed to and it wasn't about dishing out punishment to the unsaved. so as for me i wont debate with you, i wouldn't consider it edifying or beneficial to either of us. i will correct misquoted scriptures when its so obviously manipulated out of context though.
M
Mitspa
Guest
W#hat do you think would have happened if they had not let His followers go when they arrested Him? And who do you think killed Anninias and saphira in the book of acts? Do you understand that Paul actually blinded people? And remember this is the Jesus that comes against His enemies....
Re 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
Re 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword.
God Has mercy in His heart but His hands work justice and mercy and justice both demands justice on these type of killers.
M
Mitspa
Guest
Nothing was taking out of context but the point was and is that God has ordained that criminals be brought to justice..and He has ordain authorities to be His ministers and given them a sword to "execute wrath upon those who do evil" Now the reason this scripture is important in this discussion is because some are claiming its ungodly to punish these criminals...when its clearly Gods will and is in agreement with God.
P
prodigal
Guest
as i said i wont debate,,, the scriptures up and conclusions given speak for themselves for anyone to read.
M
Mitspa
Guest
Love does not allow the weak to suffer at the hands of criminals...love set the slaves free after a great war...Love set the Jews free after a great war...love defends the little children from those that would destroy them...love defends the old and weak from street thugs that would rob and mistreat them....Love even killed people that came into the church to protect God flock from wolves....Yes love turns the other cheek but it don't close its eyes to criminals who destroy others.
K
kennethcadwell
Guest
There is a big difference in punishing though, and killing people !!!
And when it comes to wanting to punish them all, when only a few are doing the evil deeds is wrong.....
The Lord Jesus said that He requires us to have mercy on others, not to go out and just punish everybody you dislike.
Once again not all Muslims are guilty of these crimes, and not are even guilty of harboring them. So your debate is flawed and mute, as this was the whole march in France was all about.....
Muslims holding signs stating not in my name, meaning those who did these evil acts do not represent them. Standing side by side with Jews, Christians, and other races and religions against these evil radiclists......
M
Mitspa
Guest
Ok you go arrest them ...Im sure they will listen to all your logic and just stop killing people...and only a few days ago they showed large groups of muslims marching around in Paris and shouting "GAS THE JEWS"! GAS THE JEWS! This is exactly the same spirit of antichrist that the Nazis had...and anyone who thinks its not is just blind!
A
AgeofKnowledge
Guest
Ozmono, militant Pacifism is a term used to describe violent action toward a goal supposedly to prevent war or, the development or use of certain weapons of war. It was first coined in December 1941 when "militant pacifists" attacked several U.S. buildings to prevent the development of nuclear weapons.
A correct exegesis of scripture clearly shows that the church of Jesus Christ is not equitable with say the leftist Red December terrorist "militant pacifist" organization, for example. Jesus Christ never advocated "militant pacifism" and was not Himself a pacifist.
Pulling verses out of context and projecting leftist political ideologies onto them is disingenuous and does not change their correct meaning in context whatsoever.
But at least I see your honest enough to admit that you don't know the bible well nor take it literally. It's obvious that you mix whatever feels good or sounds good to you into what you're reading. But this has led you to make false assertions about what I said that aren't true as well as state false assertions of your own that aren't true.
Since I don't want to do that myself, I'll ask. Are you stating that sinful behavior is not already judged by God? Are you stating that anyone who takes action to protect themselves from the sinful behavior of another using whatever reasonable force is necessary to do so is condemning them?
The bible teaches us to hold people accountable for their words and behavior but not to pass final judgment on their soul as that's God's domain.
In fact, Jesus often judged the behavior of other people during His ministry on earth despite his exhortations regarding judging. In fact, in the end, He will judge all behavior of every person (Acts 10:42, Matthew 25, etc...).
I want you to read this article by pastor Skye Jethani as he explains the topic of judging and condemning quite well and given your ignorance with the topic; you need to read it before we can go any further:
What Did Jesus Mean by "Judge Not"? | PARSE
A correct exegesis of scripture clearly shows that the church of Jesus Christ is not equitable with say the leftist Red December terrorist "militant pacifist" organization, for example. Jesus Christ never advocated "militant pacifism" and was not Himself a pacifist.
Pulling verses out of context and projecting leftist political ideologies onto them is disingenuous and does not change their correct meaning in context whatsoever.
But at least I see your honest enough to admit that you don't know the bible well nor take it literally. It's obvious that you mix whatever feels good or sounds good to you into what you're reading. But this has led you to make false assertions about what I said that aren't true as well as state false assertions of your own that aren't true.
Since I don't want to do that myself, I'll ask. Are you stating that sinful behavior is not already judged by God? Are you stating that anyone who takes action to protect themselves from the sinful behavior of another using whatever reasonable force is necessary to do so is condemning them?
The bible teaches us to hold people accountable for their words and behavior but not to pass final judgment on their soul as that's God's domain.
In fact, Jesus often judged the behavior of other people during His ministry on earth despite his exhortations regarding judging. In fact, in the end, He will judge all behavior of every person (Acts 10:42, Matthew 25, etc...).
I want you to read this article by pastor Skye Jethani as he explains the topic of judging and condemning quite well and given your ignorance with the topic; you need to read it before we can go any further:
What Did Jesus Mean by "Judge Not"? | PARSE
Last edited:
M
Mitspa
Guest
If these guys had only been around to give Hitler a hug...the they could have saved all those millions he killed 