The Sin of Pacifism

[elf3]

OK now I might be wrong but if two or more people are taking different sides on a subject it would be defined as a debate. Whether it's God's Word or the color of blue.

Doesn't negate the problem of you not reading all the posts because they don't fit your criteria. You only argue points you think you can refute.

Oh wait you do read all the posts that back up your thinking. And I know that because I have seen you respond to those and ignore others against you.

You see the name and read or don't read.

 

[dcontroversal]

OK now I might be wrong but if two or more people are taking different sides on a subject it would be defined as a debate. Whether it's God's Word or the color of blue.

Doesn't negate the problem of you not reading all the posts because they don't fit your criteria. You only argue points you think you can refute.

Oh wait you do read all the posts that back up your thinking. And I know that because I have seen you respond to those and ignore others against you.

You see the name and read or don't read.

Par for the course with him...he has FAILED to give three sets of verses in context that teach a condemnation for a man who defends a child that results in the death of the offender......He has rejected the O.T. principles even though PETER tells us to be MINDFUL of the words spoken by the holy prophets and he pleads ignorance and or disappears when his posts and our rebuttals make him look foolish, while claiming God and the angels can use deadly force, but we as the CHILDREN of GOD (who are to be like God) cannot use it if it is called for. Pretty much tells the whole story for sure!

 

[elf3]

Par for the course with him...he has FAILED to give three sets of verses in context that teach a condemnation for a man who defends a child that results in the death of the offender......He has rejected the O.T. principles even though PETER tells us to be MINDFUL of the words spoken by the holy prophets and he pleads ignorance and or disappears when his posts and our rebuttals make him look foolish, while claiming God and the angels can use deadly force, but we as the CHILDREN of GOD (who are to be like God) cannot use it if it is called for. Pretty much tells the whole story for sure!

For sure true. It just amazes me how he actually admits he doesn't read all the posts yet claims to know the truth.

"Sorry officer I didn't study that rule of the road...it didn't fit my criteria"

"Sorry Jesus I didn't read that moral law as it didn't fit my criteria"

Huh? Can that actually work? LOL!!!!!

 

[Jason0047]

Jesus taught and changed the meaning of some of the OT morals of sin.
Adultery in the OT was looked at as just the physical act, Jesus said in the NT that if you lust in your heart you commit adultery. He did not do away, He changed how they understood it. Just like hatred, He said was murder.

No, God destroyed the Earth with a global flood because....

"And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Genesis 6:5).

Like I said the moral values of right and wrong still apply very much. They were never done away with, so the OT moral values still apply. If they did not you could still go and murder, steal, lie, and so forth with no consequences.
Good news is we have a Lord and Savior who will forgive us of those sins if we repent and turn from doing them, and ask forgiveness of them. If you don't repent and turn from them asking forgiveness of them, then you are not forgiven.

I don't disagree with what you said above here.

There is no other spiritual swords available to the disciples back then accept Jesus ( The Word ) and the Torah and books of the prophets. Neither one could they buy. And if it was the Torah or books of the prophets mentioned then a time to kill that you don't like in Ecclesiastes would still apply.

Jesus' followers had Scripture. They were intimately familar with it.

For Jesus walked with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, and opened their hearts to the understanding of the Scriptures (Luke 24:32).

Paul said to Timothy that he grew up knowing the holy scriptures as children (2 Timothy 3:15). Was Paul lying?

Philip was able to recognize the passage from Isaiah that the Ethiopian Enuch was reading.

Jesus wanted his disciples to trust in the written Word of God.

For even Paul essentially said that what he wrote was to be considered the Lord's commandments (1 Corinthians 14:37).

Besides that makes no since that them taking two physical swords, Jesus waiting tell later to rebuke them for it just does not fit. If He was against that, He could have stopped them before going to the garden.

Jesus did not explain his entire plan of redemption before going to the cross and made sure they understood it. It was no different with this example either. Jesus rebuke came later with Peter. You have itching ears about what Jesus said. He said for them ALL to buy a sword. Not some of them. ALL of them. But they didn't do that. And when Peter used that sword, Jesus rebuked Peter and said he that lives by the sword shall die by the sword. That was part of the lesson in Jesus telling them to buy a sword. He wanted to show them that they were thinking physically and not spiritually. For Jesus said to Peter that He could have called down a ton of angels to protect himself. Paul confirms what Jesus teaches. He said the weapons of our warefare are not carnal. But you think there are exceptions to what Jesus and Paul teach within Scripture. If so, where does the New Testament teach that exception?

 

[elf3]

No, God destroyed the Earth with a global flood because....

"And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Genesis 6:5).



I don't disagree with what you said above here.



Jesus' followers had Scripture. They were intimately familar with it.

For Jesus walked with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, and opened their hearts to the understanding of the Scriptures (Luke 24:32).

Paul said to Timothy that he grew up knowing the holy scriptures as children (2 Timothy 3:15). Was Paul lying?

Philip was able to recognize the passage from Isaiah that the Ethiopian Enuch was reading.

Jesus wanted his disciples to trust in the written Word of God.

For even Paul essentially said that what he wrote was to be considered the Lord's commandments (1 Corinthians 14:37).



Jesus did not explain his entire plan of redemption before going to the cross and made sure they understood it. It was no different with this example either. Jesus rebuke came later with Peter. You have itching ears about what Jesus said. He said for them ALL to buy a sword. Not some of them. ALL of them. But they didn't do that. And when Peter used that sword, Jesus rebuked Peter and said he that lives by the sword shall die by the sword. That was part of the lesson in Jesus telling them to buy a sword. He wanted to show them that they were thinking physically and not spiritually. For Jesus said to Peter that He could have called down a ton of angels to protect himself. Paul confirms what Jesus teaches. He said the weapons of our warefare are not carnal. But you think there are exceptions to what Jesus and Paul teach within Scripture. If so, where does the New Testament teach that exception?

This is actually mind boggling funny. You say we now live under the New Covenant yet here you defend the Old Covenant because it's what the disciples had during the time Jesus walked the earth.

Double talk is your way of defending your theology. It's funnily sad (is funnily a word? Well if not I just made a new word lol).

 

[Jason0047]

This is actually mind boggling funny. You say we now live under the New Covenant yet here you defend the Old Covenant because it's what the disciples had during the time Jesus walked the earth.

Double talk is your way of defending your theology. It's funnily sad (is funnily a word? Well if not I just made a new word lol).

There are many Commands and truths given to us in the New Covenant that line up with the Old Covenant. Jesus said the Scriptures testify of Himself (John 5:39). Meaning, the OT Scriptures also speak about Jesus, too. The stories, the prophecies, the Law, all point to Jesus. The Old was a shadow of what was to come. Jesus and New Covenant in Him.

For do you not know that there are OT commands that conflict with NT commands?

We can now eat unclean animals. Yet the Jew could not eat unclean animals according to the Law.
The OT saint sacrificed animals. Yet the Temple veil is torn and the Temple was later destroyed. There is no more priesthood anymore. The Law was for the Israelties.

 

[elf3]

No jason, the work of Christ did away with OT ceremonial law so you cannot use that any more. All of the OT moral laws are still in effect. If you try to use any OT ceremonial law to prove your point it is null and void.

 

[Ecclesiastik]

I just read one guy bragging about how he would have punched someone for attempting to rape his sister and how he would have felt it for 20 years. I just read another guy talking about throwing a rock through someone's car window in revenge.

The fruits of the flesh are manifest in this supposed self-defense movement. In actuality, it is a movement justifying a lack of faith in God to respond in a moment of crisis and justifying gratifying the flesh with what the flesh strongly wants to do--to lash out in violence and in revenge for anyone even daring to assault them or their family.

This is not a self defense movement anymore than the gay rights movement is a rights movement. It is simply a fluffy name given to hide ulterior, evil purposes. Gratification of the flesh.

When you seek to please the flesh more than the Spirit, you grieve Him. Don't you notice the pride in your own words and actions? Ignore me. Examine your own actions and words. Forget me. You'll probably never meet me in this life. Just take a moment and just reflect if you are walking in the Spirit by casting stones and bragging upon punching a dude's nose in.

This persuasion does not call from Him who calls you. I ask you, who does this persuasion come from if not from Christ? There is only one other source left.

 

[Jason0047]

No jason, the work of Christ did away with OT ceremonial law so you cannot use that any more. All of the OT moral laws are still in effect. If you try to use any OT ceremonial law to prove your point it is null and void.

I am happy that you understand that the New Testament replaces the Old Testament as an authorative package. I also believe moral laws are eternal and that the ceremonial laws have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ, too. The only difference is that we disagree on whether or not the Law of self defense mentioned in the OT has been carried over into the NT or not. I do not see a repeat of this command and or even a quick mention of it in the NT. For surely if it was important, then it would surely be in the New Testament, right?

 

[Jason0047]

I just read one guy bragging about how he would have punched someone for attempting to rape his sister and how he would have felt it for 20 years. I just read another guy talking about throwing a rock through someone's car window in revenge.

The fruits of the flesh are manifest in this supposed self-defense movement. In actuality, it is a movement justifying a lack of faith in God to respond in a moment of crisis and justifying gratifying the flesh with what the flesh strongly wants to do--to lash out in violence and in revenge for anyone even daring to assault them or their family.

This is not a self defense movement anymore than the gay rights movement is a rights movement. It is simply a fluffy name given to hide ulterior, evil purposes. Gratification of the flesh.

When you seek to please the flesh more than the Spirit, you grieve Him. Don't you notice the pride in your own words and actions? Ignore me. Examine your own actions and words. Forget me. You'll probably never meet me in this life. Just take a moment and just reflect if you are walking in the Spirit by casting stones and bragging upon punching a dude's nose in.

This persuasion does not call from Him who calls you. I ask you, who does this persuasion come from if not from Christ? There is only one other source left.

1 John 4:7-11
"Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Sonto be the propitiation for our sins. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us."

 

[Ella85]

*crickets chirping*

 

[blue_ladybug]

UNWELCOME is the key word here..

 

[Jason0047]

OK now I might be wrong but if two or more people are taking different sides on a subject it would be defined as a debate. Whether it's God's Word or the color of blue.

Doesn't negate the problem of you not reading all the posts because they don't fit your criteria. You only argue points you think you can refute.

Oh wait you do read all the posts that back up your thinking. And I know that because I have seen you respond to those and ignore others against you.

You see the name and read or don't read.

First, we are here to discuss the Bible because we are on a Bible discussion portion of an online Christian forum. In other words, not disussing the Bible would be an off topic discussion. Second, 2 Timothy 3:16 says that all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, correction, and training in righteousness so that the man of God may be perfect and furnished unto all good works. The Bereans confirmed the spoken Word of God with the written Word of God (Acts 17:11). In other words, if you are not using the Bible in your debate, then there is no real purpose in reading or replying. For let God be true, and let every man be a liar (Romans 3:4).

 

[Billyd]

Jason, do you believe that God answers your prayers?

John14:13 And whatever you may ask in My name, that I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

If you are attempting to assault anyone who is incapable of defending themselves in front of me, I will grab the closest weapon to me and ask this brief prayer. Lord God, if what I am about to do be in your will, make my aim strait and true, amen. Then I am going to act. I know that if my planned action is not in God's will, I will not be able to do it. It's called Faith Brother.

I hope that you will have enough Faith to act in his will.

 

[dcontroversal]

I just read one guy bragging about how he would have punched someone for attempting to rape his sister and how he would have felt it for 20 years. I just read another guy talking about throwing a rock through someone's car window in revenge.

The fruits of the flesh are manifest in this supposed self-defense movement. In actuality, it is a movement justifying a lack of faith in God to respond in a moment of crisis and justifying gratifying the flesh with what the flesh strongly wants to do--to lash out in violence and in revenge for anyone even daring to assault them or their family.

This is not a self defense movement anymore than the gay rights movement is a rights movement. It is simply a fluffy name given to hide ulterior, evil purposes. Gratification of the flesh.

When you seek to please the flesh more than the Spirit, you grieve Him. Don't you notice the pride in your own words and actions? Ignore me. Examine your own actions and words. Forget me. You'll probably never meet me in this life. Just take a moment and just reflect if you are walking in the Spirit by casting stones and bragging upon punching a dude's nose in.

This persuasion does not call from Him who calls you. I ask you, who does this persuasion come from if not from Christ? There is only one other source left.

I am the one who stated the bolded above and if you are going to quote me do three things please...

1. get the quote right
2. get the context right
3. get over yourself

You and your pacifist buddy can disregard the word of God and the principles laid down therein all the day long and I will ask you like I have asked your pacifist buddy the same thing which he refuses to answer....

GIVE three sets of scriptures in context out of the N.T. that directly indicts and condemns a man for defending HIS SISTER or a child from a violent bloody man which results in the death of the offender and while you are rejecting the principles of the O.T. explain how stupid Peter must have been or maybe God made a mistake inspiring Peter to tell us to be MINDFUL of the WORDS laid down by the PROPHETS of old!

And to compare this to the gay rights movement is retarded and moronic at best!

 

[Jason0047]

Jason, do you believe that God answers your prayers?

John14:13 And whatever you may ask in My name, that I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

If you are attempting to assault anyone who is incapable of defending themselves in front of me, I will grab the closest weapon to me and ask this brief prayer. Lord God, if what I am about to do be in your will, make my aim strait and true, amen. Then I am going to act. I know that if my planned action is not in God's will, I will not be able to do it. It's called Faith Brother.

I hope that you will have enough Faith to act in his will.

Whatever you ask in God's name obviously does not appy to you doing anything sinful or in disobeying God's command not to love your enemies. While God is not against justice, because he uses the powers or authorities within nations to execute judgment, the New Testament believer is never commanded or given permission by Jesus or the apostles to use lethal force to defend yourself and or another as outlined in the New Testament (Hence, why nobody here has been able to give any clear New Testament examples for their belief). Now, it is true that in the Old Testament, God had sanctioned lethal force so as to destroy His enemies. But this is not the case anymore. For Jesus came not to judge but to save. We are under the age of grace.

 

[dcontroversal]

First, we are here to discuss the Bible because we are on a Bible discussion portion of an online Christian forum. In other words, not disussing the Bible would be an off topic discussion. Second, 2 Timothy 3:16 says that all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, correction, and training in righteousness so that the man of God may be perfect and furnished unto all good works. The Bereans confirmed the spoken Word of God with the written Word of God (Acts 17:11). In other words, if you are not using the Bible in your debate, then there is no real purpose in reading or replying. For let God be true, and let every man be a liar (Romans 3:4).

All scriptures except the ones you reject out of the O.T. that contradicts you stance?

 

[tourist]

I am the one who stated the bolded above and if you are going to quote me do three things please...

1. get the quote right
2. get the context right
3. get over yourself

You and your pacifist buddy can disregard the word of God and the principles laid down therein all the day long and I will ask you like I have asked your pacifist buddy the same thing which he refuses to answer....

GIVE three sets of scriptures in context out of the N.T. that directly indicts and condemns a man for defending HIS SISTER or a child from a violent bloody man which results in the death of the offender and while you are rejecting the principles of the O.T. explain how stupid Peter must have been or maybe God made a mistake inspiring Peter to tell us to be MINDFUL of the WORDS laid down by the PROPHETS of old!

And to compare this to the gay rights movement is retarded and moronic at best!

These people are pacifist because they do not have the warrior mentality that we have. Someone has to defend the woman and the children. I would not want a pacifist in a fox hole with me when it is time to lock and load and put your MI6 on rock and roll.

 

[JesusLives]

These people are pacifist because they do not have the warrior mentality that we have. Someone has to defend the woman and the children. I would not want a pacifist in a fox hole with me when it is time to lock and load and put your MI6 on rock and roll.

Derail....O Mighty Warrior I feel very safe with you and I like to rock and roll too.

 

[Jason0047]

All scriptures except the ones you reject out of the O.T. that contradicts you stance?

Peter was told by God to eat unclean animals, yet Peter knew according to OT Scripture that he was not supposed to do that, though. So is the OT Scripture in not eating unclean animals still apply? Is it profitable to you? If so, how is it profitable?