| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Padraic 
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
 Posted: October 12 2009 at 16:00 |
Well, I used to enjoy reading this thread. 
|
 |
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: October 12 2009 at 16:18 |
 Negoba wrote:
Read Matthew chapter five in this context: A disciple of Jesus may not make honor claims through boasts (Matt. 5:34-37), physical aggression (5:21) or sexual aggression (5:27-32). If a challenge to another’s honor had already been issued, the disciple must seek reconciliation (5:23-24) and settle with the challenger (5:25-26). If the disciple’s honor has been challenged, he may not make an insult (5:22), but should peaceably endure the humiliation (5:39-45; being slapped on the cheek in that culture was an insult, not an assault per se- it was as humiliating as being successfully sued in court or being forced to carry military gear a mile for the Romans). Even the hyperbole of plucking out one’s eye if it should offend you (5:29) speaks of honor more than physical maiming.
No, no it doesn't. It is an enormous stretch and far from scholarly (both devout and secular) interpretation of those passages. You try to defang Jesus of his greatest triumph, his supreme gift to the world!!!
43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
No matter what your interpretations of love and hate, it is clear that you are to afford your enemy and your brothers with equal outpouring of your innermost self. It is about internalizing an ethos of selflessness where you rejoice for the triumph of the other. It is not about honor it is about the self and its relationship to others. Which is the point of the passage!!!
As we continue to rebuild our nation from the blow it suffered almost a decade ago, we have a duty to protect it, using violence if necessary:
Are you out of your mind? This is not the statement of a Christian. This type of idea is exactly what Jesus was trying to get rid of. And no amount of exclusionary, cultish, cut and paste rationalization is going to change the fact that you are deluding yourself. LOVE YOUR ENEMY. PRAY FOR THOSE WHO HATE YOU. |
...
okay then...
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: October 12 2009 at 16:23 |
|
Perhaps I should have pointed out my sources:
Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew (Jerome H. Neyrey)
Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (Bruce J. Malina & Ronald L. Rohrbaugh)
The Cultural Dictionary of the Bible (John J. Pilch)
Christian Ethics: Opinions and Issues (Normal L. Geisler)
All of these should be available at Amazon.
Edited by Epignosis - October 12 2009 at 16:46
|
|
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: October 13 2009 at 12:02 |
Epignosis wrote:
It is a translation of an ancient document written in a completely different culture than ours. So it’s careless just to assume a verse that uses terms like “love” and “enemy” can be easily imported into our own cultural and linguistic milieu.
I agree with this, and the example used to illustrate it.
What Jesus was saying then, is that he (Christ) must be the primary recipient of a man’s attention and devotion if that man expects to be his disciple.
I see this as a valid interpretation though some disagree with Christ making such exclusionary claims for himself.
Christ came to make disciples and instruct his disciples (not the world at large) on how to follow him, which is without regret, without reservation, and without reticence (nice alliteration, eh?). Basically that means that if you have no wish to be Christ’s disciple, then he wasn’t talking to you.
This is where I start to have major trouble with the argument. This is a significant assumption about the role of Christ in the world, one that excludes the majority of humanity, including everyone living today. You are saying, and it is a controversial topic, that Jesus was talking to the inner circle, not the large circle. This is where things start to get dangerous.
The main drive of the sermon on the Mount, then is to show the disciples that they were to be focused on sharing the Gospel and not get wrapped up in the everyday petty squabbles and honor-battles ancient Near Eastern men engaged in. They were not to repay insult for insult or seek to increase their honor.
The only problem I have with this is "main." The sermon is about turning from many aspects of life as a potential disciple knew it. Honor being an important one, but one of many.
Followers of Christ recommend Christ to others not just by the verbal sharing of the Gospel, but by their behavior also. Were his followers concerned with revenge for the slights of their enemies in the community, it would mean they were concerned with their own honor and not the honor of Christ, whom all Christians seek to glorify.
As a student of Christ (the rabbi) this interpretation of "follower" feels misplaced. Neither Christ nor God need us to glorify them. It is we who need to welcome grace into our own lives. This is subtle but important difference.
The point Christ was making throughout the Sermon on the Mount was that his followers were not to serve their honor first and worry about preserving it (like men in those days were expected to do), but were to divest themselves of honor (and therefore position in society) for the sake of bringing ultimate honor to Christ.
If you replace "bringing ultimate honor to Christ" with "living life according to God's will," I could handle it.
That of course doesn’t mean going out of one’s way to bring dishonor, but that personal honor was not a requisite for following Christ (a HUGE turn of propriety, since in those days, someone who meant to follow a rabbi was expected to maintain a certain level of personal honor- Jesus doesn’t require that and in fact CHOOSES men of ill-repute, such as Matthew the tax-collector, a person rabbinical tradition said was basically unforgivable). What a savior that he is no respector of persons!
Agree with this.
Who were a man’s enemies in this context? In a word, an enemy is one who seeks to bring shame on you (ridicule from the community, expulsion from the “inner-circle,” and severed ties with friends and family- effectively making them also your enemies). You must realize that in the ancient world, there were no neutral parties- people were either your friends or your enemies. There were those a person trusted and depended upon, and everybody else was an outsider, somebody to bring shame upon (although enemies often became friends through a number of ways).
This is one valid interpretation of "enemy" but other more straightforward interpretations are equally as valid when considering the Sermon on the Mount.
From a Christian soteriological standpoint, all men were the enemies of God (Romans 5:10) because we, through our words and through our sin, brought shame upon God (Romans 2:23), but God so loved the world (John 3:16) that He blessed us anyway (Matthew 5:45) and in so doing, gained honor for Himself (Ephesians 1:11-12)! Therefore, we are to love our enemies just as God loved us.
Do you realize what you've just said? God loves us not out of benevolence but in order to gain honor for Himself. Therefore, we should honor those who shame us as it brings upon us an even bigger honor!!! Not out of principle, not out of simple kindness. In the end, it's just a deeper level of the honor game that supposedly we're trying to escape!
That doesn’t mean God did not sometimes bring swift judgment (death) upon those who would do bodily harm to His children or injure His church (Joshua 7:24-26, Acts 5:1-10, etc) or that we should let evildoers have at us, have at our families, or have at our nation- we are permitted to defend all that (Nehemiah 4, Luke 22:36,*** etc).
These references are not terribly compelling supports for the argument, though they do offer some.
***(Many people will argue against Luke 22:36 as a support for personal physical defense on the basis of Matthew 26:52-54, where Peter draws his sword and cuts off a man’s ear, and Jesus says, “Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?" But note Jesus’ actual words: First, Christ did not tell Peter to throw away his sword, but to sheath it. Second, Jesus was rebuking Peter because Peter’s resistance was tantamount to suicide, since there was no way he would beat off the guards. Third, Peter’s resistance was a hindrance to the fulfillment of prophecy)
The point of the story is your "Third," and your other two points are pure conjecture.
3. National Pacifism is not Taught in Bible
Males in this society used physical aggression, sexual aggression, and verbal aggression to gain honor. Jesus in Matthew chapter five was therefore telling his disciples that they could no longer participate in the honor “game” if they expected to follow Christ.
I'm ok with this.
Read Matthew 5:21-37 chapter five in this context:
This is where you over apply the idea to the point that it's almost laughable! Matt. 5:27-32 has nothing to do with sexual aggression or honor. And one of the points of the whole rest of the passage is that honor is the least important matter when considering the ancient laws. Most importantly, it's about an internal change of the individual to become more like the Father and is not about blind devotion to the symbol of Jesus. Such a strange interpretation of one of the most beautiful passages in the Bible is only understandable within the culture of evangelism, which takes many liberties with the Bible to promote a dangerous ethic.
When I open my mouth to tell a person he is a sinner (an enemy of God), and that only the sacrifice of Christ and becoming Christ’s disciple will bring him salvation, more often than not, he hates me for it. That doesn’t mean he tries to bludgeon me over the head with a stapler- it means our relationship will likely crumble.
True love must involve justice. If we do not actively protect the innocent when evildoers come around to harm them, we are not showing love- we are showing indifference and hate toward those who are harmed. This includes protecting our lives, families, and homes (and by extension, our nation). Clearly the Bible is replete with scenarios of God instructing Israel to either defend themselves (Judges 6-8) or to destroy the cities He had rendered judgment against (Joshua 6).
You're thinking in zero-sum terms, a logical error that Christ came to disabuse the world of. While containment of destructive elements in a system is sometimes necessary to maintain the integrity of the system. But in containing these elements, we must be careful that we are not, in fact, providing them with the very energy they need to do further damage. Many negative forces are best dealt with by starving them, that is, not providing them with additional energy. Active battle simply re-energizes the foe. The elder Bush knew this.
If you view the Bible as a consistent metanarrative in which Christ is the fulfillment (as I do),
I don't...it's one of the most important ancient wisdom documents compiled by centuries of the faithful, each with revelations, wisdom, foibles, and agendas.
then believing that Jesus teaches national pacifism is out of the question (Heb. 13:8, James 1:17).
These verses have nothing to do with national pacifism one way or another.
Even Paul said we must submit to our governing authorities....
This is a separate issue completely but consistent with your background.
If you’ll notice in John chapter 2, so great was the Lord’s ire that he made a whip out of cords and drove out the moneychangers, the animals, and overturned the tables- hardly a passive act.
I have never espoused pacifism as you seem to envision it. In fact, early on, I used the example of parenting children. You MUST intervene physically and decisively, often. (Many parents don't). But painful punishment almost always fuels greater resentment. The child may think violence has been performed on them, but if all I do is physically move them away from a fight, something very different has happened.
An the book of Revelation says this of the return of Christ:
And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. (Rev. 19:11)
Just for interest sake, I see no evidence that the rider is Jesus.
True peace will only come when the world is at peace with God.
Though our definition of God is probably very very different, I agree with this.
This will only happen when all those who will become children of God do so and then God destroys the rest. God is very clear that good and evil cannot coexist- He will reap the former and obliterate the latter.
Again by active destruction or by feeding the good and starving the evil?
Christ’s words in his Sermon on the Mount were to his disciples about being his disciples, not to the nations of the world,
This is an opinion that the majority of Christians and Christian scholars do not agree with.
and therefore do not in any way prohibit war in principal.
Again an opinion, not the logical conclusion of your statement.
So David wasn’t disqualified for this ministry because of his murder of Uriah or his adultery with Bathsheba, but because of bloodshed. We view bloodshed very casually in our country, but to God, it is a huge deal, and must also weigh heavily on our hearts- even if we are doing the right thing!
It's easy for me to agree with this line.
The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, and the one who loves violence His soul hates. (Psalm 11:5)
Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle (Psalm 144:1)
He teaches my hands to make war, So that my arms can bend a bow of bronze (Psalm 18:34)
These statements certainly challenge the "Consistent Metanarrative" idea.
You are walking to the store buy the latest album from Epignosis. Halfway there, you see a man with a switchblade on top of a screaming woman. The man is licking her face and trying to undo his trousers. You are alone and have forgotten your cellular phone. No one else is coming. What do you do?
Contain the evil force to the best of your ability with the least amount of force necessary to stop the evil. Again, not passive, but at all time mindful of using the least force necessary....typical martial arts philosophy.
Now take that scenario to a national level (after all, this is but a microcosm of why a nation might go to war, to protect itself from those that would do it harm, or to intervene on behalf of another country).
As complex as your hypothetical rape scene was, national politics are exponentially more complex. And we as a country are extremely inconsistent in our choices to intervene and the amount of force involved.
I believe you can make very thoughtful cases against specific wars, but I don’t think you can make a good case against war in general, and I certainly don’t see the Bible advocating national (or even personal) pacifism.
Your definition and use of the term pacifism is a straw man.
As we continue to rebuild our nation from the blow it suffered almost a decade ago, we have a duty to protect it, using violence if necessary:
If you think the actions of this country in response to 9/11 look anything like what you've represented, you haven't been paying attention. This is what upset me so much. You've slowly corrupted a beautiful passage, misrepresented peaceful resistance, and then used "personal defense" as if it was a synonym for vengeance. And they are not.
After cooling off, it seems that our nations lack the simple wisdom regarding force and violence that is taught from day one in any good martial arts class. The best way to come out ahead in a fight is to not engage. But when you do.... Often that involves quickly disabling an opponent and then leaving them alone. Deadly force, though taught to experienced students, is virtually never used in actual practice.
|
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: October 13 2009 at 12:46 |
Jay, no offense, but I hardly see the point in responding to this.
I spent over three hours of my afternoon crafting a well-reasoned and structured extrapolation of the passage, doing my best to frame it in its right cultural and linguistic contexts that not only modern experts in the field show to be the case (Malina, Pilch, Neyrey, et al) but ancient writers demonstrate as well (see Seneca and Cicero).
Your entire rebuttal boils down to you not
liking this interpretation or you having a "problem" with it, which, as
I'm sure you know, doesn't have any validity in and of itself (unless
you believe that all interpretations are equally valid, and then of
course you'd be undermining your own position). You offer no sources,
no scripture, no references, no counterexamples, and most importantly no alternate framework or context with which to understand the teachings of Christ.
All you have are uncorroborated claims.
For example:
This
is where you over apply the idea to the point that it's almost
laughable! Matt. 5:27-32 has nothing to do with sexual aggression or
honor. (Says who?) And one of the points of the whole rest of the passage is that
honor is the least important matter when considering the ancient laws. (Says who?)
Most importantly, it's about an internal change of the individual to
become more like the Father and is not about blind devotion to the
symbol of Jesus. (Says who?) Such a strange interpretation of one of the most
beautiful passages in the Bible is only understandable within the
culture of evangelism, which takes many liberties with the Bible to
promote a dangerous ethic.Or this:Do
you realize what you've just said? God loves us not out of benevolence
but in order to gain honor for Himself. Therefore, we should honor
those who shame us as it brings upon us an even bigger honor!!! Not out
of principle, not out of simple kindness. In the end, it's just a
deeper level of the honor game that supposedly we're trying to escape! (Here I might say you really have no idea what benevolence was in the ancient world (i.e., what we call "grace")- read Seneca's On Benefits (it's free and online) if you want a robust understanding of exactly what grace was in the ancient world and exactly how people understood it)
As far as I can see, these are all Jay's speculations- presented without any evidence whatsoever.By the way: [If you view the Bible as a consistent metanarrative in which Christ is the fulfillment (as I do),
I
don't...it's one of the most important ancient wisdom documents
compiled by centuries of the faithful, each with revelations, wisdom,
foibles, and agendas.
then believing that Jesus teaches national pacifism is out of the question (Heb. 13:8, James 1:17).
These verses have nothing to do with national pacifism one way or another.
Those verses state that God and Jesus do not change- that they do not hold one belief and then shift to another. The argument being that if God did not prohibit war in the Old Testament, then Christ (God's representative on Earth) would not prohibit it either. I did not expect you to agree with the argument, but I at least expected you to "get it."]
|
|
|
|
LiquidEternity
Prog Reviewer
Joined: December 07 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 900
|
Posted: October 13 2009 at 12:51 |
|
I don't have anything to add, but Epignosis's posts lately have been the most compelling reason to check out his solo album that I've run across of yet. I wish I were that smart and wise. Yeesh.
|
|
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: October 13 2009 at 13:53 |
Rob, you accuse me of not engaging you on your terms. I've actually spent quite a bit of effort to do so.
I don't think you realize how much you've gotten used to discussing these things within a certain framework. The rules of engagement you assume are not what I assume.
Most of the people with whom I have discussions like this would have dismissed you out of hand, especially after using someone like Norman Geisler as a source.
At the same time, this exercise has made me think and read up, so I'll respond in a different way....
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: October 13 2009 at 14:10 |
Negoba wrote:
Rob, you accuse me of not engaging you on your terms. I've actually spent quite a bit of effort to do so.
I don't think you realize how much you've gotten used to discussing these things within a certain framework. The rules of engagement you assume are not what I assume.
Most of the people with whom I have discussions like this would have dismissed you out of hand, especially after using someone like Norman Geisler as a source.
At the same time, this exercise has made me think and read up, so I'll respond in a different way.... |
The Bible is a collection of documents that is removed from us by 2000 years and 6000 miles. One cannot pick it up and read it as though it were yesterday's newspaper. All I seek to do is understand the Bible on its own terms and not on mine.
If I had to choose one volume that completely revolutionized the way I have come to read and interpret the Bible (beside certain ancient writers), it would be Honor, Patronage, Kinship, & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture by David deSilva. I cannot recommend this book enough.
|
|
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: October 13 2009 at 14:14 |
I'll take the recommendation - I'm also picking this up:
Interestingly, uses similar ideas with somewhat different conclusions.
Here's the intro, of course preaching to the choir for me:
It does give a better definition of Christian Pacifism, and a way of thinking that resonates with what I personally take from Jesus' teachings.
Edited by Negoba - October 13 2009 at 14:57
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
LiquidEternity
Prog Reviewer
Joined: December 07 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 900
|
Posted: October 13 2009 at 15:19 |
|
Here's all I've got:
"Religion that God our
Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and
widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the
world." James 1:27
Looking at the first part, looking after orphans and widows. That's the case in which I would support taking a war to a country: when their innocents are being slaughtered. So I would support, for example, military action in Darfur to halt the genocide. I do not like how the government chooses more often based on economics and profit. I think that as one of the most powerful nations in the world, we have an obligation to save the lives of those who can't save themselves. Retribution against Bin Laden sounds like a nice idea, but by this point we're simply meddling with a toppled nation to conform it to our desires and image. That isn't so cool in my book.
I don't get the idea of Biblical pacifism. That's much more of a Buddhist thing. To me (and, sorry, don't have the time to throw in fifty-seven verses here to support my claims), all the verses about turning the other cheek is when you yourself are endangered. However, we have a moral obligation to stand up for others, especially the children and widows. I am not afraid to sacrifice myself for others. I am, however, disgusted by the idea of standing by and watching others die while I do nothing because I feel using the military means given me (and from whom?) is in violation of the pacifism of Jesus.
|
|
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: October 13 2009 at 15:27 |
LiquidEternity wrote:
Here's all I've got:
"Religion that God our
Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and
widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the
world." James 1:27
|
Wow. Our pastor preached on that just this past Sunday, and we had foster children visiting, some of whom gave us insight into what kid like them are going through.
Boy, that's a verse I need to meditate on every morning. Thanks for the reminder.
|
|
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: October 13 2009 at 17:48 |
LiquidEternity wrote:
I am, however, disgusted by the idea of standing by and watching others die while I do nothing because I feel using the military means given me (and from whom?) is in violation of the pacifism of Jesus.
|
I don't think many pacifists espouse doing nothing. They just espouse using non-violent, and still sometimes very forceful means.
Your example on Darfur is right on. If you're going after Bin Laden, that's a special forces covert thing to surgically remove the head off the monster and then pray the new one that grows back is less virulent. What we've done was just a tad different.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
LiquidEternity
Prog Reviewer
Joined: December 07 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 900
|
Posted: October 13 2009 at 18:06 |
|
I'm not very politically minded (or very well-minded in general, ha), but it seems to me that going after Bin Laden and Hussein are much better goals than our strategies have clearly conveyed that we entered with. There just seems to be too many other, more important motivations driving these maneuvers while politicians let us all know just how beneficial we're being to lots of innocent people.
And, as far as I've seen, nothing short of violent intervention can stop a genocide. Any examples of this happening?
|
|
|
|
Negoba
Prog Reviewer
Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5208
|
Posted: October 13 2009 at 18:59 |
|
Dictators dying off from natural causes. A glib answer to say that generally nothing works that well, including violent opposition.
|
|
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 13 2009 at 19:40 |
|
There is a contextual issue involved in what Jesus was saying with regard to non-violent resistance and pacifism, in that Israel was an occupied nation under Roman rule at that time and not a free state under threat of attack. Therefore asuming his words exclude the use of military force is outside the scope of what he was talking about - the Jews did not have a miltary force at that time. What he as teaching was close to sedition as it was, and as we would later discover, not only in the eyes of the Romans but also to the Jewish authorities who feared what the Romans would do in response (John 11:48).
|
|
What?
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: October 14 2009 at 20:54 |
It seems to me that in my poor experience with the pacifism Jesus espoused, we should be utterly pacifist. At least this is what I commonly hear it interpreted as (forgive me Jay and Rob, if I trod over your discussion, but those are awfully long posts....  ). But this is a bad idea. The jury in my head is still out on whether or not conflict of some sort is always bad for the human spirit, by which I mean we may possibly grow and thrive by violent conflict of some sort and stagnate in peace (at least on Earth...). Besides that, unflinching pacifism is a bad idea pragmatically. Conquest is in human nature, I think. The strive to have power and control. Some nations now can afford to be pacifist if they have others protect them (re: the general predicament the United States and United Nations is in right now). But if every one of the western nations dismantled overnight we'd be bullied and taken over by dictators soon enough.
|
|
|
|
Christine
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 27 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 184
|
Posted: October 15 2009 at 14:40 |
|
It is very interesting that this controversy would come to light at this time. I say this because this has become a very curios matter of my personal convictions.
At which point is it okay to inflict violence for the sake of defense?
Didn't Jesus say that "Those who live by the sword die by the sword"?
Well, I don't claim to be a scholar, but I think the Lord has made this clear through one passage in particular ( probably in others as well).
I'm referring to the story of David and Goliath.
David was sent to slay the giant to defend a number of things and principles which are most holy.
He was defending the nation of Israel while giving the glory to God in the midst of a giant who was cursing David in the name of his gods.
I believe that the Lord wants us to look to him in our time of trouble.And, he wants us to be ready to fight When there is something worth defending.
At this time there are many things at stake; our sustainability, ability to maintain personal convictions as well as the laws established by the Bible in a world which asks us not to, the ability to love without condition, and many other things which merit defense.
We should allow ourselves to be slapped on both sides(in reference to Matthew 5:39) when it's simply a matter of personal ambitions....However, when it's something that the Lord lays on your heart, you have a responsibility to comply!
I'm not a proponent of violence, but sometimes it is called for. But, we must allow the Lord's will to determine when it is called for...Not to go by our judgment.
David had the faith to believe that God could use a few small stones in a sling to defeat a giant...If he came expecting his strength to be sufficient, he would have failed. Israel would no longer exist.
So, if our nation, our principles are defended...it will be by the hand of God working through us. Or, simply by the hand of God. But, we must be patient to know his will.
|
|
catsfootironclaw
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: October 15 2009 at 15:09 |
Christine wrote:
It is very interesting that this controversy would come to light at this time. I say this because this has become a very curios matter of my personal convictions.
At which point is it okay to inflict violence for the sake of defense?
Didn't Jesus say that "Those who live by the sword die by the sword"?
Well, I don't claim to be a scholar, but I think the Lord has made this clear through one passage in particular ( probably in others as well).
I'm referring to the story of David and Goliath.
David was sent to slay the giant to defend a number of things and principles which are most holy.
He was defending the nation of Israel while giving the glory to God in the midst of a giant who was cursing David in the name of his gods.
I believe that the Lord wants us to look to him in our time of trouble.And, he wants us to be ready to fight When there is something worth defending.
At this time there are many things at stake; our sustainability, ability to maintain personal convictions as well as the laws established by the Bible in a world which asks us not to, the ability to love without condition, and many other things which merit defense.
We should allow ourselves to be slapped on both sides(in reference to Matthew 5:39) when it's simply a matter of personal ambitions....However, when it's something that the Lord lays on your heart, you have a responsibility to comply!
I'm not a proponent of violence, but sometimes it is called for. But, we must allow the Lord's will to determine when it is called for...Not to go by our judgment.
David had the faith to believe that God could use a few small stones in a sling to defeat a giant...If he came expecting his strength to be sufficient, he would have failed. Israel would no longer exist.
So, if our nation, our principles are defended...it will be by the hand of God working through us. Or, simply by the hand of God. But, we must be patient to know his will. |
However, David was forbidden from building a temple as a result: "But this word of the LORD came to me: 'You have shed much blood and have fought many wars. You are not to build a house for my Name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight." (2 Cronicles 22:8)
|
|
What?
|
|
Christine
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 27 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 184
|
Posted: October 15 2009 at 15:24 |
Hmm...Well, like I said....I'm no scholar.
I suppose I need to do more reading up....Possibly spend more time in prayer. Thank you for bringing this scripture to my attention.
|
|
catsfootironclaw
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32524
|
Posted: October 15 2009 at 15:47 |
Christine wrote:
It is very interesting that this controversy would come to light at this time. I say this because this has become a very curios matter of my personal convictions.
At which point is it okay to inflict violence for the sake of defense?
Didn't Jesus say that "Those who live by the sword die by the sword"?
Well, I don't claim to be a scholar, but I think the Lord has made this clear through one passage in particular ( probably in others as well).
I'm referring to the story of David and Goliath.
David was sent to slay the giant to defend a number of things and principles which are most holy.
He was defending the nation of Israel while giving the glory to God in the midst of a giant who was cursing David in the name of his gods.
I believe that the Lord wants us to look to him in our time of trouble.And, he wants us to be ready to fight When there is something worth defending.
At this time there are many things at stake; our sustainability, ability to maintain personal convictions as well as the laws established by the Bible in a world which asks us not to, the ability to love without condition, and many other things which merit defense.
We should allow ourselves to be slapped on both sides(in reference to Matthew 5:39) when it's simply a matter of personal ambitions....However, when it's something that the Lord lays on your heart, you have a responsibility to comply!
I'm not a proponent of violence, but sometimes it is called for. But, we must allow the Lord's will to determine when it is called for...Not to go by our judgment.
David had the faith to believe that God could use a few small stones in a sling to defeat a giant...If he came expecting his strength to be sufficient, he would have failed. Israel would no longer exist.
So, if our nation, our principles are defended...it will be by the hand of God working through us. Or, simply by the hand of God. But, we must be patient to know his will. |
That's the interesting thing. David rejected Saul's armor because he knew it would be of no use to him.
Weapons are but tools- just like a hammer or a shovel. God must fight the battles of his children- both physically and spiritually. Psalm 127 (one of my favorite psalms) says:
1 Unless the LORD builds the house, its builders labor in vain. Unless the LORD watches over the city, the watchmen stand guard in vain. 2 In vain you rise early
and stay up late,
toiling for food to eat—
for he grants sleep to those he loves.
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The Christian Thread