biblical self defense

It seems to me that Hank's son showed quite a bit of love toward him by knocking his teeth out.

I do pray to be preserved from that kind of 'love'!

Only Christ can change sin nature. A punch in the mouth is not a good imitation... and again, if the bullies of the world do not see Christ in us, where will they find Him? How will they know that He is different?

 

To my knowledge, you are not in need of that type of love, are you? Do you go around bullying people? What if Hank's son had done nothing and the guy kept on down the road he was on? What if he tried to do that one day and somebody pulled out a gun and blew his head off? What if he turned to a life of crime and murdered someone and ended up on death row? Losing two teeth is nothing compared to losing your life. Perhaps God put him there to knock some sense into him. Did you catch the end of that story, Helen? He has changed and is now friends with Hank's son.

Hank's son showed a lot more love and compassion than most as he is now friends with the kid who pulled a knife on him. But he also showed him that you can't go around bullying people without some consequences. Too bad nobody taught Saddam that lesson until it was too late and he tortured and murdered perhaps millions of his own people. His consequences are certainly much more severe than Hank's son's friends were. He lost both his sons who are in Hell now, and he is not going to be too far behind unless he is saved before he is executed (and believe me, now that it is established that the Iraqis will trie Saddam, there is no real doubt as to what his sentence will be). How sad that all he was ever taught was the cruel law "...homo homini lupus (man is a wolf to man). Its corollaries of suspicion and distrust of one's closest associates, a need for total self-reliance, and for intimidating others so as never to be seen as prey were to guide his thoughts and acts from that time forward".

Where did he learn this philosophy of life? From his stepfather "Hasan the liar" who used to beat him with "...an asphalt-covered stick, forcing him to dance around to dodge the blows."

How sad. I almost feel sorry for him. But now, he is going to pay the piper for his sins and is going to learn waaaaaaaay too late that there are consequences for being a bully. Shame, shame.


Source for Saddam Information:

Saddam Hussein: A political Biography by Efraim Karsh and Inari Rautsi, p. 10.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Jesus didn't say what to do after you turn the other cheek.

 

Well, Joseph, now we know you can quote a biography of Hussein, but you are still sadly lacking in BIBLICAL support for your position.

And it is interesting that you bring up the violence that violence begets. That was a point I was trying to make earlier.

Good gravy, you folks will turn me into a pacifist yet!

LadyEagle -- you can't be serious!

 

Oh, but I am.

To NOT fight against evil is just as evil as evil.

If somebody tries to attack me in a parking lot at the mall, they will get everything I can hurl, scream, kick, claw, punch, or knee at them. Seriously.

After I rebuke them, of course.

 

Helen,

You already are one of the worst kind...a Doctor Spock Pacifist.

The point wasn't that Saddam learned violence from his dad. I grew up watching slasher movies in my childhood and did not turn into a Jason or Freddy. The lesson he learned was that there were no consequences for his actions. There was no accountability for his step dad, and there was no accountability for Saddam until it was too late for Saddam. Hank's son issued a dose of accountability and therefore, kept him from learning a much harsher lesson in the future.

You are the one who claimed that it was a Biblical commandment of love that justifies defending others. I contend that by defending yourself, you are also defending others. I have demonstrated that through several examples. You simply aren't willing to accept the truth.

Joseph Botwinick

 

The Bible says we are to love others as we love ourselves. I contend that unless we love ourselves, we can't love others. Only someone with low self-esteem would let themself be bullied, as in the battered wife syndrome.

Also, God has instilled into each living thing the will to survive, some calling it a flight or fight instinct.

 

Well, we are not only into Hussein, but self-esteem as well.

I'm from a different point of view, folks. I quit. I prefer a directive which is biblical, not one which is worldly. [snipped]

I'm outta here. We have a Bible study to do tonight....

[ June 29, 2004, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]

 

[snipped]

[ June 29, 2004, 01:28 AM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]

 

Turning the other cheek was a Hebrew idiom for a head fake. It was sort of like a boxing tactic.

 

We've been watching this and just wanted to check before going to bed. Barry read DD's comment and almost shouted, "OH GOOD GRIEF! Now I've heard everything!"

DD, in light of the context of Matthew 5, that interpretation makes no sense at all.

Since ancient times no one has heard, nor ear has perceived, no eye has seen any God besides you, who acts on behalf of those who wait for him.
You come to the help of those who gladly do right, who remember your ways.

Isaiah 64:4-5

 

That is hillarious!!!!!!!!

 

Indeed and Helen is no sparring match slouch!

NLT 1 Corinthians 9:26
So I run straight to the goal with purpose in every step. I am not like a boxer who misses his punches.

HankD

 

Helen - Thank you for your wonderful insight.

I would like to point out that pacificism is popular in segments of America, though it tends to be a "soft pacificism" as opposed to "a morally serious and intellectually rigorous tradition of Christian pacifism that declares that Christian life in the world is defined by the perpetual possibility of martyrdom, and that to be a Christian is to stand as a sheep among the wolves.

The argument is about as straightforward as it gets:

The overwhelming teaching in the New Testament is non-violence, most notably Mt 5:38-48, "Turn the other cheek... Love your enemies..." (See also Rom 12:14, 16a, 17-21; 1 Pet 1:6-7, 2:21, 23; 3:13-18; Heb 10:32-34.)

In a similar vein, all the New Testament points toward Jesus as a role model to follow. Jesus was a pacifist, never resorting to violence for protection or justice. The oft cited incident in the temple should be seen as a symbolic act condemning corruption and not a violent outburst. (i.e. Did he hurt anyone?)

Pacificism requires persistent and creative work to formulate new responses to historical circumstances. Only in this way can the endless spiral of violence be broken. Violence is the last resort of the unimaginative.

Going to a college with Anabaptist roots helped me realize and respect their strong stand of pacifism in their communities of faith. I must admit though that my gut goes with that "soft pacifism," and that the state does have responsibility for desiring justice...even in partial and ambiguous terms. The Anabaptists always argue (correctly I think) that the church needs to be wary of the state, and that the church should be offering Christ-like alternatives and perspectives to the usual political stuff.

I served in the military as a young man and I served in a place that was quite dangerous. But, I think, I served as a representative of the state, not of my Christ. They are not one in the same.

I have grown since that time. If I had it to over again, I would have served in a different way.

 

So, finally, we get to the heart of what this thread is about. Pacifism and the condemnation of any violence, no matter what.

The argument is about as straightforward as it gets:

In a similar vein, all the New Testament points toward Jesus as a role model to follow. Jesus was a pacifist, never resorting to violence for protection or justice. The oft cited incident in the temple should be seen as a symbolic act condemning corruption and not a violent outburst. (i.e. Did he hurt anyone?)[/QUOTE]

Do you believe in the diety of Christ? Is Jesus God? Do you believe in the trinity? I think your doctrinal views here are going to directly effect your view of Christ, Old and New Testament.

Pacificism requires persistent and creative work to formulate new responses to historical circumstances. Only in this way can the endless spiral of violence be broken. Violence is the last resort of the unimaginative.[/QUOTE]

Tell that to the people of Israel. Do you know how many times they have tried to give the Palestinians just about everything they want. They have tried diplomacy. But, they have learned the lesson that I have known all along. You can't make peace with terrorist. They don't want peace. They want to kill you. Diplomacy doesn't work for them. The same is true with schoolyard bullies. They don't want to make peace. They want to terrorize their victims (albeit on a much smaller scale than Hamas). The only way to make peace with bullies is to first defeat them soundly and then negotiate peace with those left behind who will hopefully come to the conclusion that terror and bullting isn't the way to go. The Polish Jews also tried to be peaceful pacifists when the Nazis came in. It didn't turn out too good for most of them.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Joseph asked me:

Do you believe in the diety of Christ? Is Jesus God? Do you believe in the trinity? I think your doctrinal views here are going to directly effect your view of Christ, Old and New Testament.

I answer:

Yes, I believe in the diety of Christ.

Yes, I believe Christ is God

Yes, I believe in the Trinity.

Indeed, I provided examples of how Christ reacted. You have yet to do so. In all of these posts, you have yet to turn to Christ's words or actions, but instead have leaned upon your own understanding. What does that say concerning you?

BTW - I thought that I made it clear in my post that nation-states and their leaders at times react in different ways. I would argue that Ghandi was as successful as anyone in throwing off oppressive leaders.

 

Is it your contention that there is no example anywhere in the Old or New Testament where Jesus uses violence or encourages those who follows him to use violence?

Joseph Botwinick

 

No Joseph, that's not what the thread was about.
The original question asked if it was ok to take the life of another to protect you PROPERTY.
Not yourself, your kids, or others from violence, but to save material things that you own.
Your answer should be no. Deadly force should not be used to protect money, cars, stereos, etc.. The law agrees with that.
Gina