Christians and violence

Discussion in 'Forum for Polls' started by Alcott, Jun 17, 2005.

?

Jesus' rampage against the temple sellers/crooks-- our example?

  1. Jesus, and He alone on earth, had the authority to perform this violent act

    28.9%
  2. If we are "consumed by zeal" for what we regard as the House of God, we are allowed to become violen

    2.6%
  3. Since we have no temple today in the sense of a limited presence of God, this 'example' does not app

    2.6%
  4. Since our <i>bodies</i> are the temple in the NT age, we may deal violently with anyone who "messes

    2.6%
  5. We have no authority at all to be violent, even in defense of what is holy to our God

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. If in a worship service, a gang comes in, throwing objects and spray-painting, we have no authority

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  7. Jesus wouldn't really have gotten violent-- the scripture must have it wrong

    52.6%
  8. I have a different view on this than any of these options

    10.5%
  9. No answer

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,454
    Likes Received:
    93
    The subject of Christians becoming violent has come up in a few forums recently, and there seems to be some disagreement as to purpose, justification and forgivability of being violent. Let's compile and contrast our views on this.
     
  2. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    I see two other people have voted but have not made comments.

    Here's what I think:
    Jesus cleansing the temple was not a violent act. It was a physical act, but not violent. He did not hurt anyone physically, for one thing.

    I think hitting someone on the cheek was an insult, so when Jesus said to turn the other cheek, it means not to return insult for insult. I put my answer down as not to seek revenge.

    The last section was the hardest. Outside of the war questions, I do not see why someone would be justified in killing someone unless that person was trying to kill them or kill someone else. However, I do think self-defense is biblical.
     
  3. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,408
    Likes Received:
    70
    Jesus' "cleansing" of the temple, IMO, was similar to an acted-out prophecy. If a prophet of God were called to do the same, it would have been permissible.
     
  4. Ben W

    Ben W
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,868
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not so sure that I would label the turning over of the money changers tables as violent. If it was a band of Zealots that had run in there with the sword and killed or injured the money changers personally, that would be violent, but note that the act of Christ was not of a personal physical nature against a person's body.

    Incidently the money changers were Saduccees, Jesus had a discourse with the Pharisees for three years, yet when he attacked the Sadducees who ran the temple, He was dead within a week!
     
  5. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,454
    Likes Received:
    93
    Where does scripture say there was no physical violence upon those trading in the temple? But whether there was or was not, if a singer came to your church and did a 'concert,' and had a table set up where he would later sell his recordings, and someone who equates that with 'turning the House of God into a market' ran up and threw over the table and scattered the money and CD's... would you not consider this violent?

    And your saying Jesus was "dead within a week" after the temple incident is not true. There were at least 2 such incidents, the first one in John 2:14-17, at least 2 Passovers before the one in which he was crucified.
     
  6. Ben W

    Ben W
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,868
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bro Alcott,

    "Q"

    Because it is mentioned at the start of John does not mean it was an earlier incident over a later one.
     
  7. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,454
    Likes Received:
    93
    You think so, huh? In John 2 we have the first 'cleansing the temple' incident, followed in John 3 by Jesus' meeting at night with Nicodemus, then in John 3:27, it begins "after this..." and describing the baptism of John the Baptist, who had been beheaded well before the Passover week in which Jesus was crucified.
     
  8. TexasSky

    TexasSky
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    You forgot one of the greatest examles of "peacemaking" Christ gave - at the Garden when the soldiers came.

    You also failed to look at the examples of the disciples and apostles later.
     
  9. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,454
    Likes Received:
    93
    Let me guess here... You are against using violence in self-defense and think we should imitate the actions of non-retaliation against beatings, stonings, and imprisonment? I don't know if you have kids, but if a 9-year-old came up and started beating your 4-year-old, would you say "Hit him/her again" or would you shove the perpetrator off?
     
  10. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Defending one's home, family, and country, is quite acceptable, by whatever means necessary.
     
  11. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,454
    Likes Received:
    93
    I know most of us want to think so. But does this come from scripture? Or is it a worldly concept?
     
  12. SaggyWoman

    SaggyWoman
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2000
    Messages:
    17,933
    Likes Received:
    8
  13. Petrel

    Petrel
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    0
    According to Old Testament law if you killed someone breaking into your house by night, you couldn't be charged with murder.

    I don't see how using violence to protect others could be considered wrong. If you saw a man beating a child to death, would you think you had done what you ought to if you merely called 911 and then yelled, "Hey! Stop!"
     
  14. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    In the Bible, God not only sent armies to war to protect their homes, but He sent them out to conquer OTHER peoples and lands...
     
  15. rivers1222

    rivers1222
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    254
    Likes Received:
    0
    If in a worship service, a gang comes in, throwing objects and spray-painting, we have no authority to physcially deter them
    ----------------------------
    Yep, I'm the knucklehead who misread the question and voted yes. Please correct for accurracy if possible.
     
  16. rivers1222

    rivers1222
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    254
    Likes Received:
    0
    If in a worship service, a gang comes in, throwing objects and spray-painting, we have no authority to physcially deter them
    ----------------------------
    Yep, I'm the knucklehead who misread the question and voted yes. Please correct for accurracy if possible.
     
  17. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    In the Bible, God not only sent armies to war to protect their homes, but He sent them out to conquer OTHER peoples and lands... </font>[/QUOTE]This is true, but those were cases when God was initiating it and doing it for His specific purposes of creating Israel and giving them land.

    So, outside of self-defense, is it okay biblically speaking to invade another country, for example? Is being able to give our reasons for it good enough?
     
  18. Helen

    Helen
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    1
    I based my responses on a few guidelines. First of all, there is NEVER any indication in Scripture that we are to personally defend ourselves. The one exception is the rape of a woman where she is expected to scream and struggle and try to prevent it. If she does not, it is assumed in the OT that she is willing and it is therefore adultery.

    But I have to admit if someone were holding a knife or gun to my head I would probably just try to survive the ordeal and not give reason to shoot or otherwise hurt me.

    However it is also Biblical to defend one's home and those around you, especially if they are weaker. It is also Biblical to obey constituted authorities and this means, if you are in any branch of the armed forces, to be willing to go to war for your country.

    I also voted yes that 'self defense' is responsible for more than its share of violence.
     
  19. Petrel

    Petrel
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes. I hate to invoke Godwin's Rule, but think of World War II!
     
  20. Marcia

    Marcia
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    11,139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes. I hate to invoke Godwin's Rule, but think of World War II! </font>[/QUOTE]But didn't we get in the war because of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor? We didn't enter WW 2 because of Hitler. (BTW, my father fought in WW 2).
     

Share This Page

Loading...