|
Author
|
Topic: Christians and Violence.
|
Pathwalker
Community Member
Member # 7154
|
posted
No Violence is my vote. I firmly believe that there is enough violence on this planet and we, as Christians, should handle the situation in a Christian manner. Anotherwords, we should talk before ever using force. Thats just my opinion!
--------------------
Psalm 119:105 " Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path"
Posts: 12 | From: Henderson, NV | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
scmom
New Member
Member # 7137
|
posted
I voted for the option to defend others, others being mainly family members or those who may not be able to defend themselves. I truly do think that violence should be the very last resort but, if someone is breaking into your home, I'm pretty sure it is not to become your friend, so yes, I would ask God to help me and stand to defend my family.
--------------------
Phil. 4:13
I can do all things thru Christ Jesus who strengthens me.
Posts: 4 | From: South Carolina | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
I voted that No violence is acceptable. It is true that Christ told the disciples to bring swords with them as they made the trip to the Garden of Gethsemane. But why? Some have said to protect against wild animals and I think there may be some validity to that- nothing was to prevent them from meeting their date with destiny, but I think moreover it was so that Peter could smite the servant of the High Priest. This of course was prophetic of what was to come- the hearing of the Jews being cut off by the acts of men and restored later by Christ.
I think when evaluating this question on violence we have to ask ourselves somethings....
1. are we citizens of this earth? The scripture answers this....
Php 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:
2. Do we war with humans?
Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
3. Do we have weapons?
2Co 10:4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)
I see that the problem is we all claim to be born again new creatures- but we have great difficultly living as though we believe it
IF we do not love this life- if we do not love the things of this earth- if we believe that we are not of this earth why do we chose weapons of this earth to defend the things of this earth or these lives we live in the flesh?
What is our purpose here? Is it not to be transformed to the image of Christ? Is it not bring glory to HIM?
So what is a greater witness- the man who when a thief enters his house and threatens his family and his possessions - prays and says do not do this to the thief or the man who himself takes up arms and kills? Who has greater power... the power of the almighty even?
And what if he and his family should be killed? Is not to live Christ and to die gain?
To walk in the Spirit or the flesh... this is really what its about isn't it?
And what of those old testament scriptures about taking up arms and armies?
I would submit that the people of the OT could do nothing less than walk in the flesh. BUT YE Brothers are not of this world! We have a choice.
Further- the disciples that went with Christ to Gethsemane were also not yet born again, as Christ had not yet been crucified.
2Co 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
We confess a lot of things- but do we really believe them? Do we walk the talk?
God Bless and may we all learn to walk the talk and live by faith walking in the Spirit and not the flesh!
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
KnowHim
Admin
Member # 1
|
posted
Exodus 22 does show quite a bit about God’s attitude towards self-defense. Let’s look at Exodus 22:2-3. "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed. A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft.” Obviously here we see that when a thief breaks into someone’s house at night and that person defends his home and slays the thief, God does not hold that death over the defender’s head. However, God does not wish for anyone to take law into his or her own hands. This is why it is said that if a thief is struck down during the daylight the defender is guilty of bloodshed. Now this is speaking of thievery not an attack, I would believe that if the thief were to attack the defender even during the day, that man would be justified to defend himself.
Posts: 3276 | From: Charlestown, IN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Eduardo Grequi
Advanced Member
Member # 3984
|
posted
I think Jesus said it better, "What Man would not protect his home?" Many times in the bible it is said to get an army together to defend. Self defense and defending of your kin the only logical reason. Even Abrahm got an army together to free Lot and his family.
Posts: 771 | From: Belvidere, IL | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Aaron
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by lonlesol:
quote:
but I need to clarify... "no physical violence"
Whether it is physical violence or verbal violence, it still remains violence...
Certainly. But let's first admit there is a difference between a spiritual war with demons and a physical war with men.
Aaron
IP: Logged |
|
|
jimbarn
Advanced Member
Member # 7053
|
posted
The Bible teaches capital punishment.
Murder,for one example,is to be punished by death.
Also,defense of ones family,city,and nation from ungodly aggressors.
Jesus also advised the deciples to carry swords.This is a defensive weapon.
Jimbarn
A recovering pharisee ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 43 | From: Unicoi,Tn. | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
|
|
WildB
Moderator
Member # 2917
|
posted
Neh.4
[16] And it came to pass from that time forth, that the half of my servants wrought in the work, and the other half of them held both the spears, the shields, and the bows, and the habergeons; and the rulers were behind all the house of Judah.
[17] They which builded on the wall, and they that bare burdens, with those that laded, every one with one of his hands wrought in the work, and with the other hand held a weapon.
[21] So we laboured in the work: and half of them held the spears from the rising of the morning till the stars appeared.
Luke.22
[36] Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
--------------------
That is all.....
Posts: 8775 | From: USA, MICHIGAN | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
lonlesol
Advanced Member
Member # 4511
|
posted
quote:
but I need to clarify... "no physical violence"
Whether it is physical violence or verbal violence, it still remains violence...
Posts: 478 | From: Quebec | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Isaiah
Advanced Member
Member # 6699
|
posted
A very good topic. The options did not refelct every situation or option, but it also depends on what one means by violence.
This is an intersting verse on the subject....
Luk 3:14 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.
People think this to mean various things -some think it means that a soldier should not be a sort of thug to the innocent, but that killing in war or when commanded is OK.
But..... what if some of the soldiers he spoke to were those who would eventually do harm to Christ? Would it be OK for them to kill him under orders, as long as they did not hate him or ridicule him? Christ was, after all, crucified for being an enemy of the state. His official crime was "king of the Jews" -a threat to Roman rule.
We can see in this verse.... do not bear false witness and do not covet -but what about "thou shalt not kill"? Christ said that one who hates another has commited murder already in his heart -would he then say the act is acceptable as long as one does not hate?
We see in the old testament examples where God instructed men to kill -and specifically who to kill, and who not to kill -and we also see God judging those who killed without his direct instruction -or in a manner which was not as instructed. Do we think we have God's blessing in our warfare? Have we been instructed to war?
To defend someone is not the same as premeditating taking a life. If we can defend an innocent from a non-innocent, we should certainly do so in a less-than-lethal manner -we do not have to stand by.
Most of the world does not have faith enough to be non-violent. Man trusts in his own strengths and the ability to cause fear to maintain a sort of order.
If we, as a nation, kept God's commandments sincerely, and did not have an army, we would be far more secure than we are today, bucause God would stand on our behalf -even today.
Posts: 288 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
|
|
becauseHElives
Advanced Member
Member # 87
|
posted
I voted "No violence is acceptable"
but I need to clarify... "no physical violence"
the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty
but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds." 2 Cor. 10: 4.
sometimes "No violence is acceptable" is viewed as pacifistic...
Christians are to do warfare but not with guns and fist but on our knee in prayer, on the street witnessing and preaching, fasting...
if Yahweh be for us who can stand against us...can you see my point...
Steven could have picked up rocks and threw back at those killing him but would that have glorified Yahweh.
--------------------
Strive to enter in at the strait gate:for many, I say unto you will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. ( Luke 13:24 )
Posts: 4578 | From: Southeast Texas | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
BrianGrass1234
Advanced Member
Member # 5845
|
posted
I voted for the second option, but I'm on the fence. On one hand I understand the argument for pacifism, yet the Bible also tells us the love always protects, and I think violence in some circumstances may be necessary to protect.
As far as this coincides with my votes, I vote for the candidate that will most lesson the aggression of the state against others and vote against most anything people want the government to do, vote for removing government programs.
Posts: 203 | From: Weed, CA | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
BrianGrass1234
Advanced Member
Member # 5845
|
posted
What do you believe is an acceptable use of violence for modern day Christians? Now that you've answered that question, as your self, does what and who you vote for violate that standard of violence?
Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 17 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.
| |
Posts: 203 | From: Weed, CA | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
