+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 26

  1. #1
    BVR USA Liaison Guest

    Self-defense As A Christian Obligation

    SELF-DEFENSE AS A CHRISTIAN OBLIGATION
    Unscrambling the Message from the Pulpits


    Nowhere is Jesus Christ more misunderstood than with respect to his stance on violence. As a result of the work of Christian theologians, the faithful are never quite sure if they should defend themselves in the event of an assault or just stand there and turn the other cheek. They don’t know if they ought to shoot somebody who’s about to kill a member of their family or pray for the shooter. They wonder whether they should support capital punishment or look at a convicted murderer like he's a baby about to be aborted. Christians aren't sure if they should go to war when the draft board calls or claim conscientious-objector status. In fact, they generally appear to be totally confused when the subject turns to violence.

    Out of all this confusion, we can identify three general areas of Christian misunderstanding related to the use (or non-use) of violence. The first area of misunderstanding is typically known as self-defense; the second area can be called the defense of a third party; and the third area might be characterized as offensive violence in that it does not involve the direct defense of either oneself or another person. In this chapter, however, we’re going to look only at self-defense.


    The experienced prosecutor has come across citizens who seem unable to attempt to defend themselves, even in the face of physical assault. These people freeze when attacked. While there exists more than one possible explanation for this phenomenon, there is one in particular that stands out. It is the ingrained belief on the part of many such people that any kind of violence is wrong, even violence in response to violence.



    Christ, many Christians will be surprised to learn, vigorously counseled self-defense. While his authentic words on the subject seem never to receive much ink, Jesus is nevertheless on record as actually having admonished his followers to arm themselves. In Luke 22:36, he is quoted as saying, “Let him who has no sword sell his tunic and buy one.” It is safe to say he didn’t intend for his disciples to turn their newly purchased swords into plowshares.

    We don't need any more evidence than that already presented to convince a reasonable person that turning the other cheek didn't mean not to defend oneself, but let's push ahead with more evidence anyhow. After all, they are so convinced that violence is wrong in all instances that some people would insist on knowing what Jesus did mean by turning the other cheek, before they would even think of defending themselves.

    First, let's look at a Gospel setting in which Christ absolutely endorses self-defense. “But know this, that if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into (Luke 12:39). " Isn’t Jesus saying here that violence – or certainly the threat of violence – is not just the reasonable, but even the responsible, option to take in protecting one’s property, never mind one's person or one's family?

    Then, we have this next quotation from the Gospel of Mark: “But no one can enter the strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man (3:27).” Now, why would the bad guy have to bind the strong man? Obviously, because the strong man would otherwise do all he could to keep the bad guy out! And again, that's just to protect property.


    As if to confirm Mark's Gospel, we find these additional words of Christ in the Gospel of Luke: “When the strong man, fully armed, guards his courtyard, his property is undisturbed (11:21).” In case anyone still doesn’t get the point, it is not enough simply to defend yourself when the situation arises; you should be armed and ready to defend even your property. And this, of course, is what Jesus told his disciples to do shortly before he was taken prisoner, when he told them to make sure they had swords: arm yourselves and be ready.




    More to the point, though, than the fact that the three other Gospel accounts of the confrontation with the soldiers in Gethsemane do not contain the exhortation that those who live by the sword shall perish by the sword is the clear inference that Christ had authorized Peter to carry a sword in the first place! Does anyone seriously believe that being armed with a sword was solely Peter’s decision or that he had kept this three-foot blade of his a secret from the rest of the group, letting them think that he had perhaps a permanent erection of gigantic proportions?

    We are nevertheless entitled to ask why Jesus said – or is quoted as saying – that those who live by the sword shall perish by the sword? Is this quotation simply evidence of confusion on the part of eyewitnesses?

    Well, ask yourself this: What would Peter have gained by continuing to fight? Would he not, in fact, have perished by the swords of the High Priest’s soldiers? Those soldiers were not casual brigands he was facing, but a squad of professional combatants. Peter was very much outnumbered. Further, if Christ had wanted to avoid the High Priest’s soldiers, he easily could have taken the last camel train out of Jerusalem.


    (cont)

  2. #2
    BVR USA Liaison Guest

    Re: Self-defense As A Christian Obligation

    When Jesus Christ earlier had admonished those listening to his Sermon on the Mount to turn the other cheek, he was not issuing a moral directive to them. Rather, he was offering them profound psychological advice.

    Should someone ever slap you across the face, unless he is mentally defective, he will, as noted at the outset of this discussion, likely be in a relatively strong position vis-à-vis yourself. Slap someone in the face without being in a much stronger position and you face the strong possibility of being punched in your own face. Moreover, the slapper will be reserving the power to do you much greater harm than a slap. Thus, it would be foolhardy for you to oppose him (as with Jesus and his disciples facing the soldiers) – unless, of course, the other fellow had greatly misjudged your capacity to defend your honor, which is all that is harmed by a slap in the face.


    We do well to bear in mind here that in Christ’s time, not only were there no labor laws, but slavery was common. And so there were many people who found themselves in the position of having their faces slapped without any recourse and often even without provocation.

    In our society today, if someone were to slap my face, he would probably be either psychotic or a person with enormous power over me (my loan shark, perhaps, or an armed intruder). If he did not have such power over me, he would be putting himself in the position of possibly being assaulted by me in return, or of being arrested, or both.

    So, what Christ was advocating when he counseled turning the other cheek was not pacifism at all. Striking back simply would have been out of the question under the circumstances (just as it was out of the question for Peter to take on a squad of soldiers).

    Remember, Jesus was not speaking during the Sermon on the Mount to the ‘strong men’ referred to in the parables cited earlier. He was speaking to ordinary folks. And he was speaking of situations in which it would be virtually impossible for a slappee to respond aggressively to such an affront. All the slapee would have gotten for his efforts would have been a genuine beating, or worse.

    Jesus was instead advising his poor followers to ‘go with the flow’ under such circumstances. In other words, when someone is acting against you in a way you are powerless to oppose, it is prudent (and psychologically advantageous) to go along with him.

    There were two reasons for this practical advice, beyond the prevention of a genuine assault. By turning the other cheek, literally or even figuratively, a person thwarts his abuser’s intention to humiliate him, which is normally what a slap in the face is all about, especially one with the back of the hand. At the same time, the slapped person averts the feeling of being controlled that he would otherwise experience as a result of having been humiliated.

    Christ elaborated upon this counsel by presenting an additional scenario: "When a man makes you walk one mile, walk two (Matthew 5:41)." In walking the extra mile, the subordinate man clearly would be wanting what the other man wants, thereby demonstrating to the other man, and to himself, that it was his own choice even to have walked the first mile. Similarly, when he turns the other cheek, it is like saying that it was his choice to have been slapped the first time, too.


    The deeper psychological message in all this is that we are always in control of ourselves. Others may have power over us, in that they can prevent us from doing something and can even assault us, but they can never control us. In the final analysis, the choice to do something – or not to do it – is always in our hands. In fact, this lesson is arguably the major lesson -- or should be the major lesson -- of Jesus Christ’s life.

    So, when Jesus tells Christians from the pages of the Bible to turn the other cheek, he is not saying that they should not defend themselves against real threats. Quite the contrary. What he is saying is that if a necessarily subservient person, such as a slave, turns his other cheek rather than simply resents slap across the face, he will be giving himself a feeling of being in control in a situation where he otherwise would experience the humiliating feeling of being controlled by the other party.

    Again, in that same passage, when Christ goes on to tell Christians that where men make them walk one mile, they should walk two, he is repeating the same psychological principle: Whenever someone is exercising power over you, you will not feel controlled the way you otherwise would, if you take the initiative and ‘go him one better.’ By walking the extra mile, you demonstrate the fact that, in the final analysis, it is always you who are in control of yourself and not anyone else.


    But what about genuine bodily threats? Suppose, for example, that someone were attempting to murder me with a baseball bat. Would it be ‘wrong’ for me to shoot the person (assuming that I, like Peter in the Garden, were armed)? Or would Jesus tell me not to defend myself, as he presumably told Peter?

    Well, there are people who would counsel me not to defend myself, even under such circumstances, because Jesus wouldn’t want me to. Usually, these people don’t come right out and say that it’s wrong for us to defend ourselves against murderers. Instead, they do so indirectly.

    One of the ways in which they do this is by telling us that Jesus admonished his followers to love their enemies. The inference to be drawn by us is: 'How can I injure or very possibly kill someone I’m supposed to love, even if that person is hell-bent on killing me?'

    Another way in which some guardians of public morality ‘guide’ us in such cases is by reminding us that the Ten Commandments forbid us to kill. Here, though, they are being less than forthright; in fact, they are being liars. That particular Commandment actually forbids murder, not killing. Killing and murdering are different concepts. The murderer always kills, but the killer does not necessarily murder. Often the killer kills simply to defend himself or somebody else, and such an act is not murder.


    It should be clear that Jesus Christ did not teach pacifism. Quite the contrary. He admonished his followers to defend themselves psychologically, if not physically. In doing so, he also counseled against recklessness.

    Do not expect to convince a confirmed pacifist of the truth of these statements. Such people have their own reasons for their beliefs, and those reasons normally don’t have much, if anything, to do with Christ.

    You can, however, bring this matter to the attention of those who are genuinely looking for answers. In the case of children and grandchildren, such instruction might even be your duty.


    Failure to defend oneself and our families and friends is self-murder and a sin against God!!!

  3. #3
    Godeskian is offline I have taken all knowledge to be my province. User Rank
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    763

    Re: Self-defense As A Christian Obligation

    Didn't you post this a couple of months ago as well?
    Close your eyes, but keep your mind wide open.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,505

    Re: Self-defense As A Christian Obligation

    Quote Originally Posted by Godeskian
    Didn't you post this a couple of months ago as well?
    Capt. Copy and Paste (BVR) has posted so many thousand of these mind numbing bozo articals. Even he can't remember which ones he has and hasn't posted.

  5. #5
    sojustask's Avatar
    sojustask is offline The Late, Great Lady Mod - Retired User Rank
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: Self-defense As A Christian Obligation

    And he took it out of context both times:

    Matthew 5:

    38: Ye have heard that it has been said, Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    39 But I say unto you, not to resist evil; but whoever shall strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other;
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    40 and to him that would go to law with thee and take thy body coat, leave him thy cloak also.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    41 And whoever will compel thee to go one mile, go with him two.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    42 To him that asks of thee give, and from him that desires to borrow of thee turn not away.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    43 Ye have heard that it has been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who insult you and persecute you,
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    45 that ye may be the sons of your Father who is in the heavens; for he makes his sun rise on evil and good, and sends rain on just and unjust.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    46 For if ye should love those who love you, what reward have ye? Do not also the tax-gatherers the same?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    47 And if ye should salute your brethren only, what do ye extraordinary? Do not also the Gentiles the same?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    48 Be ye therefore perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Jesus told his followers to be harmless as doves & meek as sheep. He said the battles were spiritual, not physical.

    Ergo BVR: Jesus did not teach his followers anything about self-defence. In fact, many times he told them to flee.

    Lady Mod

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    5,840

    Re: Self-defense As A Christian Obligation

    Well said, Lady Mod. You are correct! ================================================== ================================================== == Now to BVR, You forgot to mention Luke 12:40 this is what Luke 12:39 is talking about," You also, keep ready because at an hour that do not think the Son of man is coming." These two scriptures Luke 12:39, Has nothing to do with violence. This is a warning to all of us people on earth. To stay spiritually awake, stay close to the teachings in the Bible, live by them, because one day in the future, Armageddon will be upon us. And True Chirstians do not fight in wars. they are neutral, to follow Jesus Christ, one does not go to wars, they dont vote, etc.

  7. #7
    Godeskian is offline I have taken all knowledge to be my province. User Rank
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    763

    Re: Self-defense As A Christian Obligation

    I've always thought that not defending yourself in the fact of agression is unbelievably selfish towards those who depend on you, and would no doubt much rather have a living you, than a martyred you. But that's just me.
    Close your eyes, but keep your mind wide open.

  8. #8
    BVR USA Liaison Guest

    Re: Self-defense As A Christian Obligation

    3 Killed in Mo. Church Shooting
    Aug 12 07:06 PM US/Eastern
    NEOSHO, Mo. (AP) - A gunman opened fire in the sanctuary of a southwest Missouri church Sunday, killing three people and wounding several others, authorities said.

    About 25 to 50 people were briefly held hostage at the First Congregational Church until the gunman surrendered, Neosho spokeswoman Desiree Bridges said.

    About four or five people were wounded, Police Chief Dave McCracken said, but several others who were injured fled the scene.

    The shooter was being held at the Newton County Jail, but police were not releasing any information about him. Bridges said he was related to someone in the church, but declined to elaborate. No charges had been filed Sunday, McCracken said.

    The gunman had two small-caliber handguns and one 9 mm semiautomatic machine pistol with a large magazine, McCracken said. The shooting followed the 1 p.m. service, which is held in Spanish. About 50 people, ranging in age from children to the elderly, were in the church at the time.

    The gunman surrendered to authorities after about 10 minutes of negotiation.

    "At the time that the rescue attempt was successful we had approximately 20 people in the sanctuary still," he said. "We had some people who escaped the crime scene prior to the police arrival that were wounded, and we had some people escape during the process and at the time of the rescue."

    He said no one was injured during the arrest.

    McCracken said he could not confirm whether the gunman was a member of the church. But he said an incident involving the suspect and a family that attended the First Congregational Church on Saturday night fueled the shooting Sunday.

    "At this point though, we don't have any information more than that," McCracken said.

    The identities of the deceased were being withheld, McCracken said.

    Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  9. #9
    BVR USA Liaison Guest

    Re: Self-defense As A Christian Obligation

    I tote My .45 to church with me so dude wouldn't have had a very good day at my Church ;)

  10. #10
    BVR USA Liaison Guest

    Re: Self-defense As A Christian Obligation

    Shooting Back: The Right and Duty of Self Defense (book)

    by Charl van Wyk

    What would you do if armed terrorists broke into your church and starting attacking your friends with automatic weapons in the middle of a worship service?

    Would you be prepared to defend yourself and other innocents?

    Would you be justified in doing so?

    Is it time for Americans to consider such once-unthinkable possibilities?

    There is one man in the world who can address these questions with first-hand experience.

    His name is Charl van Wyck – a South African who was faced with just such a shocking scenario.

    In "Shooting Back: The Right and Duty of Self-Defense," van Wyk makes a biblical, Christian case for individuals arming themselves with guns, and does so more persuasively than perhaps any other author because he found himself in a church attacked by terrorists.

    "Grenades were exploding in flashes of light. Pews shattered under the blasts, sending splinters flying through the air," he recalls of the July 25, 1993, St. James Church Massacre. "An automatic assault rifle was being fired and was fast ripping the pews -- and whoever, whatever was in its trajectory -- to pieces. We were being attacked!"

    But van Wyk was not defenseless that day. Had he been unarmed like the other congregants, the slaughter would have been much worse.

    "Instinctively, I knelt down behind the bench in front of me and pulled out my .38 special snub-nosed revolver, which I always carried with me," he writes in "Shooting Back," a book being published for the first time in America next month by WND Books. "I would have felt undressed without it. Many people could not understand why I would carry a firearm into a church service, but I argued that this was a particularly dangerous time in South Africa."

    During that Sunday evening service, the terrorists, wielding AK-47s and grenades, killed 11 and wounded 58. But the fact that one man – van Wyk – fired back, wounding one of the attackers and driving the others away.

    Those killed that day were:

    • Guy Cooper Javens

    • Richard Oliver O'Kill

    • Gerhard Dennis Harker

    • Wesley Alfonso Harker

    • Denise Gordon

    • Mirtle Joan Smith

    • Marita Ackerman

    • Andrey Kayl
    • Karamjin Oleg

    • Varaksa Velentin

    • Pavel Valuet

    The last four were Russian seamen attending the service as part of a church outreach program. Another Russian seaman, Dmitri Makogon, lost both legs and an arm in the attack.

    Using his personal and high-profile story as a launch-pad, van Wyk wrote "Shooting Back" – which instantly became a South African bestseller, as well as a bestseller for WND, which imported thousands of copies of the original book for sale online to audiences in the U.S. and around the world.

    But it was always a challenge maintaining supplies to meet the demand.

    This is the first time this book, previously published in South Africa, has been widely available in the U.S. and elsewhere.

    "I am honored to be a part of this historic undertaking – the republishing of this classic work in the United States," said Joseph Farah, founder of WND Books and editor and chief executive officer of WND. "We have been working on this for more than three years. Now everyone can read this amazing and important story, which has applications in terror-stricken America and for Christians and Jews throughout the world."

    Far from being just a reliving of the tragedy of the St. James Church Massacre, "Shooting Back" is a thorough examination of the whole issue of armed self-defense from a Christian perspective.

    It deals with burning questions that plague all conscience-driven people:

    • Should we carry arms?

    • When is it appropriate to defend ourselves and our families?

    • What can we do when our freedom to carry arms is legislated away from us?

    Using the Bible as his guidepost, van Wyk makes the case that Christians not only have the right but the duty to defend themselves and other innocents from such aggression.

    What's the lesson?

    “As Van Wyk’s experience illustrates, no place is totally safe — not even a church," explains Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, who wrote the foreword to the book. "The notion that declaring an area to be gun-free, will keep criminals from maliciously using guns is ludicrous. Any law that makes self-defense illegal or impractical is an illegitimate law, because such a law ultimately subjects people to the criminal element. I hope that Charl van Wyk’s book will help turn the tide. South Africans – and people everywhere – need to refuse to support any laws that leave them defenseless against murderers, robbers, rapists and arsonists."

    But this amazing true story doesn't end there. It's also about redemption and reconciliation. Several of the church members who were injured or who lost family members in the attacks, as well as van Wyk, later met with and forgave some of their repentant attackers.
    WND Books has published some 35 titles in the last three years – including bestsellers by Michael Savage, Wayne LaPierre and Jayna Davis. Unlike all of those previous releases, "Shooting Back" will be exclusively available for sale in WND's online store – Shop.WND.com.

    This is also the first WND Books release under a new partnership between WND and World Ahead Books, the exclusive distributor of WND Books beginning Jan. 1, 2007.

    Paperback.
    http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=1960

    sounds like a good read 2:

  11. 08-13-2007, 09:31 AM


  12. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    26,309

    Re: Self-defense As A Christian Obligation

    you might say that the term self defense has many aspects of application!?the martial arts are a training for self defense!?a way of no aggression yet capable of thwarting/redirecting the thrusts of any attack!?so self defense becomes an artform of movements all expressing the happy will to let your aggressor make a tired fool of himself!?it is the uneducated/unprepared reactionary form of so called self defense that causes fear of failure!?fear of loss!?fear of humiliation!?true education in self defense must necessarily include the attackers welfare!?otherwise reactionary self defense if taken as to a pre-emptive level becomes the very thing it feared in the first place!?the aggressor!?and of course,now likes it just fine!?hehe!!!....just askn.....
    i do not endorse/recommend any advertising on scam.com associated with my name /posts or otherwise. thank you

  13. 08-13-2007, 09:42 AM

    Reason
    Disgusting

  14. #12
    sojustask's Avatar
    sojustask is offline The Late, Great Lady Mod - Retired User Rank
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: Self-defense As A Christian Obligation

    Quote Originally Posted by Godeskian
    I've always thought that not defending yourself in the fact of agression is unbelievably selfish towards those who depend on you, and would no doubt much rather have a living you, than a martyred you. But that's just me.

    There is a difference between sacrificing yourself to protect those you love and self-defence for the sake of not getting picked on.

    I really have no problems with someone defending themselves when they get attacked. But if there is another way available (defending yourself against a bully doesn't exactly make the bully stop beating you) a Christian is to take it.

    But Jesus did not teach self-defence. He taught self sacrifice. At least he practiced what he preached. Literally.


    Lady Mod

  15. #13
    sojustask's Avatar
    sojustask is offline The Late, Great Lady Mod - Retired User Rank
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: Self-defense As A Christian Obligation

    Remember too that Jesus also taught that if you had the faith of a mustard seed you could move mountains. He meant that both figuratively as well as literally.

    So, if you speak his name with authority and do not waiver or doubt, you shouldn't need karate or a .45 to defend yourself. You can immobilize a person just by speaking it.

    Christians don't practice this part of christianity though. Though some backwoods churches still bring in the bags of snakes. But I dont' see many big obstacles being moved.

    Like planes, buildings, mountains, or even bullies.

    We have a very watered down faith. :(
    Last edited by sojustask; 08-14-2007 at 10:47 PM.

  16. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    100

    Re: Self-defense As A Christian Obligation

    Quote Originally Posted by sojustask
    Remember too that Jesus also taught that if you had the faith of a mustard seed you could move mountains. He meant that both figuratively as well as literally.

    So, is you speak his name with authority and do not waiver or doubt, you shouldn't need karate or a .45 to defend yourself. You can immobilize a person just by speaking it.

    Christians don't practice this part of christianity though. Though some backwoods churches still bring in the bags of snakes. But I dont' see many big obstacles being moved.

    Like planes, buildings, mountains, or even bullies.

    We have a very watered down faith. :(
    Interesting points you make here. In the book of Acts, we find the apostles in threatening situations where they did not seem to directly defend themselves with physical means. For example, Stephen, when being stoned, apparently did not resort to physical weaponry in his own defense (assuming he could have done so).

    However, the apostle Paul did accept help from a government official to rescue him from an angry mob (Acts 21). So we might agree that someone may take advantage of our law enforcement process, insofar as it allows him or her to legally defend personal interests.

    If an assailant is in my 2 year old's bedroom at night, I can of course:

    (1) engage in prayer for God's direct, miraculous protection, and / or

    (2) use direct, physical means, such as calling 911 and / or using direct force sufficient to disable the attacker.

    Assuming option (2) above would be within the law, perhaps we can agree that option (2) would be appropriate. True, with option (2) I'm not turning the other cheek in complete physical passivity and submission. But perhaps Jesus in Matthew 5 was not requiring total passivity in all situations, but was prohibiting action based on pure revenge or vindicative retaliation.

    With my 2 year old child under threat in the above example, my motive is not pure revenge, but rather, is defense of my child and prevention of a crime.

    Admittedly, I could try to protect my child through purely spiritual means (prayer), but perhaps Romans 13, and the example of Paul in Acts, support the use of legal physical means for self protection as well, without violating the spirit of Jesus' teachings in Matthew 5.

    If night stalkers who attack children are not inclined to fear prayer as a weapon against them, I might better dissuade them from their attack by letting them know I am armed to the teeth. Even if I would actually never use the weapons, I might want to give would-be aggressors a little doubt in their minds as a deterrent.

    However, I see this topic as one that reasonable people can disagree on. My Bible teacher at church is a fourth degree black belt, and he stresses in his school that karate is okay for self defense. But even those who advocate TOTAL passivity should be given a serious hearing.
    Last edited by rp3miler; 08-14-2007 at 09:48 PM. Reason: minor grammar improevment

  17. #15
    Godeskian is offline I have taken all knowledge to be my province. User Rank
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    763

    Re: Self-defense As A Christian Obligation

    Quote Originally Posted by sojustask
    So, if you speak his name with authority and do not waiver or doubt, you shouldn't need karate or a .45 to defend yourself. You can immobilize a person just by speaking it.
    I wish it worked that way in the real world, unfortunately the people who tend to have reverence for Jesus' name aren't generally the ones robbing you. And to be honest, most people intent on harm or theft aren't going to be swayed by a five letter word, even spoken with authority.
    Close your eyes, but keep your mind wide open.

  18. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    100

    Re: Self-defense As A Christian Obligation

    Quote Originally Posted by rp3miler
    If night stalkers who attack children are not inclined to fear prayer as a weapon against them, I might better dissuade them from their attack by letting them know I am armed to the teeth. Even if I would actually never use the weapons, I might want to give would-be aggressors a little doubt in their minds as a deterrent.
    After re-examining my own quote above, let me be the first to expose the flawed logic of it.

    In the quote, I was addressing the idea that, if we had sufficient faith, we could repel a physical threat by purely spiritual means, without needing a physical response.

    In my quote above, I implied that a purely spiritual defense would be inadequate because assailants might not be "inclined to fear prayer as a weapon against them." On this basis I then advocated armed force as a deterrent.

    But my logic here is flawed. According to the original premise, the reason we could use a non-physical defense when threatened is because our faith is unwavering. And unwavering faith would neutralize an attacker whether the attacker believed in the spiritual dynamics or not.

    In my quote, I wrongly assume that, if the attacker lacks faith in his potential victim's spiritual defense, this would nullify its usefulness, and make a physical defense necessary.

    But this is incorrect, according to the original idea I was responding to. This is illustrated by Moses and Pharaoh---even while Pharaoh lacked faith in Moses' claim to represent God, the pillar of fire still repelled the Egyptian chariots.

    So, my quote uses impaired thought. But, having said that, if I'm expecting an unwelcome guest in my house, I would need to have extreme confidence in the level of my faith, or I'm probably going with the firearms.
    Last edited by rp3miler; 08-15-2007 at 03:51 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. I will say this in defense of MLM
    By Mikethenewbie in forum MLM Scams
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 04-01-2013, 06:40 AM
  2. Christian Traditions are More Pagan than Christian
    By aegist in forum Religious Scams
    Replies: 148
    Last Post: 11-08-2012, 01:56 AM
  3. International Obligation In Ellection Fraud
    By phoneyid in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-26-2008, 04:25 AM
  4. DEfense
    By mark3274 in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-01-2008, 04:12 PM
  5. Self-defense As A Christian Obligation
    By BVR USA Liaison in forum Religious Scams
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 06-22-2007, 09:40 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •