When is violence okay for a Christian?

[Dracula Girl]

It's certainly not talking about government. But why do you think this belongs solely to the sphere of personal morality? And why do you think we can make such a distinction?

OK, bad word choice. Morality is the same, whatever the arena it is in. A lot of that was closely based on a transcript of an instant messenger conversation that I had last night with a friend. Perhaps I should have left that out, but I was rather anxious to post something as I was waiting until today to write out a lot on the topic. (Can you say edit?)

I can't accept the notion that just because violence is state-sanctioned that that makes it okay.

1 Peter 2:13-17
13Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme, 14or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. 15For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men-- 16as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. 17Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.

Romans 13:4-5
4For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience' sake.

If you take away any form and degree of violence as permittable, then you disregard “does not bear the sword in vain.”

Some are to be willing to commit violence. This is a sinful and corrupt world. As the salt of the earth, we are to do everything before violence to preserve the world around us from falling further into sin, but some people won’t be swayed from it until they are threatened with violence and if one of them tries enough and there is no force acted against them, then that threat becomes meaningless.

We need these laws able to be enforced because some people are just going to choose violence. The Old Testament had some pretty enforced ways of doing such things. Not that we should suddenly go back to it, for indeed we are under the new covenant, but it’s worth considering in discussing the morality of defensive actions. Mankind’s natural tendencies didn’t suddenly become pure just because Jesus came.

Must go to bed soon, more coming

[Glenn P]

We need these laws able to be enforced because some people are just going to choose violence. The Old Testament had some pretty enforced ways of doing such things. Not that we should suddenly go back to it, for indeed we are under the new covenant, but it’s worth considering in discussing the morality of defensive actions. Mankind’s natural tendencies didn’t suddenly become pure just because Jesus came.

Joan, I think you're absolutely right here. This is a new topic from self defense strictly speaking, but it's important. Having laws means having violence - in the sense of using force against people with or without their consent (which, really, is what violence is). It's that simple, because when we say that something is against the law, we also mean that there are authorities who are prepared to prevent people from doing things against their will, and who are prepared to rspond to people who do those things, with or without their consent, to force them to a particular resolution, be it reparation or punishment. Civil law means the willingness to use force.

Glenn

[Teallaura]

...

1 Peter 2:13-17
13Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme, 14or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. 15For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men-- 16as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. 17Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.

Romans 13:4-5
4For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience' sake.

If you take away any form and degree of violence as permittable, then you disregard “does not bear the sword in vain.”

Some are to be willing to commit violence. This is a sinful and corrupt world. As the salt of the earth, we are to do everything before violence to preserve the world around us from falling further into sin, but some people won’t be swayed from it until they are threatened with violence and if one of them tries enough and there is no force acted against them, then that threat becomes meaningless.

We need these laws able to be enforced because some people are just going to choose violence. The Old Testament had some pretty enforced ways of doing such things. Not that we should suddenly go back to it, for indeed we are under the new covenant, but it’s worth considering in discussing the morality of defensive actions. Mankind’s natural tendencies didn’t suddenly become pure just because Jesus came.

Must go to bed soon, more coming

Hi!
I agree with Joan (Surprised, huh? ).
It does shift off of self-defense slightly (arguably it merely blurs the distinction between self-defense/defense of another somewhat) but it raises another valid question brought up earlier; given your 'no violence at all' understanding of Scripture, is it permissible for Christians to be policemen or must we rely on God to use non-Christians in that capacity (or in the function of deliverer when He chooses to deliver us using human agency)?

I was beginning to wonder if any of you guys ever sleep (juries still out on how many of you have jobs . Five minutes, I turn my back for five minutes..... )

Beddy bye break for everyone! See y'all tomorrow in the playground!

[lightmanx5]

[...] juries still out on how many of you have jobs [...]

I have a job!

---

is it permissible for Christians to be policemen or must we rely on God to use non-Christians in that capacity (or in the function of deliverer when He chooses to deliver us using human agency)?

I know a Christian policeman. But I don't know if he's in the right. I also don't know that he's in the wrong. I just don't know either way, because I haven't found (or been revealed to) ample information on that particular subject.

[Dracula Girl]

So... we no longer have to repay evil with good if the evildoer is not a Christian? That sounds to me like the logical conclusion of what you're suggesting, Kira.

No, we should show even more love then. No where in the New Testament does Christ say "If a mass murderer slaughters hundreds of people, turn the other cheek." If it does, I would certainly like to know where. It would certainly seem like stronger words to me than walking two miles, however hard or accepting an insult or a slap and turning the other cheek. Those things cause far less loss of life than mass murder does. Wouldn't you agree they do?

If someone strikes you upon your right cheek tomorrow, what are you going to do to them? Clobber them back?

No. That would be acting in anger. See above.

James 1:19-20
19So then, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath; 20for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God.

Matthew 5:21-22
21"You have heard that it was said to those of old, "You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.' 22But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, "Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, "You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire.

Now in this case, Jesus really cut to the heart of man. This supports the fact that the anger of man cannot be righteous. God didn’t just go around telling people to act on their anger. In fact, that anger is show to be foolishness in Numbers. This doesn't involve violence on a person, but it shows that violence should not be done through anger.

Numbers 22:28-30
28Then the LORD opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?"

29And Balaam said to the donkey, "Because you have abused me. I wish there were a sword in my hand, for now I would kill you!"

30So the donkey said to Balaam, "Am I not your donkey on which you have ridden, ever since I became yours, to this day? Was I ever disposed to do this to you?"

And he said, "No."

I believe this would be an unjustified use of violence. Nothing good could come of, whereas some good would come from stopping a future terrorist could have something good come of it like the saving on many lives and even souls as time passes.

1 John 3:11-12
11For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, 12not as Cain who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother's righteous.

Again, anger and jealousy, these are bad reasons for violence. These are also self-seeking and the Bible tells of that love is not self-seeking and that love is what the law comes down to be. There are other times though when God did decree violence. In the Old Testament, we have examples in the laws and also in the politics of the times i.e. who is fighting with whom. We don’t see as much of the inter-people warfare because the time of Christ was during that Pax Romana, a time when the Roman Empire held of good deal of territory at peace, not necessarily with kindness, but you didn’t have all of the different people fighting each other. This happened during the time of Christ because it allowed the Gospel to spread farther faster. If God is perfect, then He will not tell people to sin. After all, He is supposed to love them. Right and wrong don't change over time.

This is an example I already posted where God told Moses to use violence.
Numbers 33:50-56
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...6;&version=45;

If so... what does Matt 5:38-48 mean to you?

If someone causes me a small harm, it means let it go and don't hang onto to every offense and seek for it to be made right. Acting on these doesn't do much good. It also is a ways from talking about mass murder and such for me. Acting against these may at times be necessary to save lives.

Also, when the eye for an eye thing was first mentioned in the Bible, it was to limit the amount of revenge that was allowed. What Jesus said cut away at the idea that a vengeful heart was alright to have. Vengence is self-seeking.

Not dealing with robbers and thieves in this context? What about the giving your tunic as well to the man who demands your cloak?

Bad choice of words. I should have said terrorists, mass murderers, and repeat gang rapists. Lets replace that with those words and see what you say?

[Dracula Girl]

Joan, I think you're absolutely right here. This is a new topic from self defense strictly speaking, but it's important. Having laws means having violence - in the sense of using force against people with or without their consent (which, really, is what violence is). It's that simple, because when we say that something is against the law, we also mean that there are authorities who are prepared to prevent people from doing things against their will, and who are prepared to rspond to people who do those things, with or without their consent, to force them to a particular resolution, be it reparation or punishment. Civil law means the willingness to use force.

Glenn

If I might add for a moment why we need this.

Genesis 6:5The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination and intention of all human thinking was only evil continually.

Romans 3:23
23Since all have sinned and are falling short of the honor and glory [a]which God bestows and receives.

Romans 5:12-13a
12Therefore, as sin came into the world through one man, and death as the result of sin, so death spread to all men, because all men sinned. 13a Sin was in the world before ever the Law was given,

Ephesians 4:22
22Strip yourselves of your former nature which characterized your previous manner of life and becomes corrupt through lusts and desires that spring from delusion;

Human nature is sinful

The anger of man cannot produce the righteousness of God. Apparently neither can the righteousness of Man. I guess that is why God gave us a savior. Not all violence though is committed simply out of anger. There are a those who would act out of anger, those who would act out of hate, and those who would act out of love for who or what they are defending. If we love God, we would love others, and even seek to protect them from those who would cause them harm. We live peaceably with all people as much as we can, but some choose not to live in peace with us and we cannot just let everyone be doormats to the irrational and dangerous.

I am a full time college student and currently unemployed.

[glocksout]

If I might add for a moment why we need this.

Genesis 6:5The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination and intention of all human thinking was only evil continually.

...and then God destroyed everything and everyone. good example...

like i've said, i'm still not sure what to think. when i read the Just War doctrine, he says we can only kill if it's just and only with pure love in our hearts. i watched the history channel last night about the ild west hangings. i imagine that this pure love would be like the hand of the executioner over the lever on the scaffold compared to the hand of abram over Issac, or the hand of God on Jesus when he destroyed him on the cross.

imagine if you will pluging your dagger into your child, your mother, brother, wife, etc. isn't this the picture that Jesus gives us when he says to love even our enemies?

do we honestly think we can kill in pure love?

perhaps with the greatest reluctance and thru tears. i can't imagine destroying someone. and i know the spirits of my marine friends back from iraq, their spirits are destroyed through it.

let me introduce further scripture now:

Matthew 6:14, 15 For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

how do we use this in our hypotheticals? given how much forgiveness God gave to us, how much forgiveness do we exhibit towards our enemies?

Matthew 18:33
Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’

this one from a parable... an image of God forgiving us our infinite debt to him and us refusing to forgive one who had very little debt to us.

these aren't strong passages to support a total non-violence thing, but the attitude we bring to it is certainly involved.

[Glenn P]

I know a Christian policeman. But I don't know if he's in the right. I also don't know that he's in the wrong. I just don't know either way, because I haven't found (or been revealed to) ample information on that particular subject.

Rule of thimb: If there is not adequate information to say that somebody is in the wrong, then he is in the right. Presume liberty.

Glenn

[Dracula Girl]

...and then God destroyed everything and everyone. good example...

like i've said, i'm still not sure what to think. when i read the Just War doctrine, he says we can only kill if it's just and only with pure love in our hearts. i watched the history channel last night about the ild west hangings. i imagine that this pure love would be like the hand of the executioner over the lever on the scaffold compared to the hand of abram over Issac, or the hand of God on Jesus when he destroyed him on the cross.

imagine if you will pluging your dagger into your child, your mother, brother, wife, etc. isn't this the picture that Jesus gives us when he says to love even our enemies?

do we honestly think we can kill in pure love?

perhaps with the greatest reluctance and thru tears. i can't imagine destroying someone. and i know the spirits of my marine friends back from iraq, their spirits are destroyed through it.

let me introduce further scripture now:

Matthew 6:14, 15 your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

how do we use this in our hypotheticals? given how much forgiveness God gave to us, how much forgiveness do we exhibit towards our enemies?

Matthew 18:33
Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’

this one from a parable... an image of God forgiving us our infinite debt to him and us refusing to forgive one who had very little debt to us.

these aren't strong passages to support a total non-violence thing, but the attitude we bring to it is certainly involved.

I used that verse to support my claim that human nature is naturally sinful. I don't think that in all cases violence is a matter of not forgiving. Would it really be better for one hundred people to die because kicking a terrorist in the knee is violent? What about mercy to the one hundred not not all saved people? I am very much prefering non-violence, and in favor of using violence to save others.

"imagine if you will pluging your dagger into your child, your mother, brother, wife, etc. isn't this the picture that Jesus gives us when he says to love even our enemies?"

I didn't know that letting this happen was what He had in mind. I wonder why I missed where Jesus said if an irrational person bent on evil is about to slaughter your family or neighbors or friends or even a couple of strangers in front of you after God has given you the power to save lives that you should turn the other cheek and let it happen.

"your heavenly Father will also forgive you."
This comes back to what I said about anger. Where there is anger, there is no forgiveness. What I am talking about is not from anger or unforgiveness, but for the saving of lives. It comes back to where your heart is because that will show in your actions. Protection is not unforgiveness. It is to prevent more to be forgiven and to prevent harm as much harm as possible for anyone/everyone.

"fellow servant"
Funny, I didn't know that my fellow servents included a mass murderer bent on killing people but ok. I shall assume then that this means that it is more merciful to let the irrationally bent on murder to commit that sin and in so doing bring harm to others.

"these aren't strong passages to support a total non-violence thing, but the attitude we bring to it is certainly involved. "

That is exactly what I have been saying! There isn't support for total non-violence, but we can't just rush into the discission that we should use violence and it must not be out of anger or anything like that, but only to make only the least harm the one that is acted on when someone is intent on doing harm to others.

But if indeed there are times when violence is to be done, how shall we who are sinful and fooling beings know when that is?

Proverbs 3:5-6
5Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
And lean not on your own understanding;
6In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He shall direct your paths.

James 1:5-6
5If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him. 6But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind.

James 3:13-14
13Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show by good conduct that his works are done in the meekness of wisdom. 14But if you have bitter envy and self-seeking in your hearts, do not boast and lie against the truth.

It may be that 99.999 percent of the time violence is not needed and therefore should not be used, but in that last 0.001 percent of time, violence is reasonable because it is the only way to stop greater violence. One cannot be one hundred percent anti-violence without blatantly denying parts of the Old Testament. I don’t think that much of it was made untrue by Jesus returning, just that our comprehensive sacrificial lamb died once and for all. I leave you with this closing thought.

Ecclesiastes 3:1-5
1 To everything there is a season,
A time for every purpose under heaven:
2A time to be born,
And a time to die;
A time to plant,
And a time to pluck what is planted;
3A time to kill,
And a time to heal;
A time to break down,
And a time to build up;
4A time to weep,
And a time to laugh;
A time to mourn,
And a time to dance;
5A time to cast away stones,
And a time to gather stones;
A time to embrace,
And a time to refrain from embracing;

[Dracula Girl]

Do friends let drunk yet insistant friends drive drunk if there was another way simply because they might have to wrestle the keys away from there friends?

If a man is drunk and he is an angry drunk who is about to do something that might might kill a member of his family, something that he would regret when he sobers up, do you never ever use force to stop him?

Is that really loving?

[Teallaura]

I used that verse to support my claim that human nature is naturally sinful. I don't think that in all cases violence is a matter of not forgiving. Would it really be better for one hundred people to die because kicking a terrorist in the knee is violent? What about mercy to the one hundred not not all saved people? I am very much prefering non-violence, and in favor of using violence to save others.

"imagine if you will pluging your dagger into your child, your mother, brother, wife, etc. isn't this the picture that Jesus gives us when he says to love even our enemies?"

I didn't know that letting this happen was what He had in mind. I wonder why I missed where Jesus said if an irrational person bent on evil is about to slaughter your family or neighbors or friends or even a couple of strangers in front of you after God has given you the power to save lives that you should turn the other cheek and let it happen.

"your heavenly Father will also forgive you."
This comes back to what I said about anger. Where there is anger, there is no forgiveness. What I am talking about is not from anger or unforgiveness, but for the saving of lives. It comes back to where your heart is because that will show in your actions. Protection is not unforgiveness. It is to prevent more to be forgiven and to prevent harm as much harm as possible for anyone/everyone.

"fellow servant"
Funny, I didn't know that my fellow servents included a mass murderer bent on killing people but ok. I shall assume then that this means that it is more merciful to let the irrationally bent on murder to commit that sin and in so doing bring harm to others.

"these aren't strong passages to support a total non-violence thing, but the attitude we bring to it is certainly involved. "

That is exactly what I have been saying! There isn't support for total non-violence, but we can't just rush into the discission that we should use violence and it must not be out of anger or anything like that, but only to make only the least harm the one that is acted on when someone is intent on doing harm to others.

But if indeed there are times when violence is to be done, how shall we who are sinful and fooling beings know when that is?

Proverbs 3:5-6
5Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
And lean not on your own understanding;
6In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He shall direct your paths.

James 1:5-6
5If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him. 6But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind.

James 3:13-14
13Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show by good conduct that his works are done in the meekness of wisdom. 14But if you have bitter envy and self-seeking in your hearts, do not boast and lie against the truth.

It may be that 99.999 percent of the time violence is not needed and therefore should not be used, but in that last 0.001 percent of time, violence is reasonable because it is the only way to stop greater violence. One cannot be one hundred percent anti-violence without blatantly denying parts of the Old Testament. I don’t think that much of it was made untrue by Jesus returning, just that our comprehensive sacrificial lamb died once and for all. I leave you with this closing thought.

Ecclesiastes 3:1-5
1 To everything there is a season,
A time for every purpose under heaven:
2A time to be born,
And a time to die;
A time to plant,
And a time to pluck what is planted;
3A time to kill,
And a time to heal;
A time to break down,
And a time to build up;
4A time to weep,
And a time to laugh;
A time to mourn,
And a time to dance;
5A time to cast away stones,
And a time to gather stones;
A time to embrace,
And a time to refrain from embracing;

You go, girl! Dang, you keep this up and y'all aren't gonna need me anymore... sniff!

[glocksout]

"imagine if you will pluging your dagger into your child, your mother, brother, wife, etc. isn't this the picture that Jesus gives us when he says to love even our enemies?"

I didn't know that letting this happen was what He had in mind. I wonder why I missed where Jesus said if an irrational person bent on evil is about to slaughter your family or neighbors or friends or even a couple of strangers in front of you after God has given you the power to save lives that you should turn the other cheek and let it happen.

... It comes back to where your heart is because that will show in your actions...

it seems like you missed the point of my last post. but then you got it.

Funny, I didn't know that my fellow servents included a mass murderer bent on killing people but ok.

you really are missing my point. i don't want to stray from the topic, but if not the crazy man, who?

"these aren't strong passages to support a total non-violence thing, but the attitude we bring to it is certainly involved. "

That is exactly what I have been saying!

you really did miss the last post.

[Dracula Girl]

it seems like you missed the point of my last post. but then you got it.

you really are missing my point. i don't want to stray from the topic, but if not the crazy man, who?

you really did miss the last post.

You're missing my point. I am not advocating violence out of hatred, anger, unforgiveness, or anything self-seeking. I am advocating the least harm that has to happen when someone tries to hurt others. Every once in a while the only way for that to happen is by taking some action against the offender once his intentions have been made clear through his actions and to the extent that it is possible all other options have proved not successful. If you think that I am wrong, please start with answering the questions about the two people who are drunk.

Do friends let drunk yet insistant friends drive drunk if there was another way simply because they might have to wrestle the keys away from there friends?

If a man is drunk and he is an angry drunk who is about to do something that might might kill a member of his family, something that he would regret when he sobers up, do you never ever use force to stop him?

Is that really loving?

I answer rhetorical questions: I don't ask them. I expect an answer and a reason.

[Dracula Girl]

You go, girl! Dang, you keep this up and y'all aren't gonna need me anymore... sniff!

and ah, we'll still need you. Besides, pretty soon I need to work on some new matterial to post.

[Dracula Girl]

If you are to tell me that total non-violence is the only acceptable way to go under any and every circumstance, then you must explain these:

Why you are discounting of Ecclesiastes 3:1-5.

Why God would command people to sin and have them follow through on it as in the Old Testament or why God and right and wrong changed over time.

(In the cases of the commands to the Israelites to commit such acts of sin in battle and if they did not complete it, the people who were left would give them trouble and even militarily harass them so that it was better for the Israelites to complete these act of sin, and in the Law which included violent acts of punishment which I am not even supporting here as much as the right to some defense from someone who but do consider Matthew 5:17-18. I shall assume that in cases where other nations were used as in the case of the Persians against the Babylonians won’t count as they would be violent anyway and I’m not sure it is all rhetorical or not, as in the end of Jeremiah)

Why the author of Hebrew praised people for sinning well. Hebrews 11:33-34

Why you discount Romans 13:4 or other wise what kind of non-humans are ruling our government. (I really am serious.)


If you tell me that we should never just automatically jump towards violence and that it should be used for the long term good of as many as possible rather than some outlet for our own anger or other selfish reasons, then I agree.

I always think like when in doubt, in as much as is possible, preserve life. Life is such a precious and sacred gift from God and only He can give it. We have this in this life where can meet God and in eternity as we are saved through Christ. Spiritual life which will last into eternity is certainly that most important. I would like to see those who do know God have a chance to know Him more and fall more in love with Him and serve Him as He wills and those who don't know Him still have a chance to know Him. The Bible tells us to care for the needy, even in the things that matter in this life. I would like to see as little harm as possible come to all, that as many as possible might survive and all who do may might have years left to live for the Lord. I believe that there is enough in the scripture to show that total non-violence is not always the way to go. Maybe there are times today when it is used to often. I don't know. I have only what God has allowed me to have. If I have the power to act to save a life and I would rather die myself than see many lives perish because I did not use my God-given power to stop it and save those lives. That is where I stand on violence.

Peace out (or however that goes.)