Christianity and self defense

solus said:

if one can wager for some form of deity...then most certainly one can wager against such an existence...

quoth nightmare: Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. so quoth nightmare

you see, again, as you quoth, ...there is no time to hesitate, you must give all. unquoth. as has been consistently shown by my actions, as well from my behaviour, my all has been and continues to be given...and as you, yourself have pointed out by parroting Pascal...i lose absolutely & unequivocably nothing whatsoever.

those wagering there is a deity...and lose will be utterly devastated beyond consolement.

btw...is citing your own rhetoric acceptable or shall i go copy the bloody gutenburg website url also?

ipse

Click to expand...

If God exists, then not raising his ire is of some benefit to me.

If God does not exist, I have lost nothing, nor will I be disappointed for not getting stuck by a bolt of lightning...just say-in.

OC for ME said:

If God exists, then not raising his ire is of some benefit to me.

If God does not exist, I have lost nothing, nor will I be disappointed for not getting stuck by a bolt of lightning...just say-in.

Click to expand...

my mentality also...do not go through the mumbo jumbo motions and live life accordingly or be wrong and hope the deity i meet at the end is forgiving...:uhoh: (if not i will join a gaggle of my friends in the afterlife)

ipse

This article is unbearable.

My handgun, on the other hand, is quite bearable, and I will continue to bear it.

ETA: I fear that Romans 13, and other passages like it, may be of the most misunderstood passages, in our time.

I think it may be highly problematic to so simply defer use of sword and pursuit of justice to the government, as if the government must be disparate and exclusive from Christianity; highly problematic to adopt a philosophy that fundamentally requires non-Christians in order to be complete and to function properly; problematic to adopt a philosophy that requires the sword bearers, pursuers of justice, and government, to be a completely disparate, exclusive group from Christians; problematic to adopt a philosophy where core structures in society are exclusively reserved for non-Christians, where non-Christians are exclusively ordained for the tasks; problematic to adopt a philosophy that requires widespread failure and hardship in order for there to be personal, small scale success.


The author comes across as though he'd rather society be in ruin, so that he can "suffer for Christ," than for society to adopt methods that succeed in reducing suffering across the board.

Jesus did not come for physical revolution against existing governments. Rather, you might say he came for spiritual revolution. It might be said that a physical revolution by Christians at the time would have drastically hindered the spiritual revolution that Jesus began, if not resulted in the swift extinction of physical Christians from the world. None of this precludes the legitimacy of self-defense under Christianity.

Nightmare said:

One may, one can, but Rene Pascal did not as Himself-alone ignorantly asserted.

Click to expand...

nightmare, not sure what you are cranky about to hurl your self serving disparaging comment towards me...

tis a fact, even pascal stated...to wager individuals bet for or bet against 'quote you do not have a choice unquote' and it has been way for eons...

i win, eh, i lose ~ again per pascal, I LOSE NOTHING!

you may spin it philosophically any way you wish...either way i win!

ipse

What ever happened to "not even a sparrow falls from the sky unless it is part of god's plan" ?
Everything else is self-serving and is a display of distrust of god's plan. *




* or so it can be said. Translations vary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

nonameisgood said:

What ever happened to "not even a sparrow falls from the sky unless it is part of god's plan" ?
Everything else is self-serving and is a display of distrust of god's plan. *

* or so it can be said. Translations vary.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

and here i am w/o a single assarion...

ipse

As a confessional Lutheran that article was a tough read. The out of context verses that he references throughout the article are almost painful to read when he puts his spin on them. Unfortunately, I don't see the article having anything but confusion to offer.

It seems like he's saying he wouldn't shoot to stop an assault on his wife because in his mind using a gun is according to the Bible, only for the state to use. However, his points throughout the article describe how Christians are called and should endure suffering, but wouldn't stopping or attempting to stop an assailant on his wife, by his terms, be attempting to escape that suffering that he describes. Why would using something other than a gun be ok if the whole idea is how Christians should suffer so the Gospel can go forward.

His point was summed up in this statement toward the end, "...exhorting the lambs to carry concealed weapons with which to shoot the wolves does not advance the counter-cultural, self-sacrificing, soul-saving cause of Christ."

He's very confused in this statement and implies that the opposite of this statement is true. Exhorting the lambs to do nothing to stop an act of violence against someone who's helpless isn't counter-cultural and isn't self-sacrificing and it's not loving our neighbors as ourselves, which is as Christians a call to act.

Solos, nightmare, please take your discussion to another thread as it is very off topic. May I suggest the social forum, as it's completely non OC related.

STLDaniel said:

Solos, nightmare, please take your discussion to another thread as it is very off topic. May I suggest the social forum, as it's completely non OC related.

Click to expand...

excuse me?

That's me in the corner
That's me in the spotlight
Losing my religion

(my apologies to R.E.M.)

ipse

77zach said:

I'd appreciate feedback from professing Christians. It gives me pause to disagree with Piper. I agree with some of what he says. Some of it I almost see as sinful in the right context and disagree sharply.

Click to expand...

I am a professing Christian (despite the fact that some in Christianity would claim I am not really a Christian).

Let us start by recognizing that "Christianity" is a rather broad umbrella with a lot of different social views. There are Christian denominations that are either pacifist or that have a large number of members who are pacifists. I would not wish to disparage such sincerely held beliefs. I believe that pacifism can be consistent with Christian teachings and beliefs...but probably only as a personal obligation between an individual and God. For example: some may find themselves unable to use defensive violence without crossing into hate or other forbidden attitudes. For them, "plucking out" the eye that offends them, as it were, may be the best option to remain true to the dictates of their Christianity.

But for most Christians I believe that self-defense against unjust aggression is in keeping with Biblical teachings. What Piper has done in this paper is to focus on scriptures that support his point of view while ignoring scriptures that may counter his preconceived notions. This is common. We often see the non-religious attempt to beat Christians into submission on social issues by claiming that Jesus said we must love everyone (true) and then equating disagreement with behavior or honest preaching/teaching about what is sinful as being "hateful" (of course that is not what hate is). Among the religious, it is common to focus on scriptures that support our points of view or religious doctrines, while downplaying, ignoring, or re-interpreting scriptures that otherwise contradict us.

The Bible is full of seeming contradictions including the contradiction between "let your light so shine" to the "don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing".

As I posted in the Liberty University thread about the address to which Piper is responding in the article you reference, Christ didn't much chastise or correct Peter for cutting off the Centurian's ear. He merely corrected Peter in that moment, and healed the ear, which removed all evidence of Peter committing a capital crime, leaving Peter free to continue his earthly ministry. He made clear that it was within His power to call down legions of angels to protect Himself if that were part of God's plan for Him. Since it wasn't, He didn't. That doesn't mean that rank-and-file Christians should plan to be defenseless victims, generally.

The same Jesus who Piper and other quote as being a pacifist, violently cleansed the Temple not once, but twice in recorded accounts. He cursed unto death an Olive Tree who gave the appearance of having fruit ready to eat, but that upon closer inspection was barren. Jesus Christ was not nearly the one-dimensional, pacifist some try to make him out to be.

I believe that Christians have an obligation to believe Jesus is the Son of God, the promised Messiah, their Savior and Redeemer, and to rely upon His grace for a remission of our sins. We have an obligation to love God and to love our fellow man as ourselves. We do not have any obligation beyond that when it comes to immigration, taxes, self-defense, UFOs, or most other social and political issues. I believe we should show respect to those whose personal understanding of Christianity or their personal obligations to God require them to adopt any particular social or political position. I don't believe such understandings on the part of others impose an obligation on the rest of us.

An internet search turns up several articles on the topic of Biblical teachings and self defense for those who want to do some study:

http://www.biblicalselfdefense.com/ (a nice study of pro-self-defense biblical scriptures from both the Old and New Testaments)
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm (Catholic catechisms including dealing with self-defense)
http://www.ldsliberty.org/the-right-and-responsibility-of-self-defense/ (one lay-member's view of Mormon teachings on self-defense)

Charles

As an almost lifelong professing Christian and student of both the Bible and other religions, I take Luke 22:36 as being the charge, from Christ, to have the means to defend self and family.

It should also be remembered that Christ took a scourge and lay into the money changers in the temple. So even He was known to use violence to correct a wrong.

As has been stated numerous times, both here and on other sites, we open carry or concealed carry not as evidence of a desire to harm someone, but as a means to be able to defend against an attacker.

Here is a good response

http://americanvision.org/12837/a-biblical-response-to-john-pipers-denial-of-the-right-to-bear-arms/

being curious that i am i pondered 'professing christians' and was surprised to discern according to current definition, these kind souls, quote: ...declare their belief while not actually adhering to it. unquote.

quote: Christianity Today recently divided Christians into five categories: Active, Professing, Liturgical, Private and Cultural. Page 4 of the article gives the characteristics of each type. (Not all would consider every one of those five to be true Christians).


Not all those who profess Christianity necessarily actually adhere to its beliefs. This has led some to adopt the term "professing Christians" for those who outwardly declare their belief while not actually adhering to it. There is some support for this usage in the dictionary definition given above. In that case "professing Christians" are contrasted with "true Christians", meaning those who practice their belief as well as declaring it. True Christians (in this usage) may also actually profess their faith. unquote

http://christianity.stackexchange.c...rofessing-and-a-non-professing-christian-with

christianity today's cite: http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/2007/fall/1.19.html?start=1

so the question arises which part of the religion isn't adhered to?

ipse

Glad to see pedanticalness making its way into the thread, while the OP's meaning is clearly communicated and unambiguous. I can't wait for the next off-topic diversion. What'll it be?

77zach, that is a good one. There are so many things wrong with Piper's piece, we may have to accumulate a number of rebuttals before we even begin to cover everything of err.

stealthyeliminator said:

Glad to see pedanticalness making its way into the thread, while the OP's meaning is clearly communicated and unambiguous. I can't wait for the next off-topic diversion. What'll it be?

77zach, that is a good one. There are so many things wrong with Piper's piece, we may have to accumulate a number of rebuttals before we even begin to cover everything of err.

Click to expand...

stealth, exceptionally pleased and overjoyed to see your education is such that you are aware of the fine nuances of all facets & minutia of every bit of scrap of knowledge...

as well as super glad you got to use that scrabble word tho, sorry, you don't get any points...

are you so egotistical to believe there are those readers who might not understand the term and are surprised to see the term professed equates to a "declared belief but not actually adhering to it". Further my information came from good Christian sources and even nightmare acknowledged the quagmire of terms reflecting folks level of faith.

when i was growing up, my Catholic & Baptist caregivers called those kind souls, "holiday believers"!!

ipse

It is on-topic to examine the kind of believer involved. Some people look at Christianity as a single entity, but as the man himself points out, some people pick and choose, some take a literal view, and some say it but don't do it. You can't make it an us vs them without a unification of "us".
It is exactly the hypocritical acts and talk of some Christians and sects/denominations that drive people from organized religion.
That said, people love to find justification for their stance in scripture. You fall into a trap if you pick and choose passages. Seems to me that you look at the sum of the Books and choose a course, not based on a phrase or paragraph or single Book, but on your understanding (informed by scholars and ministers) of God.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lets back up a second here. We arent talking simply 2A rights here, we're talking the basic principle of honoring the governing authorities.


Romans 13:1-2A

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God;

Click to expand...

However in the US the highest law of the land is the Constitution. If the law is not in subjection to that, *then we have every right to disobey that as it isnt law. This is what allows people like the Citizen Militia to defend the Bundy Ranch, spring children kidnapped by the CPS and demand the police subjugate themselves to We The People.


*Yes I know the precious Rule 15. I'm talking about from a biblical standpoint.

rightwinglibertarian said:

Lets back up a second here. We arent talking simply 2A rights here, we're talking the basic principle of honoring the governing authorities.


Romans 13:1-2A


However in the US the highest law of the land is the Constitution. If the law is not in subjection to that, *then we have every right to disobey that as it isnt law. This is what allows people like the Citizen Militia to defend the Bundy Ranch, spring children kidnapped by the CPS and demand the police subjugate themselves to We The People.


*Yes I know the precious Rule 15. I'm talking about from a biblical standpoint.

Click to expand...

Piper doesn't think so. Piper thinks not only should you refrain from preventing the rape of your wife yourself (and delegation of authority from government->citizen [which is precisely opposite and contradictory of our nation's foundational philosophy] still can't authorize a Christian to use force), you might even aught to refrain from calling those governing authorities to stop the rape too. He's so far out I believe the OP is correct in identifying it as straightforwardly sinful.

stealthyeliminator said:

Piper doesn't think so. Piper thinks not only should you refrain from preventing the rape of your wife yourself (and delegation of authority from government->citizen [which is precisely opposite and contradictory of our nation's foundational philosophy] still can't authorize a Christian to use force), you might even aught to refrain from calling those governing authorities to stop the rape too. He's so far out I believe the OP is correct in identifying it as straightforwardly sinful.

Click to expand...

Then Piper is wrong. If one claims to be a Christian they must of necessity accept everything it teaches. If they cannot, then they need to stop pretending to be one. Now if they are persecuted for being a Christian then this is another matter. The Apostles took that kind of persecution and even rejoiced that they were counted worthy of it. But to be persecuted for choosing to exercise freedoms that most of the nation is too cowardly to defend should is another matter and there is no biblical prohibition against taking up arms to defend against that.
Now on the other hand if a Christian is living in China or North Korea he would be utterly foolish to get a megaphone and demand freedom of speech or gun rights etc. Those rights are not written into the laws of those countries. So to exercise them would be a clear violation of Romans 13. Finally though if however they are told they cannot worship together or read the Bible this command is nullified as it directly contradicts to Word of God and yes that should be disobeyed. Peter did in Acts though I forget the reference.

Here is another rejoinder

http://www.bobthune.com/2015/12/why-i-disagree-with-john-piper-on-christians-and-concealed-weapons/

https://calvinistinternational.com/2015/12/23/john-piper-guns-and-civic-responsibility/