• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Christianity and self defense

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
I read a scholarly treatment to the effect that Jesus's "render unto Caesar" comment was an adroit side-step when questioned by someone trying to trap Him into saying something that could be used against Him. I read this some years ago; couldn't even begin to tell you who or where. Made a lot of sense, though.

That is certainly part of it. Other similar accounts of the same type of thing was when the woman taken in adultery was brought to Him and He was asked whether to stone her or not.

No doubt His answer was a very well played side-step there, but it was not dishonest. Nor in context can the total interaction be taken as Him excusing sexual immorality as the record concludes with His admonition, "go thy way and sin no more."

In like fashion, His counsel to "render unto Caesar" and His miraculous payment of taxes (for two persons, presumably Him and His Father in Heaven) must be taken if full context if one wants to gain the full meaning. Most scriptures can be wrested to whatever meaning one wants, if one is merely looking to try to use scripture to prove a point. If one is attempting to learn what the scriptures are teaching, however, one must put aside pre-conceived notions and look at full context. This is why I did not rely on any single passage of scripture to make my argument that Jesus was not an anarchist.

Liberals who tend to be non- or even anti-religious have long attempted to hijack Christ's teachings to advance their own political and social agenda. "We have an obligation to care for the poor. Even Jesus says so," is not an uncommon theme used to justify massive welfare benefits.

On the flip side, some conservatives have used the scriptures to justify mistreating homosexuals, blacks, or others. Some--including yours truly in my younger days--have asserted that His teachings all but demand a libertarian view of the world so as to provide maximum choice for individuals to either freely accept or freely reject His teachings and invitation.

Go back far enough and kings used explicit divine authority to justify their absolute rule, and even after dropping that claim, churches were long so intertwined with governments as to be effective means of helping enforce government rules.

And now we have a few folks--some of whom don't much seem to be Christian--trying to paint Jesus as an anarchist. They do so without even attempting to cite scriptures where Jesus taught anarchy, or railed against government operating within its proper limits. He kept the law (of Moses) perfectly. Upwards of ten different times in the New Testament the phrase "tell no man" is used by Jesus or His disciples relative to His working of miracles. Yet he instructed the 10 lepers to show themselves unto the priests, the rightful authority to declare a person clean or unclean relative to leprosy. The man capable of calling down legions of angles to His defense submitted Himself to false charges and the ultimate punishment. If one accepts that Jesus is God embodied, then one must consider that the God of the Old Testament who gave laws and regulations in abundance is that same Jesus that some would attempt to hijack as an anarchist? The King of Kings and Lord of Lord, He upon whose shoulders the government will rest, cannot credibly be called an anarchist, except by the grossly Biblically ignorant.

Jesus Christ and His teachings transcend social and political categorization. For 2000 years men have struggled just to explain and understand the physical nature of Jesus and His relationship with God the Father and the Holy Ghost. The complexities and apparent contradictions in the Trinitarian view of God is but an example. Yet some callow posters blithely assert that Jesus was an anarchist? And then act as if tangential discussions of my examples demonstrating the contrary actually constitute a defense of their own, unsupported emphatic assertion?

Jesus Christ was not liberal, nor conservative. He was not libertarian, anarchist, nor statist.

To the extent that any of these social or political philosophies contain some eternal truth, we might expect that Christ embodied and exemplified such truths. But wherever these philosophies contain error, true believers would have to accept that Jesus rejected such falsehoods.

But it seems that while I've been away from the thread, some have made clear they came into it not to have an informed discussion of what Christian beliefs may require or prohibit or inform relative to personal self defense, but rather that some have come simply to mock, attack, or belittle Christian believers themselves.

So much for that polite thing we like to trumpet about ourselves.

And in case anyone is wondering the answer to the stupid question of the bumper sticker, "What would Jesus drive?" I've figured there are only two scripturally supported answers:

1-A flaming chariot. We'll leave the PETA folks and eco-nuts to worry about how the horses react to that fire behind them and whether the fire is giving off any carbon.

2-A contractor with a 12 man crew probably drives a couple of crew-cab dually pickups like a Ford F-350. :)


Now, is it too much to ask that threads like this be left in peace to those who have a sincere desire to discuss the topic, without having the anti-religious show up just to mock and run things off topic?

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
There is no such thing as fruit ready to eat on an olive tree. ALL olives require processing to be palatable, the phenols have to be removed.

And so my error was obviously writing "olive tree" when I intended to write "fig tree". When fig trees have leaves, they generally have figs ready to eat. See https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/646-why-did-jesus-curse-the-fig-tree.


Alfred Edersheim has called attention to the fact that “in Palestine the fruit appears before the leaves” (p. 374; emphasis added). Thus, to see a leafed fig tree (even at an unseasonable time — v. 13b), warranted the assumption that there would be fruit on the tree.

When Jesus saw a fig tree with leaves from afar off, He hoped to eat some fruit. [Mark 111:13] But the tree didn't have fruit. So he cursed it, and it died.

Some interpret this as a warning against hypocrisy: appearing to be something one is not. Others, including the reference above, believe the incident is a graphic depiction of God's relationship to Israel--which nation is sometimes allegorically referred to as a tree. And a fruitless tree warrants nothing but destruction. The link above contains this passage, of some interest relative to those claiming Jesus was an anarchist:


Across the centuries, however, the Israelite people frequently rebelled against their Creator. ...

Read the prophet’s stirring rebuke of a wicked nation that refused to be governed by the Sovereign of the Universe (Isa. 5:1ff).

Thanks for the correction on the type of tree cursed by the Savior.

Charles
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Of course the anarchistic Jewish Carpenter was pro self defense.

He wasn't a pacifist yet he would break peoples fingers for insults either.

You think Jesus broke people's fingers as retaliation for insults? If not, then where is the mischaracterization?

He cracks me up with his manipulations.

Comparing someone who drove out people who were committing fraud against those of simple means with the approval of the relilgious rulers to breaking someones finger over an insult is hilarious especially when the advice was also given to turn the other cheek when slapped ( an insult at the time).

What we have are on-going attempts by SVG to call into question my devotion or observation as a Christian based on a disagreement over the proper response to what I characterize as "fighting words" and what SVG minimizes as "insults".

Notably, SVG never seems to raise concerns with those posters who assert some right to use deadly force against the most minor of trespass on physical property. He reserves his sideways references to a long since past disagreement over visually telling someone to "F off" or to "F themselves" for the person with whom he has ongoing personality disagreements.

Rather than honestly starting a discussion on the topic via PM or in an appropriate thread, SVG instead continues to offer what any believer must consider to be among the lowest of insults and personal attacks: an assault on one's character and devotion to the teachings of Jesus.

SVG, if you want to have an honest, civil discussion about fighting words, or insults, and when and where deadly force is warranted relative to kids trespassing through someone's property, PM me, or start an appropriate thread and invite me to participate. If not, that is fine. But it is well past time to stop the personal insults, no matter how well you think you've disguised them from moderators or others.

Charles
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
This study is organized in five sections. First, we will look at the Biblical obligation to preserve life. Secondly, we will look at the Biblical view of bloodshed. Thirdly, we will look at passages dealing with the application of lethal force in self-defense. Fourth, we will look at what the Bible says about possession of weapons and skill in using weapons. Finally, we look at limitations and warnings about self-defense.

http://www.biblicalselfdefense.com/
John Piper subscribes only to the New Testament.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Not the only instance of subscribe used in relation to John Piper, does it have a particular peculiar meaning in this context? I see also that he "subscribed in the Pre-med program ...", and that he took his doctorate from a German university.

My tutor took his first degree from a German seminary where he also learned higher criticism and lost his faith, making him perhaps not the best instructor of undergraduate muddleheads. His final graduate degree was in genetics and his dissertation on handedness in fetuses. I benefited from that.
Oh...I dunno, you tell me what definition you are trying to shoe-horn into your retort.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subscribes

The one I used is readily apparent to any who wish to read it.

John Piper voluntarily limits his views because his chosen faith (religious) interpretation prevents him from seeing what God has decreed on the subject of the op. Nothing wrong with ignoring the word of God...no?
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
snip...
Egomania is an additional sign of mental illness.
I say this with great love and concern for you Solus - perhaps you should consider getting some help for these continued displays of mental health issues and symptoms.

well coming from an, "... ordained (I have 14 years of Baptist education in my background)...." your guidance is certainly appreciated but finding the 1,000 USD to cover the co-pay of 10, 50 minute twice monthly sessions is a bit out of my reach!

(sidebar: BTW your use of Dr. lends some to conclude a conferred advance degree has been bestowed...care to illuminate to the august membership is it in Divinity or CS discipline? 'licensed' or 'ordained' by the NBC? do wehave leadership responsibilities in a brick and mortar facility? )

'sides Anna passed, as have the Carls & Abraham & Fredric & Jay. however, i am not sure Salvador, at his advanced age, is still seeing clients. however, good news, i did get hold of Dr. Larua's agent who indicated perhaps Dr. Laura's advance degree in physiology might not be apropos and provide the appropriate psychotheraputic insight to befit the mental health disorder you feel i am suffering from.

then DRSYSADM, an epiphany occurred...WHY on earth would i need to expend time, energy, and monetary resources to resolve anything seeing a mental health professional when, as you describe yourself as a 'scholar', is PRAYING for me??

as I indicated previously, you have failed to even begin to determine i need salvation, as well as you have failed to discern or ascertain my religious background yet off you went into in revival mode hot and heavy!

to continue...now to quote an earlier post of yours DRADMSYS: ... quote: if there is one thing I truly KNOW about God's teaching it is this: it isn't up to me, this "scholar", ... or anyone else to tell you what to believe the Bible says. If you choose to follow Christ, its your responsibility to learn the Word of God (albeit with assistance) yourself and let the Lord move your heart to where it should be.
unquote
if, according to your own dialogue if it doesn't fall within your learned purview, coupled with the fact you have not taken the time to discern my religious background ~ follow your own word...'it isn't up to me'!!

doesn't it seem odd to you DRADMSYS as a self proclaimed 'scholar' that not once on these threads have you offered any shred of biblical support to your posts? why is that?

I am truly sorry your 14 years didn't cover or you failed to understand the secular & empirically based research concerning the dark undercurrents of religious hostility of your own religious beliefs...do not pronounce judgement (see above...isn't up to me) on anybody when your 'learned' sensibilities get torqued out due to someone presenting secular, empirical evidence, with cites, challenging the religious faith(s).

yes, i would have put my hand in.

ipse

Egomania is an additional sign of mental illness ~ what mental health disorder is egomania?
 
Last edited:

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
Religion is cool.

Jim_Jones_in_front_of_the_International_Hotel.jpg
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
One idle evening I was surfing the net looking for blog ideas when I came across a November 2011 article by David Reinstein entitled “Egomania: An adaptive and necessary illness for politicians”. Given that some individuals have described me as an egomaniac over the years, and the fact that I am academically interested in manias and personally interested in politics, I couldn’t help but want to read the article (which I’ll come to in a minute).

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-excess/201404/long-self-life
Hmm...
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
thanks for the cite...

article quote: Egomania is not listed in the most recent version of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [DSM-5]. unquote.

therefore, not a mental health disorder, meaning no health provider will pay for psychotherapy sessions.

in an attempt to head off and mitigate nightmare i shall indulge in self-flagellation:

article quote: There are countless definitions of egomania all of which have considerable overlaps. Reinstein’s article defines it as “an obsessive (driven, constant and uncontrollable) preoccupation with the self” (which pretty much hits the nail on the head as far as I am concerned). Other definitions often mention things like ‘an irresistible love of the self’ and ‘an obsessive concern for one’s own needs’ that again are again how I would define it myself. unquote.

done...

ipse
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Unless words contain viable threats they are not "fighting words".

Really. Citations? Really this is a call for you to provide authoritative citations for your definitions.


Or more "unique" definitions from those with extreme political and social views?

Wiki defines them thusly:


Fighting words are written or spoken words, generally expressed to incite hatred or violence from their target. Specific definitions, freedoms, and limitations of fighting words vary by jurisdiction. It is also used in a general sense of words that when uttered tend to create (deliberately or not) a verbal or physical confrontation by their mere usage.

The article goes on to discuss specifics and cite some Supreme Court Rulings:


In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9–0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] … have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

...

Chaplinsky, ... had purportedly told a New Hampshire town marshal who was attempting to prevent him from preaching that he was "a [GD] racketeer" and "a damned fascist" and was arrested. The court upheld the arrest ...

In Snyder v. Phelps (2011), dissenting Justice Samuel Alito likened the protests of the Westboro Baptist Church members to fighting words and of a personal character, and thus not protected speech. The majority disagreed and stated that the protester's speech was not personal but public, and that local laws which can shield funeral attendees from protesters are adequate for protecting those in times of emotional distress.

From Snyder it appears the key distinction between offensive, but protected speech and what might be fighting words, seems to be whether offenses are given generally or are directed at a specific individual. The majority held (wrongly in my opinion) that the Westboro's conduct was merely a public protest not directed to any individual and therefore not comparable to fighting words.

I am pretty sure the Jewish carpenter never said "unless they insult you real bad".

And do you have any interest whatsoever in the teachings of Jesus except to use them as a cudgel with which to attempt to insult me for what your misguided views of both the Savior's teachings and my own conduct attempt to show some type of conflict?

It is well past time to let your personality issues go.

Charles
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Unless words contain viable threats they are not "fighting words".
I am pretty sure the Jewish carpenter never said "unless they insult you real bad".

no, the carpenter just dangled James 4:12 or psalm 106:23 or Ezekiel 20:13 or Hebrews 10:31 ~ apollumi.

ipse
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Oh I have great interest in the bible and have studied more than most claiming to be christians.

Rationalizations to twist it to rationalize ones conduct and beliefs contrary to the carpenters is amusing.

The god of the bible is not the Jewish Carpenter and is in my opinion a d!ck.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
no, the carpenter just dangled James 4:12 or psalm 106:23 or Ezekiel 20:13 or Hebrews 10:31 ~ apollumi.

ipse

Oh yes Yahweh is a vengeful, wrathful, violent and inconsistent god indeed.

The christ (or anointed one, being there were several anointed ones in the bible) in the person of yeshua had quite a different personality. Its why I can highly respect christians like Stealh, OC , Nightmare and others while rejecting wrathful, spite filled hypocrites who ignore Revelation 22:18,19
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Oh yes Yahweh is a vengeful, wrathful, violent and inconsistent god indeed.

The christ (or anointed one, being there were several anointed ones in the bible) in the person of yeshua had quite a different personality. Its why I can highly respect christians like Stealh, OC , Nightmare and others while rejecting wrathful, spite filled hypocrites who ignore Revelation 22:18,19

quote: Christians are said to be saved, but saved from what? Many Christians don’t realize this but we are saved from God’s wrath—yes, we are actually saved from God Himself. (ROMANS 2:5) unquote. http://www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/death/myth-of-eternal-torture/chapter-1.php

ipse
 

drsysadmin

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2014
Messages
126
Location
WNC
.... your guidance is certainly appreciated ....
Well solus, you are quite welcome. It is a pleasure to try to help others.

Sadly I am very sure you were being intentionally sarcastic regarding financial issues keeping you from seeking treatment. If I am mistaken and you would be willing to explore the possibility except for financial inability, please PM me and I will do what I can to help you find assistance. Many mental health providers offer services on a sliding scale and I would also be willing to see if churches in your area would be willing to assist you.

(sidebar: ...care to illuminate...?)
Nope. :cool:

an epiphany occurred...WHY on earth would i need to expend time, energy, and monetary resources to resolve anything seeing a mental health professional when, as you describe yourself as a 'scholar', is PRAYING for me??

Oh dear, it seems there exists a misconception regarding how prayer works. While prayer is an exceptionally powerful thing, not every prayer is answered in the way we would like it to be. Praying for something is no guarantee that what we pray for will occur. God always answers prayers, but the answer is not always "yes". Thus I encourage you to take action regarding your own mental health and not rely purely on prayers by others such as myself.

Regarding me being a "scholar" - please note that the quotations are indicative of me mocking the title itself, as no man in this realm can truthfully lay claim to a total, complete and unfailing understanding of all Scripture. It is the Lord who grants understanding, and thus it is up to the individual believer to study and be moved to understanding. Please do not construe my comment as anything other than that. I know from previous posts you tend to struggle (or ignore) context, so now you can understand the comment within the context as explained.

as I indicated previously, you have failed to even begin to determine i need salvation
not once on these threads have you offered any shred of biblical support to your posts?
It is not me that determined that, Solus. Since you seem to take umbrage at me for not "offering bibilical support" in the discussion, let me soothe your angst by pointing you to what is a very well known passage of Scripture:
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God -Romans 3:23
We all are sinners, thus we all have need of salvation. That would include you, Solus. The only question would be one of whether or not you have accepted the gift of salvation through Jesus. I say "would be" since your earlier statements (as I pointed out) make it clear that you have not yet accepted the Grace of God.
the Church 10 centuries after the myth began
(Emphasis added)
Source: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...self-defense&p=2174985&viewfull=1#post2174985
You call the sacrifice of Jesus for the forgiveness of our sins a "myth". Will you now claim that your soul is saved by a myth, solus? I need not determine your position on salvation - you have made your position clear all on your own.

as well as you have failed to discern or ascertain my religious background yet off you went into in revival mode hot and heavy!
Your religious background has nothing to do with any of this discussion - just like you trying to make this a question on the "veracity" of celebrating Christmas has anything to do with it. The question was about Christians and self defense - and one needs only look back and read your posts to note that not one single post authored by you address the question. Instead you have simply demonstrated your vitriol against Christianity.
I am truly sorry your 14 years didn't cover or you failed to understand the secular & empirically based research concerning the dark undercurrents of religious hostility of your own religious beliefs...
See, there you go again - trying to make it about how evil and bad and negative Christianity is instead of keeping to the subject at hand.
...your 'learned' sensibilities get torqued out due to someone presenting secular, empirical evidence, with cites, challenging the religious faith(s).
And you prove the point yet again - you are driven to challenge the faith regardless of the subject. If Christianity is mentioned, it is you who get "torqued" by your own hatred that you must attempt to derail the conversation into one that allows you to "challenge the religious faith". If anything, I am surprised that the moderators have not taken stronger action given that your actions appear to clearly violate forum Rule 8 (Keep it on topic) specifically so that you can violate Rule 9 (Hate is not welcome here).

Egomania is an additional sign of mental illness ~ what mental health disorder is egomania?
Solus, Solus, Solus.... are you really going to continue this game? Are you really going to pretend you do not know the difference between a "sign" (aka SYMPTOM) of a mental disorder and the disorder itself? This is yet again another sad and transparent attempt by you to intentionally misrepresent what I stated. Your continued intellectual dishonesty in the usage of such tactics further demonstrates your egomania, since you can not bear to appear to not be holding the superior position - even when it means you must resort to fabrications and strawmen such as the above to maintain the appearance. Your pride just can't handle it - thus your behavior demonstrates egomania.

Try looking up Narcistic Personality Disorder - a disorder in which egomania is a SYMPTOM. Please feel free to go to the APA's website and search for it - which you can search on that term and see that it is not only valid - but so great of a concern that they host a special article series on it.... comes up as item 10 or 11 when you search that term on psycnet.apa.org
 
Last edited:

drsysadmin

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2014
Messages
126
Location
WNC
quote: Christians are said to be saved, but saved from what? Many Christians don’t realize this but we are saved from God’s wrath—yes, we are actually saved from God Himself. (ROMANS 2:5) unquote. http://www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/death/myth-of-eternal-torture/chapter-1.php

The writer's statement misrepresents (however unintentionally) Romans 2:5 - specifically as it omits the part about the "righteous judgment of God". To focus merely on "the wrath" of God ignores other Scripture that provide context as to why such wrath is righteous. Scripture such as Romans 6:23.

Oh yes Yahweh is a vengeful, wrathful, violent and inconsistent god indeed.

The christ (or anointed one, being there were several anointed ones in the bible) in the person of yeshua had quite a different personality. Its why I can highly respect christians like Stealh, OC , Nightmare and others while rejecting wrathful, spite filled hypocrites who ignore Revelation 22:18,19

In light of Revelation 22:18-19, the statement about Yahweh (in contrast to Yeshua Ha Mashiach) is ironic as it ignores many Scriptures, such as Exodus 3:14, Deuteronomy 6:4, Hebrews 13:8 and numerous others. It is important to recall that Yahwey's wrath is not about people, it is about the sin that people commit. When considered with that fact remembered, there is no inconsistency on the part of God or of His wrath.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
The writer's statement misrepresents (however unintentionally) Romans 2:5 - specifically as it omits the part about the "righteous judgment of God". To focus merely on "the wrath" of God ignores other Scripture that provide context as to why such wrath is righteous. Scripture such as Romans 6:23.



In light of Revelation 22:18-19, the statement about Yahweh (in contrast to Yeshua Ha Mashiach) is ironic as it ignores many Scriptures, such as Exodus 3:14, Deuteronomy 6:4, Hebrews 13:8 and numerous others. It is important to recall that Yahwey's wrath is not about people, it is about the sin that people commit. When considered with that fact remembered, there is no inconsistency on the part of God or of His wrath.


Yes those pesky children that were wiped out by a flood or killed by his chosen children because they were born on a plot of land he promised them.
Wrathful against sin he gets to define, demanding a blood sacrifice yet if he was the all powerful he could have just made man perfect again.
 
Top