Christianity and self defense

[Freedom1Man]

Of course the anarchistic Jewish Carpenter was pro self defense.

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

Architect, not carpenter. It is one of the most common errors in translation.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[solus]

Praise someone, something, somewhere for the superfluous information presented on the OCDO forum...

ipse

 

[nonameisgood]

Not either. It was "skilled" and his sect were healers by profession. Which explains why people came to him for healing in the first place. He became a carpenter so the Catholic Church could make him seem approachable to the masses. Which is neither here nor there for our purposes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Citizen]

The really tough thing about freedom is that people have the right to have wrong philosophies, perspectives and beliefs. Not only that - they have the right to have dangerous ones too. Freedom - not just talking religiously here - is a two sided sword. Is his philosophy "dangerous"? It is to him and anyone who adopts it. But just as freedom means he can believe dangerous things - it also means I don't have to.

The key words you used were: if adopted. Thanks to freedom - we all can choose to adopt it or not. IF is one of the biggest "small" words in the English language. I choose not to adopt it - and I'd say the majority of Christians reject his view - at least the majority in my personal experience do. While his view may be dangerous, I don't have the "right" to deny him this freedom to choose it for himself. Which means at the end of the day, I can disagree. Should it ever become a real matter of discussion within the body of the faithful, then I am confident that the Lord will see to it that people are moved in their view according to His plan.

Sometimes I just have to follow the path He sets out for me and wonder what in the world He is doing when I look at the rest of the world - but given that its His decision I have learned to trust it even when I disagree.

Wow! Great point, Drsysadmin! You jogged something for me. Let me build towards it.

I am talking about responsibility. Now, let me draw a fine distinction. I believe we too often use responsibility as a bludgeon to blame: "You're responsible! You caused this!" There is a "whole 'nother angle" to responsibility--taking responsibility for something. And, I don't mean accepting responsibility for doing a wrong or harm. I mean taking responsibility for the things one causes, good and bad. Extended into the future, it would mean being willing to take responsibility for doing something, seeing that something gets done, and so forth. Looking backward, it would mean being willing to be responsible for something one did. I think it boils down to willingness.

Drsysadmin's point about adopting an idea applies. Who is responsible for adopting an idea? Why, the person who adopted it, of course. I'm not talking about "holding him responsible" (blame). I am talking about simple causation. Who decided to adopt the idea? Whether he "fell" for it, or took a long time to inspect it and consider its ramifications, matters not to the point I am trying to make. He adopted it.

I am disappointed when I meet a member of the faithful who forgets he or she adopted their beliefs. God this. Allah that. What about the decision to adopt the idea in the first place? It seems to get forgotten.

A quick example. And, apologies to any faithful for misstating doctrine or inferences therefrom. I've talked with a few who cite their religious beliefs for their opposition to abortion. They assign responsibility for their opposition to God's word or derived inferences. Yet, not once have I heard even one announce his own responsibility for adopting the preceding idea/premise. For example, a few have told me they believe the soul is created at conception, and thus abortion is murder. Yet, they never mention their responsibility for adopting the idea the soul is created at conception. The idea is untested. No conclusive evidence has been offered.

Now, one might say, "Well, that is the point of faith. Taking on an idea without test or evidence." This misses the mark. The point isn't faith. The point is responsibility. Who decided to adopt the idea, uninspected, with no evidence? Again, and with tremendous emphasis, this is not about blame. It is about remembering the idea was adopted without evidence in the first place.

So, the anti-abortionist who cites religious justification is necessarily willing to cage (imprison) a woman who commits abortion. On invented certainty? Again, with tremendous emphasis, invented certainty (faith) is not necessarily bad. But, the religiously-justified anti-abortionist forgets, in my experience, that he himself is responsible for his justifications--he adopted his own ideas.

And, while he adopted his own ideas. Mere thinking. He is willing to genuinely, actually imprison a woman for getting an abortion.

Forgotten responsibility. Forgets he adopted the underlying ideas himself.

Yet, he is willing to exercise responsibility to help the unborn child. He is willing to assume responsibility for the unborn child and save him or her from "murder".

Thus, it makes no sense that a religiously-justified anti-abortionist Christian would assume responsibility to protect an unborn child, yet not support that same child in the right to self-defense when he grows to adulthood. (This is the point Drsysadmin jogged for me.)

 

[solus]

Not either. It was "skilled" and his sect were healers by profession. Which explains why people came to him for healing in the first place. He became a carpenter so the Catholic Church could make him seem approachable to the masses. Which is neither here nor there for our purposes.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

dead sea scholars and historians do not believe Jesus was actually was member of the Essenes per se, but was sympathetic to the sect of Second Temple Judaism despite what Ms Cannon believes.

ipse

 

[nonameisgood]

Maybe so, but one would not expect a descendant in the Davidic line to be a mere carpenter. Along the same lines, the whole "no room at the hotel" thing is bunk. They were going back to the hometown of his family and would have been welcome into the homes of family. Of course, they did bring the animals in at night to protect them...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[utbagpiper]

Of course the anarchistic ....

Jesus was no anarchist. "Render unto Caesar" doesn't sound very anarchist to me. Having decided that Jesus was worthy of death for what they considered blaspheme, the Sanhedrin attempted to paint Him as an anarchist or sedetionist to the Jewish authorities, but they found no cause against him, not caring for the religious sensitivities of the Jews and finding no evidence in either His word or His conduct that Jesus was rebelling against Roman authority.

It is also notable that Jesus observed perfectly all the laws of God. The extra-legal traditions the Jewish leadership had built up He did not have to obey. But he obeyed the laws given to Moses perfectly until after He had fulfilled the law and was properly empowered to end those portions of it that were not intended to continue past His great sacrifice.

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

On not one but TWO occasions he violently and forcefully drove peaceful money changers from the temple just for offending His sense of religious propriety.

He cursed to death an olive tree that from a distance appeared to have fruit ready to eat but upon closer inspection was barren.

Your post has very little to do with the OP. It is merely an attempt to mis-characterize Jesus on at least a couple of different fronts in your effort to hijack Him and His teachings to support your unique social views and to post a personal insult to me. Grow up.


Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

W
So, the anti-abortionist who cites religious justification is necessarily willing to cage (imprison) a woman who commits abortion. On invented certainty? Again, with tremendous emphasis, invented certainty (faith) is not necessarily bad.

Oh for heaven sakes. Give it a rest. Your post is so far off topic from the OP and thread. Abortion? On a thread about self-defense and Christians?

The closest tie-in we might find is to lament that pre-born babies are unable to defend themselves from unprovoked aggression on the part of the one person who should be most protecting of the child, with the aid of a profession whose members swear an oath to "first do no harm."

When it comes to human life, we most always err on the side of protecting life. If there is uncertainty about whether a person is or isn't brain dead, we don't start harvesting organs for transplant. Even if we KNOW the person will be dead very shortly if they are not already deceased, until we are certain the person is not alive do we proceed with harvesting tissue and organs for transplant. And this even though such transplants provide tremendous good to others in terms of saving lives and improving the quality of life. In like manner, hospitals will continue CPR on hypothermic patients until they are warm and non-responsive. So long as core body temperature is below some level, there is a chance, however slim, the person may respond and survive as they warm back to normal temperatures. We teach first responders (whether professional or lay) that they perform CPR until either unable to continue, until relieved by others, or until a trained medical professional pronounces the victim dead. Where there is uncertainty concerning human life, we err to protect human life.

So, as long as there is uncertainty concerning the human life of a pre-born baby, society has an obligation to protect that life.

When you and the abortionists can remove uncertainty about whether the pre-born baby is alive, is human, then you can treat that child as mere tissue to be removed on a whim. So long as any uncertainty remains, we should err on the side of life.

At one time it was black men, women, and children who were declared by courts and pseudo-science to be something less than fully human. And on that declaration, the grossest of injustices were perpetuated against them.

A man who stakes so very much on all being created equal, might consider giving a little more thought to the ramifications if mere judicial pronouncements can over-come solid science and social morals about when a fetus becomes a human being deserving of the most basic of all rights. If a court can declare a fetus to be a non-person, a court just might be able to declare one or more of the demographics to which you belong to be non-persons, void of basic rights.

Charles

 

[stealthyeliminator]

"Render unto Caesar" doesn't sound very anarchist to me.

You've referred to me as an anarchist on numerous occasions, yet I pay taxes.

"Your post has very little to do with the OP. It is merely an attempt to mis-characterize Jesus on at least a couple of different fronts in your effort to hijack Him and His teachings to support your unique social views and to post a personal insult to me. Grow up."
You think Jesus broke people's fingers as retaliation for insults? If not, then where is the mischaracterization?

 

[color of law]

After all this discussion and no definitive answer gives me enough material to start my own street corner church of deliverance. Please be generous when passing the collection plate.

 

[Freedom1Man]

Jesus was no anarchist. "Render unto Caesar" doesn't sound very anarchist to me.

SNIP

That was a blast at rampant governent.

It is also part of the learnings of those of us who study tax law.

In short, us the law against Ceasar. Or not even Ceasar is above the law.


Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[Citizen]

That was a blast at rampant governent.

It is also part of the learnings of those of us who study tax law.

In short, us the law against Ceasar. Or not even Ceasar is above the law.


Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

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.

 

[Freedom1Man]

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 was the surface of it, yes.

I was addressing the meaning.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[stealthyeliminator]

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.

AFAIK Jesus was regularly "tested" in this way by the religious powerful. This wasn't the only time they questioned Him with the intent of causing Him to self incriminate, and it wasn't the only time He answered "ambiguously" in such a way that accusation of crime would be weak.

 

[drsysadmin]

it makes no sense that a religiously-justified anti-abortionist Christian would assume responsibility to protect an unborn child, yet not support that same child in the right to self-defense when he grows to adulthood.

Citizen - I think you make a very good point here. However, it is a critical distinction to make regarding the difference between working socially and legislatively against an action that is seen as murder vs picking up a gun and using it in defense of life. Working within a socially accepted system to change both the social and legal perspectives on abortion is great - but we can't equate that to the action of picking up a gun to go "protect life" by going into an abortion clinic and shooting staff. I don't think you were headed there - but I feel it is necessary to point out that Christians do want to deal with the social and legal side but we do not (generally speaking - I am sure there is a couple of knuckleheads out there) support murderous rampages.

Abortion has always been a contentious issue - and not just in the US or just in modern times. My personal views on it are not in line with the "life starts at conception" crowd so I can't answer for those who feel that way. I can only take responsibility for my own personal view on abortion and I do so gladly as I have found a personal comfort level that respects Biblical teaching as well as scientific and medical data. It works for me, and that is all I can (or would) take responsibility for.

Do I agree that social and legislative views on abortion should change? Absolutely. I also think that social and legislative views should change drastically on Open Carry so as to allow Constitutional Carry in every place in the US.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Citizen - I think you make a very good point here. However, it is a critical distinction to make regarding the difference between working socially and legislatively against an action that is seen as murder vs picking up a gun and using it in defense of life. Working within a socially accepted system to change both the social and legal perspectives on abortion is great - but we can't equate that to the action of picking up a gun to go "protect life" by going into an abortion clinic and shooting staff. I don't think you were headed there - but I feel it is necessary to point out that Christians do want to deal with the social and legal side but we do not (generally speaking - I am sure there is a couple of knuckleheads out there) support murderous rampages.

Abortion has always been a contentious issue - and not just in the US or just in modern times. My personal views on it are not in line with the "life starts at conception" crowd so I can't answer for those who feel that way. I can only take responsibility for my own personal view on abortion and I do so gladly as I have found a personal comfort level that respects Biblical teaching as well as scientific and medical data. It works for me, and that is all I can (or would) take responsibility for.

Do I agree that social and legislative views on abortion should change? Absolutely. I also think that social and legislative views should change drastically on Open Carry so as to allow Constitutional Carry in every place in the US.

Not disagreeing with you, but, wouldn't it be hypocritical to A) refer to abortion as murder, B) say that physical force, even up to lethal force, is justifiable in self defense or defense of a 3rd person, but then C) say that using physical force to stop an abortion is unjustifiable?

Even if physical force to stop an abortion is justifiable, that doesn't necessarily mean that a "shooting rampage" targeting a clinic's staff or clients would be justifiable. For the record, I don't think such an attack would be justifiable...

But let's not fall into a trap of believing that, somehow only in the case of abortion, the only two morally legitimate avenues for defense of life are social pressures and legal reform.

 

[drsysadmin]

Not disagreeing with you, but, wouldn't it be hypocritical to A) refer to abortion as murder, B) say that physical force, even up to lethal force, is justifiable in self defense or defense of a 3rd person, but then C) say that using physical force to stop an abortion is unjustifiable?

Even if physical force to stop an abortion is justifiable, that doesn't necessarily mean that a "shooting rampage" targeting a clinic's staff or clients would be justifiable. For the record, I don't think such an attack would be justifiable...

But let's not fall into a trap of believing that, somehow only in the case of abortion, the only two morally legitimate avenues for defense of life are social pressures and legal reform.

I won't derail the original post any farther than it already is. However, if you or others would like to have a discussion of abortion, feel free to create a new thread here in the General Forum and we can discuss it at length. As I noted, I do NOT believe life begins at "conception" (contrary to many others) and as such I do not see all forms of "abortion" as murder. So no, for example: it is not hypocritical to say that using physical force - even up to lethal force - to keep someone from using a "morning after" pill is NOT justifiable in my view. Again - lets drop the abortion discussion FROM THIS THREAD and move it to its own if people care to discuss it.

 

[color of law]

I won't derail the original post any farther than it already is.......................

It has been derailed way way back. There is no getting this thread rerailed. As long long as Christians walk the face of the earth this question will never be answered.

It's time to lock this thread.......And move on.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

You've referred to me as an anarchist on numerous occasions, yet I pay taxes.

"Your post has very little to do with the OP. It is merely an attempt to mis-characterize Jesus on at least a couple of different fronts in your effort to hijack Him and His teachings to support your unique social views and to post a personal insult to me. Grow up."
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).

Also paying taxes to avoid persecution isn't supporting the government. And when one reads the whole account of "pay unto Ceasar, Ceasars" we find that it doesn't support the Roman state or any state, he was avoiding a carefully laid trap by the religious rulers to find a reason to put him to death. He did this with a cleverly worded turn of phrase.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

It has been derailed way way back. There is no getting this thread rerailed. As long long as Christians walk the face of the earth this question will never be answered.

It's time to lock this thread.......And move on.

No insult meant to you and nothing personal....

You can always move on without advocating a discussion by others be locked.