Christianity and self defense

[stealthyeliminator]

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.

I agree that Piper is wrong, but disagree with this interpretation of Romans 13. Don't suppose it is on topic tho. Or maybe it is. I don't think the idea that we should "obey man's law unless it contradicts God's law" is biblical or logical. It relies on abstractions that have no corresponding reality. What really separates a thief that calls himself a thief and a thief that calls himself a tax collector? What's really the difference? That one's a liar on top of being a thief? That gives him ordainment? I doubt it...

 

[solus]

I agree that Piper is wrong, but disagree with this interpretation of Romans 13. Don't suppose it is on topic tho. Or maybe it is. I don't think the idea that we should "obey man's law unless it contradicts God's law" is biblical or logical. It relies on abstractions that have no corresponding reality. What really separates a thief that calls himself a thief and a thief that calls himself a tax collector? What's really the difference? That one's a liar on top of being a thief? That gives him ordainment? I doubt it...

or one who collects for charity to find a cure for cancer or to feed the starving children in africa or goodwill?

or perhaps one who passes the collection plate?

but as you stated...what is really the difference.

 

[SouthernBoy]

This man is completely wrong. He may profess to be a scholar but as I see it, he is no different that the nonsense that any other religious fanatical likes to spout for his own purposes based upon his own interpretation. I have always considered myself a Christian, though I don't attend church on a regular basis and as far as I know, have never been baptized. But if being a Christian means to accept what he writes as Christian fact, then count me out.

If God didn't mean for us to defend ourselves, he wouldn't have given us such a powerful natural instinct to do so.

 

[rightwinglibertarian]

I agree that Piper is wrong, but disagree with this interpretation of Romans 13. Don't suppose it is on topic tho. Or maybe it is. I don't think the idea that we should "obey man's law unless it contradicts God's law" is biblical or logical. It relies on abstractions that have no corresponding reality. What really separates a thief that calls himself a thief and a thief that calls himself a tax collector? What's really the difference? That one's a liar on top of being a thief? That gives him ordainment? I doubt it...

Well lets take a look at it. We have the Apostle Peter defying the Romans when commanded not to preach in the name of Jesus. Yet Paul says what he does in Romans 13. How can both be true? Simple. Mans law stands unless it contradicts Gods and then we must obey God. There is also nowhere in the Bible that demands we obey fake laws like unconstitutional ones. As I said earlier we have every right to disobey and ignore those. If it doubt recheck post 42

 

[nonameisgood]

Paul's letters were not based on some special, inside information. He was writing to friends and congregants, explaining his view. He thought he had some calling for this, but he was not intending to write the foundation of a religion which would last a thousand years. He thought Jesus was on his way back and the resurrection of Jesus was the start of the resurrection of all believers.
To take his correspondence as holy regulations is to lose track of its purpose and context, even if you believe he was chosen by God as his "first pope".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[since9]

The Ten Commandments are more properly translated, "Thou shalt not murder." The term "kill" was used for the taking of lives in many situations, not only those of animals, but when God specifically condones the killing of others who are evil. Murder, however, refers specifically to the taking of an innocent human life i.e. a person whose actions do not warrant the taking of their life.

God never intended for Christians to be door mats. He never intended Christians to be tyrants, either.

Christianity requires submission to the Lord Jesus Christ and requests mutual submission to one another (Christians). It does not require submission to non-Christians, particularly in situations that are evil or unjust, hence the American Revolution.

 

[Freedom1Man]

Agreed.
In fact, considering your point about "committing sin by not defending yourself", wouldn't that be virtually the same as committing suicide? And isn't suicide not only against God's instructions but most of Man's laws?

While I was not headed there. I see your point. I could make a case against it, however I believe your line of logic would prevail and so I will go with it.

I would say that it is not suicide but then, I would have to find a clearer definition of the equivalent word used in the original language and texts.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[Freedom1Man]

or one who collects for charity to find a cure for cancer or to feed the starving children in africa or goodwill?

or perhaps one who passes the collection plate?

but as you stated...what is really the difference.

Well, if you really understood what Christianity was, then you would never have posed that question.

Look up a book, " The Origin of Race and Civilization."

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[Freedom1Man]

Paul's letters were not based on some special, inside information. He was writing to friends and congregants, explaining his view. He thought he had some calling for this, but he was not intending to write the foundation of a religion which would last a thousand years. He thought Jesus was on his way back and the resurrection of Jesus was the start of the resurrection of all believers.
To take his correspondence as holy regulations is to lose track of its purpose and context, even if you believe he was chosen by God as his "first pope".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Funny, Paul was running around with Philo for a time. Philo never once mentioned this, Jesus, character.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[color of law]

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;

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.

Where did you get this?

King James version Romans 13:1-4

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Nowhere in Romans does it say I'm to obey a secular government. Equating governing authorities with higher powers is misleading. Governing authorities in our country only exist at the will of the people and is subordinate to the people.

 

[nonameisgood]

Where did you get this?

King James version Romans 13:1-4

Nowhere in Romans does it say I'm to obey a secular government. Equating governing authorities with higher powers is misleading. Governing authorities in our country only exist at the will of the people and is subordinate to the people.

I think it depends on who did the translation and editing. Since there is no "one, true" text of these things. People have always taken liberties to make it say what they want it to say.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[color of law]

I think it depends on who did the translation and editing. Since there is no "one, true" text of these things. People have always taken liberties to make it say what they want it to say.

From Jim Jones to Joel Osteen including Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart and many many more like them offer their perversion of the bible. Anybody that believes that they are the only ones that has the understanding of the good book and only they can interpret the true meaning are charlatans. This applies to any of these new versions/interpretations of the King James Bible. Even the Tyndale Bible is almost word for word the same.

It is just like Matthew 22:21

They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

This does NOT say pay taxes. This is the diversion of charlatans.

This is why I don't step foot into the state licensed churches.
I would bet your state like Ohio requires ministers to be licensed to perform marriages.

 

[solus]

Well, if you really understood what Christianity was, then you would never have posed that question.

Look up a book, " The Origin of Race and Civilization."

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

freedom, if you review my previous posts on this thread you would not have uttered your first sentence.

if you review any of my posts on this forum regarding deities and their followers you would not have posted your first sentence.

that stated...you failed to answer my question on the differences between those who 'collect' the taxes, for charity, for the alms ~ Catholic Priest Spends A Million Dollars Of Church Funds To Pay A Homosexual Man To Beat Him And Sodomize Him In Satanic Sadomasochistic Ritual. (http://shoebat.com/2015/12/12/catho...domize-him-in-satanic-sadomasochistic-ritual/)

and if religious entities were taxed...approximately 71B a year would come into the nations coffers

finally, you good folk are ranting and raving over a religious zealot and his BS religious ramblings on self defence from a book written by man 2K ago based on their ability to use spears and bows...

i go back to a far more earnest premise...why aren't your ranting and ravings over the passages (mark 7:27) and trying to feed this world's children.

ipse

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Well lets take a look at it. We have the Apostle Peter defying the Romans when commanded not to preach in the name of Jesus. Yet Paul says what he does in Romans 13. How can both be true? Simple. Mans law stands unless it contradicts Gods and then we must obey God. There is also nowhere in the Bible that demands we obey fake laws like unconstitutional ones. As I said earlier we have every right to disobey and ignore those. If it doubt recheck post 42

To me that reasoning comes off as just making something up from thin air to try and reconcile misunderstood parts of scripture that seem to contradict each other. Unfortunately it's reasoning that seems to be fairly widely spread, possibly even preached in some parts. If that understanding of what Paul said was true then Paul was probably a hypocrite for not doing what he preached. What I think would be reasonable would be to say is that based on Paul's actions we shouldn't take Romans 13 to mean that, it probably means something else. I think it's possible that it was nothing more than instruction to those Christians of that time to avoid an armed uprising of Christians, which might have, at the time, significantly hindered the true mission of Jesus and possibly resulted in extinction of the church. In other words, it's possible that those versus are a historical record of instructions given to the early church to guide them in their particular time and circumstance. Maybe it's more than that. Maybe not. I can't rule it out.

If Paul was laying that (obey any secular government you happen to be dominated by, with one exception...) out as a rule in Romans 13 he should have (I think he would have) included any necessary exceptions within Romans 13 itself, not relied on readers to piece-meal together some weird concoction of understanding based on what Paul said here and then what he did there which seem to contradict each other. I also think generally, if exceptions must immediately be made to the rule we probably have not reached the real heart or truth of the rule or the principle (if we discover the real underlying truth or principle, there won't be any arbitrary exceptions).

Even within Romans 13 itself there are verses that suggest to me this understanding is probably incorrect, like the description of the authorities that Paul is referring to, which many governments don't match, or at least do many things that don't match. I also think that God never authorizes sin, ever. There is likely never a case where something would be sinful if not for the fact they received ordainment or authority from God. I believe that when you do what is right, you do so with true Godly authority, and when you do what is wrong, regardless of who you are, or what titles you hold, you do so without the authority of God.

Just offering food for thought, not trying to be argumentative or rude. Not implying I have everything figured out, either.

 

[nonameisgood]

Paul's letters were written for contemporaneous uses. Jesus was speaking in his own time. Anything beyond that is a contrivance developed for a religion, by those wanting to create a following and exert control. You cannot take a literal reading and apply it. It is the spirit of God (pardon the pun) that people get from the text itself. Unlike the US Constitution which is intended to be both literal and provide intent, the Bible is a guide to understanding the essence of God, so that one can take a path that pleases Him in totality rather than strict adherence to chapter and verse.
Any approach to demonizing or justifying self defense is folly.
The Christian God did not want people killing each other over property and slights, but He obviously didn't mind bloodshed when it was needed. He doesn't take a position on whether driving a pollution-spewing gasguzzler, but extrapolation probably indicates that He provided resources to us (fresh air, Dino juice, a brain) so we recognize that we can and should be better stewards of these resources. In the same vein, it is probably best to focus on only killing those who cannot be stopped by other, reasonable means.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[color of law]

Paul's letters were written for contemporaneous uses. Jesus was speaking in his own time. Anything beyond that is a contrivance developed for a religion, by those wanting to create a following and exert control. You cannot take a literal reading and apply it. It is the spirit of God (pardon the pun) that people get from the text itself. Unlike the US Constitution which is intended to be both literal and provide intent, the Bible is a guide to understanding the essence of God, so that one can take a path that pleases Him in totality rather than strict adherence to chapter and verse.
Any approach to demonizing or justifying self defense is folly.
The Christian God did not want people killing each other over property and slights, but He obviously didn't mind bloodshed when it was needed. He doesn't take a position on whether driving a pollution-spewing gasguzzler, but extrapolation probably indicates that He provided resources to us (fresh air, Dino juice, a brain) so we recognize that we can and should be better stewards of these resources. In the same vein, it is probably best to focus on only killing those who cannot be stopped by other, reasonable means.

In general I agree. Your statement "Any approach to demonizing or justifying self defense is folly." as it relates to the Bible is true. As far as I'm concerned the Ten Commandments of the old testament is all the guidance needed.

And any approach in justifying secular government is also folly as it relates to the Bible.

 

[Freedom1Man]

freedom, if you review my previous posts on this thread you would not have uttered your first sentence.

if you review any of my posts on this forum regarding deities and their followers you would not have posted your first sentence.

that stated...you failed to answer my question on the differences between those who 'collect' the taxes, for charity, for the alms ~ Catholic Priest Spends A Million Dollars Of Church Funds To Pay A Homosexual Man To Beat Him And Sodomize Him In Satanic Sadomasochistic Ritual. (http://shoebat.com/2015/12/12/catho...domize-him-in-satanic-sadomasochistic-ritual/)

and if religious entities were taxed...approximately 71B a year would come into the nations coffers

finally, you good folk are ranting and raving over a religious zealot and his BS religious ramblings on self defence from a book written by man 2K ago based on their ability to use spears and bows...

i go back to a far more earnest premise...why aren't your ranting and ravings over the passages (mark 7:27) and trying to feed this world's children.

ipse

God's children or the world's children?

Which translation are you using?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[rightwinglibertarian]

Paul's letters were not based on some special, inside information. He was writing to friends and congregants, explaining his view. He thought he had some calling for this, but he was not intending to write the foundation of a religion which would last a thousand years. He thought Jesus was on his way back and the resurrection of Jesus was the start of the resurrection of all believers.
To take his correspondence as holy regulations is to lose track of its purpose and context, even if you believe he was chosen by God as his "first pope".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

wuuuuuut? Paul's letters are every bit as inspired as the Gospels. Read 1 Timothy 3:16. Or is it second? Anyway ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God. You can't pick and choose

Where did you get this?

King James version Romans 13:1-4

Nowhere in Romans does it say I'm to obey a secular government. Equating governing authorities with higher powers is misleading. Governing authorities in our country only exist at the will of the people and is subordinate to the people.

Oh my goodness I am NOT getting into a KJV Only debate. That is WAY off topic. Thats not to say it's not tempting and I have done it before on social networks

 

[color of law]

Oh my goodness I am NOT getting into a KJV Only debate. That is WAY off topic. Thats not to say it's not tempting and I have done it before on social networks

Didn't ask you to get into a debate over King James version. If you paid attention I also mentioned the Tyndale Bible. There are many different bibles, none that I know of say we are to be subordinate to a secular government. And that was my point. I would not waste my time with new age bibles. Those written to deceive.

 

[rightwinglibertarian]

Didn't ask you to get into a debate over King James version. If you paid attention I also mentioned the Tyndale Bible. There are many different bibles, none that I know of say we are to be subordinate to a secular government. And that was my point. I would not waste my time with new age bibles. Those written to deceive.

They all do. Even the most modern of translations say it in one form or another. And if you want to go down the KJV route check out the meaning of the word 'power'. There is no doubt we must obey secular authorities.