Cause Jesus knew Kung-fu!

A believer would disagree with that. But IMHO I believe Jesus had authority to do such and no one challenged Him. So ya they likely were picking up their goldage, getting out ASAP, then started plotting against Him.

I think thats what gets me the most. Is that a lot of people do have a "if they're trespassing, I'm putting 37 bullets in their brain" mentality. Not that my opinion really matters, but I would certainly be more agreeable on the subject if people devolped more plans on how NOT to use their guns. Rather than look for chances to use it for killing and get away with it. Like you mention here, one option would be to assertively inform the intruder that you are armed. This raises the chances that they will run and leave you alone considerably. And doesn't result in harm or death. More non-violent options is indeed what I think we should look for.


In regards to the "two swords" passage. "Enough" for what? There were hundreds, if not thousands of followers. I have yet to hear another theory, other than the setting-up Peter one of mine. It's the only one that logically makes sense.

Also, when did Jesus ever teach to hurt someone? Or even self-defense? Everything he taught was contrary to violence. I challenge you, if you can, to point out where Jesus taught that we should use violence, force, or even self-defense.

As for Romans? Well, I don't personally care a whole lot for Paul. Though I'm sure he was an overall cool and positive guy. And Christians can't put his writing over Christ's. But what you suggest invalidates of of Christendom. So you mean Christians can murder, rape, steal, commit adultury, etc? Just so long as they don't consider it a sin?

Anyhow, I want to thank you. As I can see in this post that you are indeed exploring the issue, and attempting to be open and consider the options around this topic. You don't seem to be dead-set in a view with no fore-though. Even if we do not agree on the issue, it seems at least you are holding your views via thought-out decision. That is commendable. Thank you.

You are so right, we should be thinking of ways to better handle violence ways that do not use violence. I think that we should be trying to better situations and trying to solve problems in ways that cut out the violence all together!

Always a pleasure

To explore the 'two swords' deeper I view it this way and maybe I am wrong. Jesus said two swords was 'enough'' in Luke 22. This is opposed to perhaps forming an army and having senseless violence when it was not necessary. What does this one verse tell us? That it is OK to bear weapons? Just not to go Rambo and overkill on them? Not to form militias when they would not be necessary for the objected goals he had...of living and believing in God? Right after this scene of preparation He encouraged the disciples to pray when they entered Gethsename. When they fell asleep He had to know they were coming for Him. He woke them up and encouraged them to pray again to not fall into temptation and Judas appeared with an armed crowd. What was the temptation? To die by Jesus' side and go down in a blaze of glory? I forgot who said the saying that goes something like 'It is easier for men to give up their lives for a cause than to have them patiently suffer over long periods of time.' Maybe that is why Peter snaked away because at first he was willing to die and go to prison but when he saw there was no dying the thought of prison and long term suffering was too much.

Mark 14 tell us that Judas arrived with an armed mob riled up by the chief priests. Matthew 26 gives one of the accounts of the high priest's servant's ear being cut off. Jesus mentions those who live by the sword die by the sword and healed him. Now why would Jesus first ask them to carry two swords among them all then no violence? Well I doubt the armed mobbed really wished violence of the confrontational type. Then they are exposed and can get hurt too. The two swords were for self defense to show we are armed at least two of us are. A big deterrent for the armed mob to assault them all and be done with it maybe? But the two swords is not enough for a battle. And Jesus clearly did not want violence of any sort. But He also knew that allowing the bruhaha to start would mean the disciples would have been on the losing end and they had the option to flee and live. Which is what they did when they realized they were not going to die by His side that night. Jesus proclaims He is not leading a rebellion and everyone of the disciples left. They all snaked away.

I do not think Jesus wants us to commit violence every and we should not crave it. But I do think He does not mind for us to be prepared for self defense if we ourselves are willing.

Those scriptures do not tell me that though I am just postulating. The scriptures do say love but they never say allow yourself to die or your family. It does not say you can use self defense clearly nor does it say you cannot. For me when something is not clearly written in scripture then it is up to the believer to decide if it is a sin. It does not say you cannot be a soldier or an officer of the court nor does it say you can. I know there is God centered people in both those fields who pray daily for safety, the safety of them and the people on their watch.

Now since it is up to believers what is a sin and what is not a sin if it is not written in the Bible clearly. And the Spirit guides us in making that decision for us and imprinting it on us. That does not mean one will go murder and rape for if they do then surely they are not being guided by the Spirit because another part of the Bible clearly tells us that:


I feel strongly that the tree of life is the Spirit. It is the reestablishment of our connection with God as was His plan for mankind. Mankind and life were connected to God in Eden. We can be connected now. We will be connected in the New Jerusalem. A side note the word for 'sorcerers' in the above passage is pharmakos (other sources have said pharmakia) and as most of us know thats pharmaceuticals...drugs. Anyways that is my Christian perspective even though it is not scripturally based for the Word neither tells us we can or cannot use self defense.

Killing people with or without guns is wrong eatherway,to me.

Seppuku (aka: Hara Kiri) is used as an atonement for "losing face".It was considered the "honorable way out".

SOME believers would disagree. I am a believer, I don't disagree.

Your theory could be correct. We may never know. Hmmmmm.

I know enough to base 'my' decisions on. If there was any uncertainty for me I would not be a believer in it.

Some of the people I respect the most on this forum are the ones who say I cannot know for fact if God exists or not and until then I will not follow God. If I was in their shoes I would not follow God either. This also applies to the Bible for me. If it was not a guide to connect to the Spirit for me I would like others believe it to be just a book of stories up for interpretation.

I dare anyone to go to where people are gambling for cash ( usually unsavory places ) and tip over a table and not get their azzes kicked. it would never happen. there is always someone that will be more upset that you had the nerve to do that then to pick up their money . especially when they can get it later by kicking the crap out of those at the tables who grabbed it all.

jesus had a whip. logical.

i remember having one of those childrens bibles.and the pic from the market scene showed jesus looking very angy and then men were falling down the stairs and they looked like they just got their azzes kicked...thats how the artist depected the scene i always took it as jesus was using the whip on them as well..

ha heres a top ten list of people in the bible that killed in the name of god a self defence,people like moses,david, and samson to name some of the more well know

http://rooktopia.wordpress.com/2007/09/16/...the-holy-bible/

10 - David’s Mighty Men - to protect the the young kingdom of Israel, King David assembled some super-elite soldiers known as the Mighty Men. There were The Three, who seemed to be David’s personal secret service. Then there was The Thirty, the main body of David’s elite corps. And then there were a couple of super warriors: Abishai was said to kill 300 men with one spear, while Benaiah was credited for killing two of Moab’s elite, a lion, and an Egyptian with his own weapon. Clearly, the message here was “Don’t Mess With Israel.”


#9 - David - David gets all the press and cutesy representions for his duel against the giant Goliath. That kinda downplays that David was one of the most well-rounded badasses in the Bible. A poet, musician, a total babe magnet, and skilled warrior — one gets the impression that King Saul wasn’t the only one with a murderous jealousy of the guy. The most badass thing David ever did? The fact that on numerous ocassions he could have killed Saul, but didn’t. And he let the king KNOW IT.

#8 - Joshua - He takes over after Moses dies and leads the Israelites in bloody campaigns to get into the Promised Land. He’s best known for the seige of Jericho, where the Israelite forces psyche of the residents of Jericho by marching around the walls, and then blow the trumpets as the power of God smashes the walls down for them. This is, of course, all captured in former wrestler Chris Jericho’s kick ass entrance theme: “Break the Walls Down.”


#7 - Ehud the Left-Handed - The Judges of one of the bloodies books in the Bible. Ehud is the star of one of the quirkiest and unintentionally comedic tales. Ehud assassinates the fat king Eglon of Moab. (Pro tip: if your name is “Eglon,” you might as well be rotund.) Ehud plunges his sword into the King’s belly. Eglon’s so fat that his flubber actually closes around the blade. Take that, Jabba! And, to add insult to injury, when Ehud walks away scot free, the King’s servant, noticing that the King hasn’t come out yet, assume that he’s “relieving himself” and decide not to go in to check it out. One assumes that, in life, this kind of thing happened often to ol’ Eglon. Ah, the fat jokes flow free in the Holy Bible!

#6 - Elijah - The Prophets in the Bible were all pretty badass. They had to live off the land and often had to come face to face with Kings to chew them out for steering the people away from the Lord. All the while, they were derided as madmen, declared Enemies of the State, and had to distinguish themselves from false prophets who were certifiable loonies. The most badass of these prophets was easily the Prophet Elijah. He had to live in a divided Israel that was openly hostile to Prophets (or the Hebrew faith really) and was ruled by the unpopular King Ahab and the legendary Queen Jezebel. Elijah gets so much support from God that God provides him with one of the most spectacular forces in the Bible — fireballs from Heaven. He provides this twice: once in a challenge against the Prophets of Baals, and second in a confrontation against Israel King Ahaziah’s men. Elijah does so much to return the land back to Judaism that he’s spared even death: he’s whisked away to heaven in a Chariot of Fire and even gets to hang out with Jesus and Moses at the Transfiguration.

#5 - Joab - In David’s time, the man who was called on to do the unsavory stuff. He led the army as general against many of Israel’s enemies. He had to do David’s dirty work in the part of Uriah’s murder. He went against David’s wiskes and killed David’s son, Absalom, but he did this because Absalom had begun a rebellion against David. Sure, he was a total b******, but these were mostly under orders, for the protection of the nation of Israel, or for revenge against deaths perpetrated against his own family. That’s why I always felt he got the raw deal when David, on his deathbed, orders his son and future king Solomon to have Joab assassinated for his past treacheries. In a way, though, I guess it is a case study about the damaging repercussions of vengeance that isn’t marked enough in the blood-and-guts world of the Old Testament.


#4 - Jael - Deborah may have been leading Israel at the time. Jael is the one credited with the win though. Enemy general Sisera from Canaan was hiding in Jael’s tend after his failed campaign. While he took a nap, Jael takes a tent peg and hammers it through his head. Now that’s gangsta.

#3 -Jehu - Jehu is responsible for the Bible verse that is most applicable in real life yet never used in church: “The driving is like that of Jehu son of Nimshi—he drives like a madman.” (2 Kings 9:20). Elisha approaches Jehu and tells him that he’s the next king of Israel. Jehu likes this very much and, on one day, slaughters TWO kings: King Joram of Israel and King Ahaziah of Judah (the Hebrews were split into two nations at the time.) Then he gets the servants of famously villainous Queen Jezebel to defenstrate her (after which “blood splatter on the wall” and “horses trampled her underfoot”). Jehu then goes on a wild campaign to rid Israel and Judah of any trace of the House Ahab. The writer of Kings gives him negative brownie points for not eliminating golden calf worship, so in the end they decide that Jehu was not the 100% total badass he could have been.

#2 - Moses - One of the greatest men of the Old Testament, and for all the good reasons. He starts off his career by taking down an Egyptian, then becomes God’s emissary as the Israelites are freed from slavery. Pretty much had to herd the whiny group through the Wilderness while biding time to get into the Promised Land. Had to serve as a military leader through countless attacks from neighboring tribes. He even got to meet the Christ on Earth during the Transfiguration. And, while he’s almost always portrayed as an old man, all artists seem to agree that the guy was stacked! Seriously. Check out this statue from Michelangelo. Look at the guns on that guy.



#1 - Samson - One of the most renouned he-man of the Bible. He’s one of the oddest heroes of the Old Testament. Despite being raised as a Nazarite (that is, he couldn’t booze, eat bacon, or shave), the guy was a notorious womanizer, slept with whores, and had pretty much smashed everything he touched. He’s a favorite in Sunday School because of his sheer badassery, yet I’m certain that most Christian parents wouldn’t want their kids to grow up like him. Observe:


(if the link dosent work because of the language filter its badazz-heros with ss insread of zz) now how can they all be heros of the bible accepted into heaven but you believe you will be punished for doing some of the same things.....by a god that like i said before flooded the world,and destryoed 2 cities killing thousands all because he didnt like they way they were living not because he was defending himself...i dont even know why self defence would even be a issue.

I understand that. This is why I said you could argue that Jesus was violent in a more generic sense. And why I clarified my meaning about what I meant by "violence".

That said, the example of Jesus overturning the tables and ejecting the moneychangers is not then a blanket statement to say that Jesus advocated we do the same. It was a very specific case where the people had turned the Temple in Jerusalem, which was considered the dwelling place of God, into a marketplace. Jesus ejected them because of what he saw they had turned it into, and cannot really be used to justify any action we today might do in breaking other people's property (for one, God no longer resides in a Temple but in our hearts so there is no dwelling place of God for us to eject people from).

As such, I do not see this as a "teaching" in any sense of the word that we should be violent, even towards property. But as I said, when I made my statement that "Jesus taught non-violence" it was in the context of physical violence on other people. I'm sorry if that was not obvious from the get-go. All the best,

~ Regards, PA

Live by the sword.....die by the sword....as I pointed out earlier

Lu 22:36
And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.

Hard to be a pacifist if you order your followers to arm themselves.

The Abrahamic religions is a violent religion, born in a violent time, by violent people.

As such, I do not see this as a "teaching" in any sense of the word that we should be violent, even towards property. But as I said, when I made my statement that "Jesus taught non-violence" it was in the context of physical violence on other people. I'm sorry if that was not obvious from the get-go. All the best,
~ Regards, PA
[/quote]


If this is the case then I have to wonder if Jesus was preaching the oppersite of his father? Case in point.


2 Kings 2:23-24 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.


Jeremiah 48:10 A curse on him who is lax in doing the LORD's work!
A curse on him who keeps his sword from bloodshed.


Ezekiel 35:7-9 I will make Mount Seir a desolate waste and cut off from it all who come and go. 8 I will fill your mountains with the slain; those killed by the sword will fall on your hills and in your valleys and in all your ravines. 9 I will make you desolate forever; your towns will not be inhabited. Then you will know that I am the LORD.


Notice that these have not been took out of context. Makes me wonder if Jesus was a man of peace while his father desired bloodshed.

Nevermind that ALL cultures and civilizations were violent... kinda had to be in order to survive. Even Islam and Christianity have their completely non-violent sects not born of violence or violent people. As far as I know, Judiasm doesn't (but I'm open to being wrong about that). Hinduism, Buddhism have their non-violent sects too... Some are, some aren't. I'm just pointing out that you made a rather general statement, about something that isn't all that general.

Great view MMW. Considering that war is one of the only constants of mankind and that long periods of peace in any region are not the norm it is likely anyone of any faith in those regions would resort to arms either in offense or defense or even in a blending of the two. There will always be those who also refuse to join combat and would rather be slaughtered.



Sadly churches as economic enterprises are all too common now days.



The Bible mentions Jesus coming back to destroy the beast and all on earth who follow the beast. Some think this is just metaphor or as PA sort of said will happen or has already happened on a spiritual level. I believe it will happen literally and millions on earth who are not already dead by the end of the tribulation will die for choosing to follow the beast and accepting the mark. Christ the Conquerer is just as violent as God for they are the same in my eyes but it is not out of revenge or spite but simply divine justice. In this view evil must be eradicated, not by Christians themselves, but in the last day of this present world by Jesus and his angels.

When you have "the truth", then anybody who opposes you is either ignorant or evil. You rule over the ignorant and you kill or lock up the evil. Then you can make the world run to your perfect truth.

Have you read any of Clovis' other posts? Any at all? If you had, you'd know that's not the case at all.

indeed...If one is using informal logic as the crux of their argument they are arguing to persuade, giving reasons to justify their claims so it is in the exceptance of one 'claim' that the counter is eliminated....if this fails to do the job then we can move onto irrationalism which is the dogma of elimination by force....Clovis, what are your thoughts my friend????

[quote name='zandore' date='May 5 2008, 10:34 AM' post='2282826']
When you have "the truth", then anybody who opposes you is either ignorant or evil. You rule over the ignorant and you kill or lock up the evil. Then you can make the world run to your perfect truth.
[/quot

yea i would havew to agree clovis is one of the more level headed people posting here,not only does he actually take his relegion into account but also sees the merit of protecting himself and his family,,,,,,from reading other post i can see where someone might be conflicted (before this tread was started i would never thought in a million years people would be against defending their family) i have the freedom as far as i lost my releiion and no longer believe in god,so i feel my actions are judge on my morals and mans laws,,,,clovis and others like him feel they will be judged on diffrent levels so i give him much respect for his views on this subject,,,

This has been a historical problem with not just religion or politics but even group dynamics. There will always be outcasts and many times the outcasts will be the ones who actually have thought things out rather than just followed the group dynamic to be accepted. It seems a reoccurring theme in history time and time again. Oh, I hope I understood your position well but I truly think not everyone is out to persuade another but when it happens it usually is over religion or politics though there are many other instances when it is neither.



I can see where this is an issue as I stated above. Personally though most of the people who disagree with me are neither ignorant or evil but have used other criteria to come to their own understanding and it works for them. Your basic premise though transcends religion and can be a charge against governments, whether totalitarianism when one makes the rules for all, or even democracy which has been compared to mobocracy where the group decides what is law and everyone else is either killed or locked up.

Position on telling others outside the church how to believe: As far as the political aspirations for those like me and who believe as I do, we are Pentecostals, some do not know much about us at all even though we are the fastest growing sect of Christians in the world and have the most believers right under Catholicism. Oh us Pentecostals do not agree in many things amongst each other but for the most we stick to ourselves and stay under the radar because we do not push our beliefs on others especially in the political arenas. We are also usually cast aside by other Christians and considered heretics and the like.

Position on telling others within the church how to believe: I will be the first to admit that historically we have had problems with being too dogmatic, not accepting others who refuse to change once part of the church, and even parents or family members causing tremendous pain to children and other family members who do not conform. These are serious, serious issues but I have hope the church can change and grow out of this and have seen much of that happening even in the last church I went to. I do know the first church I grew up in had a pastor who wanted to control many parts of the lives of the families who attended. My parents had enough eventually after a few years and we moved to another church where that was not a problem. But even then I have seen many people coming out of the organization with their own horror stories.

Not for a second do I believe it was God though at fault but people who misinterpret many parts of the Bible and then turn to use those parts to control others. I do not blame the denomination either for I see that this is not always the case and even though we still agree in following the whole Bible there are different ways to apply it when it comes to allowing someone else to grow at their own pace or even stop believing. The last pastor I had showed us in the Bible that we are to accept anyone regardless of how they dress or what they believe. That no one is supposed to change simply to fit in and once someone does they are sinning because they are changing out of the flesh and not through the Spirit. Also that what is a sin for one believer might not be a sin for another...these are things which are not covered in the Bible such as serving in the military or self defense.

Forcefully attempting to convert others holds no place in the Bible even if some misguided people believe it does they are mistaken IMHO. We are even told we can be married to an unbeliever and no where does it say attempt to convert them, someone we live with, someone who we become part of:

Indeed. There was killing o' plenty in the Bible. But I never understood why Christians even venerate the Bible. I mean, as Christians, I always thought they should follow Christ. I think Jesus taught some cool stuff. Paul? Mostly positive, but doesn't really hit home for me. And the Old Testament? Some good things, in cetain places. But too much history, and chronicles of war and kingdoms. What's worse, is when Christians ignore what their own teacher taught them, and elevate something from the Old Testament, or from what Paul said. Infact, I've done a personal study, and 90% or more of the time, when Christians quote from the Bible, they quote from places that are not Jesus' teachings.

As for the whole "cleansing of the Temple" scene? I've actually heard Christians say that Jesus was wipping the crap out of people as an example of how we should treat people who are not Christian.

Pretty scary. However, most experts agree that Jesus was simply driving the animals out. It is also important to note that he was using some rope that he found laying around. Not a lether whip or scourge or anything like that.

And it is also important to note that out of the 'Temple Cleaning' pericope listed in all four Gospels, the mention of a 'whip' is only in John's Gospels. All three synoptics neglect that detail.

The Christians who did this do so within the concept of Christ the Logos. John 1 and the whole in the beginning was the Word , the Word was with God, and the Word was God and then the Word became flesh.

That doesn't really explain how many Christians I've encountered will neglect all their Christ taught on Peace and Love, and go with some violent teaching from the Old Testament, etc. If one venerates everything in the OT and even of Paul, which contradicts Christ, how are they Christians? Never got that...

There is really no contradiction that I have seen. Some things in the OT do not apply to modern believers are were time and place specific to the Israelites in antiquity. Paul's teachings just further expound the message of Christ. The bulk of Paul's teachings are just about purity and the Spirit.

If some want to just focus on one part of the Bible or another without taking it as a whole book and in context then of course they will seem to be contradicting other parts.

God didn't make guns... Man did.