Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jun 13, 2018 10:18:13 GMT
According to God's will, is it part of the natural order that the primary defenders against violence, including when that may require wielding weapons, should be men? Whether as protectors of the family, or leaders of armies?
Or, should men and women equally share the responsibility for defending against violence?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 13, 2018 10:42:10 GMT
In the Bible men and women appear to have their expected, set roles. I can't think of any martial females offhand. And all of scripture is suitable for instruction.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 13, 2018 11:12:49 GMT
According to God's will, is it part of the natural order that the primary defenders against violence, including when that may require wielding weapon, should be men? Whether as protectors of the family, or leaders of armies? Or, should men and women equally share the responsibility for defending against violence? Scripture does not provide guidance regarding military expectations for Christians since we are supposed to be pacifists. So the correct answer is men and women should be equally peaceable. In Israel, the military was comprised entirely of men and there was never a need to include women since, regardless of numbers, their numbers were sufficient as long as God was on their side. I don't think women were forbidden to be violent if the need arose. In Judges, a lady ended a war by hammering a spike in the leader's head.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2018 11:23:46 GMT
I don't care one whit about god's will, even if there is a god. Men are, on average, rather better at violence than women are since they're bigger and stronger. That's of less importance in the age of the gun, of course. Personally I don't see why women shouldn't defend against violence to whatever extent they're able to, just as men should.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jun 13, 2018 12:31:00 GMT
According to God's will, is it part of the natural order that the primary defenders against violence, including when that may require wielding weapon, should be men? Whether as protectors of the family, or leaders of armies? Or, should men and women equally share the responsibility for defending against violence? Are Christians supposed to be pacifists no matter what? Or is it permissible for a Christian to use lethal force against someone in self-defense (or defending your child) when escape is not workable?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 13, 2018 12:38:05 GMT
Are Christians supposed to be pacifists no matter what? Or is it permissible for a Christian to use lethal force against someone in self-defense (or defending your child)?
I didn't say no matter what. This was the entire sentence: If one has to defend themselves, scripture does not provide guidelines for self-defense. Thus there is no natural order to it. You just defend yourself. Whether someone must kill someone else to save themselves is pretty specific and I assume a matter of conscious since I can't think of a particular scripture where a Christian kills someone out of self defense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2018 12:46:55 GMT
Which God are you speaking of there are billions of them.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jun 13, 2018 13:03:38 GMT
Are Christians supposed to be pacifists no matter what? Or is it permissible for a Christian to use lethal force against someone in self-defense (or defending your child)?
If one has to defend themselves, scripture does not provide guidelines for self-defense. Thus there is no natural order to it. You just defend yourself. Whether someone must kill someone else to save themselves is pretty specific and I assume a matter of conscious Alright. If it doesn't violate Christian principles to use lethal force in self defense, is it likewise not a violation for a Christian to use lethal force to defend some other person, let's say a neighbor across the street?
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jun 13, 2018 13:35:16 GMT
Which God are you speaking of there are billions of them. Take your pick. All of them, if you prefer.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 13, 2018 14:36:43 GMT
If one has to defend themselves, scripture does not provide guidelines for self-defense. Thus there is no natural order to it. You just defend yourself. Whether someone must kill someone else to save themselves is pretty specific and I assume a matter of conscious Alright. If it doesn't violate Christian principles to use lethal force in self defense, is it likewise not a violation for a Christian to use lethal force to defend some other person, let's say a neighbor across the street? I didn't say it didn't violate Christian principles. I said it was a matter of conscious as I wouldn't know why someone felt the need to use lethal force.
That decision and the repercussions of it would be between them and God & maybe the law. The church in scripture made few decisions in the lives of its followers and largely focused on a Christians need to follow the example of and have a personality in line with Jesus or put faith in God & his son.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 13, 2018 14:53:12 GMT
According to God's will, is it part of the natural order Starting anything that way is a big mistake already.
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jun 13, 2018 15:04:26 GMT
In the Bible men and women appear to have their expected, set roles. I can't think of any martial females offhand. And all of scripture is suitable for instruction. In the Bible, pretty much all the people in charge are men. Does that therefore mean that men should also be in charge in modern societies?
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Jun 13, 2018 15:15:57 GMT
and this was magically worked into a religion of love.
we 'defend' resources from those who would 'acquire' them before we do. and those who sign up to join the fray are just that deluded anyway. of course it may take half the real estate of the united states to become a war memorial but i really don't think war brokers care.
imagine if all the war dead that america had a direct or indirect hand in generating were buried here in the continental united states. i wonder how much salable real estate would be left over?
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jun 13, 2018 15:59:06 GMT
CoolJGS☺
Housekeeping first. Second time now you've used that phrase. If it's going to come up again, say what you must mean - "matter of conscience". Otherwise you're going to start confusing people.You wouldn't know why? Because they had a reasonable fear for their own life, that's why. People who have used lethal force in such circumstances (whether or not it results in death) get acquitted or never even charged because a jury or a D.A. decided they were acting in self-defense. It happens from time to time.
Now, getting back to the point: And isn't there a difference between the two? You said Christians are supposed to be pacifists. If a Christian beat up somebody who insulted him, you wouldn't classify that as a "matter of conscience". You'd call it a violation of Christian principles and NOT a matter for somebody's individual conscience to decide. But in the case of self-defense, you called lethal force a matter of conscience. And I infer that to mean then that you don't consider it a violation of Christian principles because you don't call it a violation. (If it IS a violation, then it's incorrect to call it a matter of conscience.)
So, my question again: If lethal force in self-defense is a matter of conscience (rather than a violation of Christian principle), does the same hold for lethal force in defense of someone else, like your neighbor?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 13, 2018 16:20:44 GMT
IsapopYes, it's the second time in this topic. Well, a lot of time, fear can be irrational. Is someone knocking on your door grounds to kill them if one merely thinks their life is in danger? What if they are breaking in to steal a TV, is that life or death? A punch in the nose? I would say "No" to any of those scenarios, but people have been killed for them because the person was scared. Now if someone is lunging at you with a knife, then one may not need to be a mind reader to determine a valid reason to kill them, but it's all based on specifics. I would never make a blanket statement regarding the need to kill someone since that would be stupid. People are allowed to do any number of things that may not correspond to religious teachings. You can kill someone legally if your life isn't in danger. Yes, there is a difference. One is based on knowledge of what is allowed or not allowed. I do not have that authority or confidence since the information is not there. "Fights" can be a matter of self-defense too. If you are saying the Christian started it, then I would probably frown on the activity. On the outside since I don't have the ability to know their reasoning until they explain it. However, conscience for the Christian IS NOT a matter of doing what we think is right. It's making sure our decisions are in line with Christian standards and principles. My answer again is I never said killing someone isn't a violation of Christian principles since our conscience goes hand in hand with Christian principles.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jun 13, 2018 16:57:36 GMT
CoolJGS☺
Simple question: Is using lethal force in (a clear case of) self-defense a violation of Christian principles?
(If you can't give a clear "Yes" or "No" to that, then despite your confident assertion that Christians are supposed to be pacifists, you obviously haven't given any genuine thought to the topic or its implications.)
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 13, 2018 17:08:04 GMT
CoolJGS☺
Simple question: Is using lethal force in (a clear case of) self-defense a violation of Christian principles?
(If you can't give a clear "Yes" or "No" to that, then despite your confident assertion that Christians are supposed to be pacifists, you obviously haven't given any genuine thought to the topic or its implications.) Simple Answer: It could be if our conscience is not in line with those Christian principles.
I never understood why theophobiacs require yes or no answers lol.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 13, 2018 17:12:10 GMT
IsapopIt just donned on me that you may literally be simply whining about using the word "pacifist" If you'd like I can change it to peaceable.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jun 13, 2018 18:00:01 GMT
CoolJGS☺
Simple question: Is using lethal force in (a clear case of) self-defense a violation of Christian principles?
(If you can't give a clear "Yes" or "No" to that, then despite your confident assertion that Christians are supposed to be pacifists, you obviously haven't given any genuine thought to the topic or its implications.) Simple Answer: It could be if our conscience is not in line with those Christian principles.
Your answer is an evasion (per the usual). A Christian is supposed to let his conscience be molded by those principles, A Christian's conscience ought to bother him when he knows he has violated Christian principle, and it ought not to bother him when he knows he hasn't. None of this can happen if those principles can't be made clear to start with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2018 20:30:13 GMT
My two cents (on the issue of Christian violence/nonviolence):
Jesus commands us to love our enemies. This is an inward disposition we are supposed to have towards others. When you genuinely love someone, the thought of using lethal force against them should be a horrifying concept. How would you feel about having to kill a loved one? Is there any circumstance where you feel like you could actually do it? Would you feel "justified" in doing it if you did feel like you had to?
This isn't a black and white world. There are shades of grey. But at the end of the day, God cares about the orientation of your heart. If you are someone who actually commits to trying to love your enemies (thinking of them as an estranged brother/sister rather than someone who wishes you harm), you'll probably find that it's unlikely you'll ever need to use lethal force against them. But if, for whatever reason, you did feel like lethal force was the only option available, then I don't think that would be something you should ever feel righteous about.
|
|