Will the National Media Run with this Story?

[SB Shock]

You can prevent murder, prevent rape, intervene in cruelty against children, and resist evil without violence. Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. did excellent work in standing up to cruelty, injustice, and evil without the use of violence by shining a spotlight on them.

Then in that case we should disarm the police and give them "spotlights" and get rid of the military.

[Rlh04d]

Then in that case we should disarm the police and give them "spotlights" and get rid of the military.

I've clearly already said that I am not personally a pacifist.

However, I'm not a pacifist because I don't have the courage and integrity of Jesus, or Gandhi, or MLK. I don't have the courage to respond to violence with love. Especially not when my family are at risk.

But I recognize I'm not following Jesus' example. I'm not trying to twist his words into justifying my weakness.

[wu_shizzle]

Jesus never says not to work. Jesus does say not to use violence.

It's honestly depressing that people would try to twist the words of Jesus around to justify violence when he was so specifically against it.

If Jesus' words weren't so clear on the subject, then I might accept your reasoning. However, that kind of reasoning is insanely flimsy when you're making assumptions and inferences that are directly contrary to Jesus' actual words and actions.

I also hate when scripture is twisted. The New Testament authors spent a lot of time writing about false teachers who were twisting scripture. The best way to interpret difficult passages is to take what is clear and interpret the cloudy.

To me the 10 commandments are clear: Thou shall not kill. The original Hebrew word is Ratsach (Murder) Link. Life is sacred and we should never take another life which is created in the image of God out of anger or careless behavior. What is also clear is that throughout the Old Testament you see that not all killing was condemned, only the act of murder.

Also clear to me is that Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses (Matt 5:17) No longer are believers required to follow the ceremonial law (Acts 15), unless they feel compelled (Rom 14:23). Yet, there are many commandments of believers in the New Testament. 9 of the original 10 commandments are repeated in the New Testament (Link).

The greatest of all of these is to Love God and Love your Neighbor as yourself (Mark 12:30-31). I believe it is the duty of believers to love their neighbor by protecting those who cannot protect themselves (James 1:27, 1 Tim 5:8). Because of Love, believers have the right to serve in the military and police force and the command to protect their family.

You can choose to be a pacifist, and I can choose not to be. One or the other does not exclude someone from fellowship.

I would challenge you with this: If you are true to your beliefs then you should have no problem sending me all of your money and posting your social security number, your credit card numbers and bank account numbers. After all you are arguing that you should not resist anyone who is asking something of you. (Matt 5:42)

[Rlh04d]

Even Jesus didn't literally turn his cheek when he was hit by a member of the Sanhedrin.

I don't know what point you're making here. Please elaborate.

[Rlh04d]

You can choose to be a pacifist, and I can choose not to be. One or the other does not exclude someone from fellowship.

I would challenge you with this: If you are true to your beliefs then you should have no problem sending me all of your money and posting your social security number, your credit card numbers and bank account numbers. After all you are arguing that you should not resist anyone who is asking something of you. (Matt 5:42)

Again, you're confusing things. 1979 is a pacifist -- I've said many times that I am not ;)

My argument was that Jesus was a pacifist. I'm depressed by any attempt to twist his words into justifying the use of violence. I am by no means saying that I would not use violence myself -- I'm a member of the US military; I'd absolutely use violence if necessary. But I don't take the words of a man who was clearly the epitome of a pacifist to justify my lack of pacifism.

Not being a pacifist is the same as any number of other things that don't "exclude someone from fellowship" but are against the teachings of Jesus, and we do every day. They'e not preferable, and I'm sure you as well as I understand that we're all sinners and can only try to do better.

[1979Shocker]

If you ever decide to wade through the Book of Revelation, it's basically broken up into three parts, with a few chapters interjected. These parts are the seven seals, the seven trumpets, and the seven plagues. The 7th or last seal is made up of the seven trumpets. The 7th or last trumpet (when the dead are judged Rev. 11:18, Matt. 24:31, 1Cor. 15:52), is made up of the seven last plagues.

[wu_shizzle]

Again, you're confusing things. 1972 is a pacifist -- I've said many times that I am not ;)

My argument was that Jesus was a pacifist. I'm depressed by any attempt to twist his words into justifying the use of violence. I am by no means saying that I would not use violence myself -- I'm a member of the US military; I'd absolutely use violence if necessary. But I don't take the words of a man who was clearly the epitome of a pacifist to justify my lack of pacifism.

Not being a pacifist is the same as any number of other things that don't "exclude someone from fellowship" but are against the teachings of Jesus, and we do every day. They'e not preferable, and I'm sure you as well as I understand that we're all sinners and can only try to do better.

I started writing my post hours ago, then came back to it after being my wife's husband and my child's dad. I never saw your clarification before I replied.

As you say, Jesus willingly humbled himself and did not use the physical force he most certainly possessed. Where I'm confused is why you feel like somehow Christ-followers who believe in using deadly force against evil are somehow, in your words, lacking "courage and integrity".

[SB Shock]

I don't know what point you're making here. Please elaborate.

I don't know how I can be any clearer - when Jesus refused to answer the high priest question he was struck. He did not turn the other cheek and ask them to hit him on the other cheek. Jesus responded by challenging his accusers to provide evidence for the evil he had done to deserve such treatment. Jesus' own actions tell us that we should not interpret the scripture about turning the other cheek literally.

[Rlh04d]

I don't know how I can be any clearer - when Jesus refused to answer the high priest question he was struck. He did not turn the other cheek and ask them to hit him on the other cheek. Jesus responded by challenging his accusers to provide evidence for the evil he had done to deserve such treatment. Jesus' own actions tell us that we should not interpret the scripture about turning the other cheek literally.

You're being clear, it's just a terrible example. We're talking about the use of violence. Jesus did not respond with violence.

[Rlh04d]

As you say, Jesus willingly humbled himself and did not use the physical force he most certainly possessed. Where I'm confused is why you feel like somehow Christ-followers who believe in using deadly force against evil are somehow, in your words, lacking "courage and integrity".

I believe following Christ's examples in responding to violence with love, as later embodied through MLK and Gandhi, requires tremendous courage and integrity.

It's not an insult to anyone to say that someone doesn't have the courage of those men. I do not.

Living your life in a way that is contrary to the way Jesus lived his life is not something to be proud of. Even if it is necessary.

[SB Shock]

You're being clear, it's just a terrible example. We're talking about the use of violence. Jesus did not respond with violence.

But he also didn't turn the other cheek.

[Rlh04d]

But he also didn't turn the other cheek.

So because the words "Jesus then turned his cheek away" were not included, you think that invalidates the command of Jesus to respond to violence by turning the other cheek?

He condemned the unfair use of violence against him. That is entirely consistent with his words. Responding to violence with logic is entirely within the purview of pacifism; responding with violence or insults would not be.