Something I watched today

[YounginHope]

i cringed when I seen Votive was responding, being an administrator. Thought maybe I wasn't gonna make it to 100, lol.

[Esaias]

rofl

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The argument has always been the same - Jesus did not defend himself and did not allow anyone to defend him because he was on a mission to die.

Now, can anyone show where self defense is sin?

i recall finding that we would be forgiven for self defense, which implies sin.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by shazeep

i recall finding that we would be forgiven for self defense, which implies sin.

Perhaps you could recall where you found that? I don't recall ever seeing where self defense requires FORGIVENESS.

Although under the old covenant many things required ATONEMENT which were not inherently sinful (menstruating, etc).

[shazeep]

ya, i've been looking for it, but it was like 10 years ago i did this study, and i've forgotten the Scriptural terminology for the verse. something about being forgiven for defending home or family, as i recall.

[shazeep]

"I am surprised at the way religion is carried on in this country," said Sir Wilfrid Lawson at the same congress.

"You send a boy to Sunday school, and you tell him: 'Dear boy, you must love your enemies. If another boy strikes you, you mustn't hit him back, but try to reform him by loving him.' Well. The boy stays in the Sunday school till he is fourteen or fifteen, and then his friends send him into the army. What has he to do in the army? He certainly won't love his enemy; quite the contrary, if he can only get at him, he will run him through with his bayonet. That is the nature of all religious teaching in this country. I do not think that that is a very good way of carrying out the precepts of religion. I think if it is a good thing for a boy to love his enemy, it is good for a grown-up man."

http://biblehub.com/library/tolstoy/...etween_our.htm

[Esaias]

You are quoting Tolstoy as if he had any insight in Christian doctrine or on the Bible? ROFL

The guy is what would be called "an apostate", he abandoned faith by the time he was 18.

[shazeep]

hmm, i would say that he abandoned religion, Catholicism (ok, Russian Ortho), but regardless, the quote is by some professor, not Tolstoy himself; it just happens to be in a treatise about some Tolstoy, who i am not a fan of, but that doesn't mean he didn't make some good points.

[Esaias]

Actually Tolstoy repeatedly said he had no faith in Christ whatsoever.

But anyway, taking the quotation at face value, it would lead to Christians being unable to serve in law enforcement. And since God wants people to become followers of Christ, it would follow he doesn't want anyone enforcing laws. Which means Romans 13 is contrary to the will of God...

Thus again showing that one error begets others that people usually do not consider.

[shazeep]

well let's admit that Romans 13 would not have been necessary if they had not asked for a king; having asked for and gotten a king, the edict to obey the king/government only makes sense, sure. I'm not advocating against obeying laws.

For that matter, i think one might be forgiven for defensive actions; but who among us has ever experienced a defensive war, or a just war as defined? They are abstractions, that no one alive has any experience with. At least that i am aware of.

And it is probable that Tolstoy's reaction to Christ was really a denial of Russian Orthodoxy, don't you think?