How do you defend yourself against people who will blow themselves up to kill you?

[Nihilo]

I've never thought of any Christian Churches as 'warmongering' and still think that any who promote violence are outside of all the Creeds.

When defending yourself, and maybe even particularly when defending innocent people, for whom you are responsible, it is moral and right and good to promote violence, for the purpose of defense of yourself and innocent people against aggressive aggressors.

 

[eider]

When defending yourself, and maybe even particularly when defending innocent people, for whom you are responsible, it is moral and right and good to promote violence, for the purpose of defense of yourself and innocent people against aggressive aggressors.

New Covenant Source Please!!!!

 

[Nihilo]

New Covenant Source Please!!!!

Sure but first, let me clear something up about you.

Are you suggesting or implying or of the opinion that self defense and the defense of innocent people is not legitimate cause for employing legitimate violence?

For example, if someone were attacking your loved one's life or limb, is it good and moral to use violence against the aggressor, up to and including lethal force, if lethal force is the only way to defend your loved one?

 

[intojoy]

Okay, gotcha. So you can block immigration of all Muslims except those who are lying so they can get in and blow something up.

All those who are already here are here to stay.

Exactly fool. And we weed out the crap later.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[intojoy]

Islam has been here, but this isn't about being a fan of Islam.


They're 1% of the population. Should be about 2% by 2050.

Waaayyyy too many of the evil bastards.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[eider]

Sure but first, let me clear something up about you.

Are you suggesting or implying or of the opinion that self defense and the defense of innocent people is not legitimate cause for employing legitimate violence?

For example, if someone were attacking your loved one's life or limb, is it good and moral to use violence against the aggressor, up to and including lethal force, if lethal force is the only way to defend your loved one?

New Covenant Source Please!!!

Are you a Christian? Do you draw your tenets from your faith, or just dig 'em up as suits you?

 

[Nihilo]

if someone were attacking your loved one's life or limb, is it good and moral to use violence against the aggressor, up to and including lethal force, if lethal force is the only way to defend your loved one?

New Covenant Source Please!!!

Are you a Christian? Do you draw your tenets from your faith, or just dig 'em up as suits you?

I'll take that as a no.

 

[Town Heretic]

New Covenant Source Please!!!

Are you a Christian? Do you draw your tenets from your faith, or just dig 'em up as suits you?

To nudge in a wee bit, when Christ sent some of his men out he told them to buy a sword. Jesus also used violence in his attack on the men who had turned his temple into a den of thieves. And Jesus didn't tell us to free those in prison, but to visit them, though being barred from rights and languishing in prison is in its nature a violence. So the often over used "other cheek" and "die by the sword" scriptural snippets require context, in much the same way that you need context to distinguish between murder and a lawful killing in defense of your own. Christ didn't demand pacifism any more than he expected everyone to sell what they had to give to the poor.

 

[DavidK]

Most do not understand that if Sharia law ever becomes the law of the land:

1. Everyone would be FORCED to become Muslim or pay a tax or be killed for refusing to convert ,and or pay the tax.

2. Girls would be married off at 6.

3. Homosexuals ( no I do not support same sex ) would be thrown off of every high building.

4. Honor killing of daughters that do not obey their dads would be killed.

5. Sex with animals would become protected by their Sharia.

6. If a woman is raped she would be beaten or stoned.

and on and on with the death cult's barbarity.

It will only happen in America AFTER "every" patriot has been killed then good luck.

Hey, I'm not advocating Sharia law at all.

I'm just saying that it looks like, from a little research, with no real legal knowledge, that if someone wanted to institute Sharia law in the US but was willing to say they were going to try to do it within the current constitutional system, it wouldn't be legal grounds for denying them immigration.

 

[dodge]

Hey, I'm not advocating Sharia law at all.

I'm just saying that it looks like, from a little research, with no real legal knowledge, that if someone wanted to institute Sharia law in the US but was willing to say they were going to try to do it within the current constitutional system, it wouldn't be legal grounds for denying them immigration.

Anything that circumvents the constitution is UN-lawful based on the laws of the U.S. so NO they do not have the constitutional right to over throw the constitution.

Since those who support Sharia seek to overthrow the constitution on its face it is ILLEGAL in the U.S.

 

[DavidK]

Exactly fool. And we weed out the crap later.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

Seems like a strange way to remove weeds from the garden, by first ripping out most of the vegetable plants.

 

[DavidK]

Anything that circumvents the constitution is UN-lawful based on the laws of the U.S. so NO they do not have the constitutional right to over throw the constitution.

Since those who support Sharia seek to overthrow the constitution on its face it is ILLEGAL in the U.S.

That's absurd. The constitution itself holds the instrument to overthrow it. Article V.

 

[dodge]

That's absurd. The constitution itself holds the instrument to overthrow it. Article V.

Wrong again. The 1952 law was based on those who attempt to over throw the constitution.

Article 4 says:

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.


https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-v

Sharia by its very nature would circumvent the 1st and 4th as high lighted above.

 

[eider]

To nudge in a wee bit, when Christ sent some of his men out he told them to buy a sword. Jesus also used violence in his attack on the men who had turned his temple into a den of thieves. And Jesus didn't tell us to free those in prison, but to visit them, though being barred from rights and languishing in prison is in its nature a violence. So the often over used "other cheek" and "die by the sword" scriptural snippets require context, in much the same way that you need context to distinguish between murder and a lawful killing in defense of your own. Christ didn't demand pacifism any more than he expected everyone to sell what they had to give to the poor.

But the poster wished to opt for lethal force.

All of Jesus's disciples were (arguably) tough people, and clearly Cephas favoured the Machaerus (spelling?), but when he actually used it on a temple servent in Gethsemane Jesus stopped him, and healed the man's wound. Clearly, even in that fraut situation Jesus was not prepared to use violence.

John's account of the Temple clearance does worry me because the timeline seems a bit jumbled there. The first accounts propose that this action happened in the last week and was almost certainly the reason for Jesus's arrest, whereas in John it was the bringing to life of Lazarus which caused the priesthood to want him arrested..... In the synoptic reports Jesus did not so much use violence as force. I have intimate knowledge of the difference between force and violence from years of thief catching, detaining..... hundreds of times I needed to use force, only a very few times was I ever so terrified that I used violence, nor did I ever set out with the intention of being violent. SWhat do you think of my separation of these two acts?

Incarceration in a prison is force..... not violence, and Jesus was not 'strong' about death penalties, as shown by his intervention in the stoning of the adulteress.

I do believe in defence. I do believe in necessary force, which can or might lead to a death, but the deliberate intention to go out and kill leaves anthing that Jesus said or did far behind, surely?

 

[eider]

​

I'll take that as a no.

You see?
At no time did Jesus ever support the idea or act of intentionally going out to inflict 'lethal force' upon anybody. Lethal force is total violence.

The suggestion that any lethal act be carried out upon anybody 'in case some of them might do something bad' is just totally unChristian.

That's probably why you needed to dip and duck the question.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You see?
At no time did Jesus ever support the idea or act of intentionally going out to inflict 'lethal force' upon anybody. Lethal force is total violence.

The suggestion that any lethal act be carried out upon anybody 'in case some of them might do something bad' is just totally unChristian.

That's probably why you needed to dip and duck the question.

Is it ever right to use lethal force to stop a criminal from committing a crime? (a yes or no answer will suffice for this question)

 

[musterion]

Hey, I'm not advocating Sharia law at all.

I'm just saying that it looks like, from a little research, with no real legal knowledge, that if someone wanted to institute Sharia law in the US but was willing to say they were going to try to do it within the current constitutional system, it wouldn't be legal grounds for denying them immigration.

It would count as subversive and seditious, because it would be both.

 

[Town Heretic]

But the poster wished to opt for lethal force.

All of Jesus's disciples were (arguably) tough people, and clearly Cephas favoured the Machaerus (spelling?), but when he actually used it on a temple servent in Gethsemane Jesus stopped him, and healed the man's wound. Clearly, even in that fraut situation Jesus was not prepared to use violence.

In that situation Peter the outcome would have been dire for Peter, who wasn't at that juncture yet. Beyond that, Peter was interfering in God's plan, as surely as when Jesus had to rebuke him.

John's account of the Temple clearance does worry me because the timeline seems a bit jumbled there. The first accounts propose that this action happened in the last week and was almost certainly the reason for Jesus's arrest, whereas in John it was the bringing to life of Lazarus which caused the priesthood to want him arrested..... In the synoptic reports Jesus did not so much use violence as force. I have intimate knowledge of the difference between force and violence from years of thief catching, detaining..... hundreds of times I needed to use force, only a very few times was I ever so terrified that I used violence, nor did I ever set out with the intention of being violent. SWhat do you think of my separation of these two acts?

It's interesting, but scripture is fairly clear that Jesus didn't finger wag the money changers from the temple. He also didn't chase them with a sword. Neither did he turn a metaphorical cheek to them.

Incarceration in a prison is force..... not violence

We differ. Especially when you consider the treatment and prisons of Paul's day.

, and Jesus was not 'strong' about death penalties, as shown by his intervention in the stoning of the adulteress.

I don't agree the death penalty is necessitated and I think Jesus is the reason why, but that's another ball of wax.

I do believe in defence. I do believe in necessary force, which can or might lead to a death, but the deliberate intention to go out and kill leaves anthing that Jesus said or did far behind, surely?

Here's the problem with that line of thinking...is it defensive or going out if you leave the safety of your home to stop someone from committing an act of evil against your neighbor or his children? Defense can begin to stretch when you consider it.

 

[Nihilo]

But the poster wished to opt for lethal force.

:freak: "The poster" actually wished to not need to consider using force in defense of life or limb at all, that's the preferred wish of "the poster," but you failed to consider that in your rush to judge "the poster," in point of fact.

All of Jesus's disciples were (arguably) tough people, and clearly Cephas favoured the Machaerus (spelling?), but when he actually used it on a temple servent in Gethsemane Jesus stopped him, and healed the man's wound. Clearly, even in that fraut situation Jesus was not prepared to use violence.

John's account of the Temple clearance does worry me because the timeline seems a bit jumbled there. The first accounts propose that this action happened in the last week and was almost certainly the reason for Jesus's arrest, whereas in John it was the bringing to life of Lazarus which caused the priesthood to want him arrested..... In the synoptic reports Jesus did not so much use violence as force. I have intimate knowledge of the difference between force and violence from years of thief catching, detaining..... hundreds of times I needed to use force, only a very few times was I ever so terrified that I used violence, nor did I ever set out with the intention of being violent. SWhat do you think of my separation of these two acts?

You're a Protestant in deep need of the Catholic supreme pastor, because you're in way over your head in scriptural hermeneutics, theology, and ethical reasoning. The popes are specially for those like you, you overthink simple things like self defense and defending innocent people; you need help with your faith, just like all Christians---you in particular are clearly untrained and unskilled in living with and by your faith.

Incarceration in a prison is force..... not violence, and Jesus was not 'strong' about death penalties, as shown by his intervention in the stoning of the adulteress.

I do believe in defence. I do believe in necessary force, which can or might lead to a death, but the deliberate intention to go out and kill leaves anthing that Jesus said or did far behind, surely?

Who is advocating for that now?

You see?
At no time did Jesus ever support the idea or act of intentionally going out to inflict 'lethal force' upon anybody. Lethal force is total violence.

:freak: Heaven only knows how you managed to read into my posts that I was arguing for "internationally going out to inflict "lethal force" upon anybody." :freak:

The suggestion that any lethal act be carried out upon anybody 'in case some of them might do something bad' is just totally unChristian.

:freak: ! Who's saying this? Who are you talking to here?

That's probably why you needed to dip and duck the question.

Censored.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Hey, I'm not advocating Sharia law at all.

I'm just saying that it looks like, from a little research, with no real legal knowledge, that if someone wanted to institute Sharia law in the US but was willing to say they were going to try to do it within the current constitutional system, it wouldn't be legal grounds for denying them immigration.

What about those in dearborn who stone christians and already practice sharia?