juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Kindest Regards, Abogado!
Now, at what point in my life am I likely to give my life as a sacrifice? I will not say it cannot happen. Indeed, many fine young men and women have given their lives on the battlefield that I may enjoy the life I now lead. But the odds of me being given over to execution as blood sacrifice for atonement of sin for the people of the world, is not very likely to happen. At least, at this point in my life, I don't feel God is grooming me for any such thing.
So equating my life with that of Jesus is kinda like apples and oranges.
He had a God-given destiny to fulfill. I doubt my God-given destiny is anything nearly so lofty.
So I speak from the trenches of laymen, of ordinary citizens who lead ordinary lives, trying their best to get by in a world that is not always friendly or conducive to peaceful interaction. Yes, I agree wholeheartedly that the ideal to strive for, always, is peace.
Sometimes, peace is just not possible. It is in these rare moments that defense is required. If we do not know how to defend ourselves, we have lost before the battle has begun. Sun Tzu would be very pleased with such an outcome, as an opposing general. To defeat the enemy without lifting a sword, that is the ultimate in warfare.
Politicians get an awful lot of flak, most of it deserved. But true leadership, by a true civil (or military) leader, is an awesome responsibility. A leader can not satisfy everybody always. The best they can hope for is to steer a course for the best for the most, in good ol' Mill's Utilitarian style. Whether or not this is righteous Christian reasoning, it is the kind of reasoning that led this nation and others through two world wars and then some.
So, back to Jesus' example, aside from Gethsemane. When Jesus perceived a group of men intending Him harm, He disappeared in the crowd. He separated Himself from the situation. He was quick to forgive, both personal offenses and offenses to others. He did not preach war, but He did teach about being prepared. On a couple of occasions He mentioned the Temple being destroyed. When it finally was, it was by warfare. There are other things He said that depending on interpretation, can be seen as advocating preparedness for battle. Paul seems to continue on some themes, such as "battling against (unseen?) powers and principalities." Not to mention the armor of God. So a great deal of the teachings in the Bible have military themes and applications.
I know I am rambling somewhat, and I really need to go back and support myself with the passages I am calling forward. But at this point I will stand by my understanding, which is that peace and forgiveness are always the preferable option. However, in those rare instances when peace is not an option because forgiveness is insufficient to assuage the attacker, then defense is right and proper. Not to mention heroic. For there is no greater gift a man can give, than to lay down his life for his friend.
We are not all like Gandhi. We do not have that capacity exercised. And as long as there are people in the world who do not have that capacity, there is the very real possibility that one of them may inpinge on your life at some point. If the matter can be forgiven, by all means do so. But if the intent does not cease there, and it is evident that the attacker means continued and greater harm, then it is time to kick dragon tail and take names.
My continued two cents.
There is one more choice, the adversary.Who were the "bullies" in the story? You have choices: the Sanhedrin, Pilate, the Roman soldiers. What did Jesus give up to them? What did he say about how these bullies should be judged?
Now, at what point in my life am I likely to give my life as a sacrifice? I will not say it cannot happen. Indeed, many fine young men and women have given their lives on the battlefield that I may enjoy the life I now lead. But the odds of me being given over to execution as blood sacrifice for atonement of sin for the people of the world, is not very likely to happen. At least, at this point in my life, I don't feel God is grooming me for any such thing.
So equating my life with that of Jesus is kinda like apples and oranges.
He had a God-given destiny to fulfill. I doubt my God-given destiny is anything nearly so lofty.
So I speak from the trenches of laymen, of ordinary citizens who lead ordinary lives, trying their best to get by in a world that is not always friendly or conducive to peaceful interaction. Yes, I agree wholeheartedly that the ideal to strive for, always, is peace.
Sometimes, peace is just not possible. It is in these rare moments that defense is required. If we do not know how to defend ourselves, we have lost before the battle has begun. Sun Tzu would be very pleased with such an outcome, as an opposing general. To defeat the enemy without lifting a sword, that is the ultimate in warfare.
Politicians get an awful lot of flak, most of it deserved. But true leadership, by a true civil (or military) leader, is an awesome responsibility. A leader can not satisfy everybody always. The best they can hope for is to steer a course for the best for the most, in good ol' Mill's Utilitarian style. Whether or not this is righteous Christian reasoning, it is the kind of reasoning that led this nation and others through two world wars and then some.
So, back to Jesus' example, aside from Gethsemane. When Jesus perceived a group of men intending Him harm, He disappeared in the crowd. He separated Himself from the situation. He was quick to forgive, both personal offenses and offenses to others. He did not preach war, but He did teach about being prepared. On a couple of occasions He mentioned the Temple being destroyed. When it finally was, it was by warfare. There are other things He said that depending on interpretation, can be seen as advocating preparedness for battle. Paul seems to continue on some themes, such as "battling against (unseen?) powers and principalities." Not to mention the armor of God. So a great deal of the teachings in the Bible have military themes and applications.
I know I am rambling somewhat, and I really need to go back and support myself with the passages I am calling forward. But at this point I will stand by my understanding, which is that peace and forgiveness are always the preferable option. However, in those rare instances when peace is not an option because forgiveness is insufficient to assuage the attacker, then defense is right and proper. Not to mention heroic. For there is no greater gift a man can give, than to lay down his life for his friend.
We are not all like Gandhi. We do not have that capacity exercised. And as long as there are people in the world who do not have that capacity, there is the very real possibility that one of them may inpinge on your life at some point. If the matter can be forgiven, by all means do so. But if the intent does not cease there, and it is evident that the attacker means continued and greater harm, then it is time to kick dragon tail and take names.
My continued two cents.