The Glorious Church

Visit www.GloriousChurch.com

Mat 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch

the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his

house to be broken up. (LK 12:39 says, "broken through.")

 

In the light of the above scripture, just how far should the goodman of the house

be willing to go to keep his house from being "broken up" or "broken through" or what

we might say, broken into? 

 

Is concealed carry an option for Christians?

Views: 984

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

In Moses’ day they were killing newborns, and in Jesus’ day, they were killing them as old as two years of age.   In Jesus’ case, it was even predicted years before it happened (Matt 2:17, 18).  It was by government mandate both times, as today’s murdering of the unborn has government sanction as well. To bring it to a sudden stop would take a miracle of God (which is possible). 

If I remember correctly, one man did kill (or try to kill) an abortionist a year or two (?) ago, yet, sadly, the atrocity goes on without missing a (heart) beat:-(  Here is one man trying to do something about it: http://patriot-newswire.com/2012/01/super-bowl-to-air-graphic-abort... This man has been arrested nearly 50 times, it states! Would to God, the solution would come quickly. 

Meanwhile, back at the “self-dense/defense of others” ranch: It is difficult at best to say what we would do in a given situation.  We don’t normally plan to be involved in a criminal occurrence.  These things usually happen upon us suddenly, and without warning. Before we know it, we find ourselves in a dilemma we wish we were not in … yet we are!   One will not have the advantage of hindsight in such a case, nor will he have a lot of time to act, or react, whichever the case may be.  Quite likely, whatever we do, will have to be done quickly … and leave the rest for the Lord to sort it all out.  He alone can judge the thoughts and the intentions of the heart.

Certainly there are times we must flee persecution (becoming less possible today).  The early church did.  Yet, I wonder if it would ever be appropriate to use the tactic of Michael the archangel (Jude 1:9), in defense of others, and just boldly declare, “The Lord rebuke you.” … or, just rebuke them in Jesus’ Name?  There may be such a situation that that is ALL WE HAVE!  I often wonder if I believe it enough to use it.

Case in point (recalling out of a faded memory):  I know a Brother, personally, that was walking the sidewalk away from the front of his house about noon one day (@ 15 yrs ago).  He got almost to the street when this man ran from the side and overtook him and just started running around and around him.  This man was armed (knife or gun?) and had just robbed a pizza place (?).  This Brother just stood there, pulled his arms in around himself, and rebuked the man in Jesus’ Name.  The man fell to the ground and cracked his head on the sidewalk.  The police came and took him away.

Maybe we do have an arsenal we don’t fully realize the power of … yet!

 

 

It is interesting to note that, in general, jurisdictions where the people are heavily armed tend to have lower crime rates. This is obviously because the bad guys are much less likely to break into a house or molest a pedestrian if they think they might get shot. The fact is, the man who shot George Tiller (aka Tiller the killer) has made it much more difficult to get an abortion in Kansas. Mr. Tiller was a particularly evil man. He had performed 100s of so-called late-term abortions (aka infanticide). His clinic was only one of three in the entire nation where such abortions were being done. I once heard him interviewed on the radio and he was arrogant and disgusting when he talked about what he did. He had already been shot in the arms back in the 90s but he continued to do these abortions. But now his slaughter house has closed down and it is much harder for a women to find someone to murder her unborn child. I have to believe that every time an abortionist is shot or attacked, it causes every other abortionist to think long and hard about whether or not he really wants to continue in this field (it's just that the money is sooooooo good!). 

My points is, the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Today, our world is filled with evil men. They prey on weakness. If they know that no truly devout Christian will use any kind of threatening force to stop them from raping or killing them or their family members or their neighbors, we may as well turn our lives over to the strongest, ugliest, most evil elements of our society.

I go back to my question about the woman being raped. If she is being led by the Spirit, will the Spirit lead her to not resist the evil person but simply yield to him. Is that the will of God? Is anyone willing to respond to this question?

All I'm really looking for here is a principle that will guide us in this matter. Either we are expected by God to yield to evil in all its vile forms or to resist it and even destroy it in circumstances that have nothing directly to do with our labors to advance the gsopel. Which is it?

 

 

 

 

David Huston said:

[...]

I go back to my question about the woman being raped. If she is being led by the Spirit, will the Spirit lead her to not resist the evil person but simply yield to him. Is that the will of God? Is anyone willing to respond to this question?

[...]

 

To use Bro Fazier's word...  She should kick him in the !@#$%^&* !
 

(and scream)

 



Donnie Gillum said:

Case in point (recalling out of a faded memory):  I know a Brother, personally, that was walking the sidewalk away from the front of his house about noon one day (@ 15 yrs ago).  He got almost to the street when this man ran from the side and overtook him and just started running around and around him.  This man was armed (knife or gun?) and had just robbed a pizza place (?).  This Brother just stood there, pulled his arms in around himself, and rebuked the man in Jesus’ Name.  The man fell to the ground and cracked his head on the sidewalk.  The police came and took him away.

Maybe we do have an arsenal we don’t fully realize the power of … yet!

 Amen, amen, AMEN! Now you're talking!

LOL. It wasn't -my- word. It was my browser's. :)

Bro. Prevost! Watch your language!  ROFL!!!

Quote – Bro. Dave Huston: All I'm really looking for here is a principle that will guide us in this matter. Either we are expected by God to yield to evil in all its vile forms or to resist it and even destroy it in circumstances that have nothing directly to do with our labors to advance the gsopel. Which is it? (End quote) (Underline emp. Mine – DG)

Maybe a clue for a “principle to guide us” may be found in James 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

I’m sure this can be explained away as fulfilling the previous verse i.e. humble yourself and resist pride.  But, the point is that we are told to resist someone, howbeit, the devil. 

So, if the devil himself appeared and demanded that we worship him, do we submit?  Jesus wouldn’t and didn’t … He resisted him!  I realize it wasn’t a physical wrestling match, but the point is, He resisted him!  What if the devil had tried to wrestle Him into a kneeling position?  Would Jesus have submitted? Doubt it seriously J

Maybe the scenario of a woman in a rape scene is to “distant” yet for us men.  Maybe we should be more pointed and direct.  How about: should a man submit to a female “rapist”.  (Don’t laugh.  I don’t see how either, but I’ve been told that it is possible.)  Since you’ve included “evil in all its vile forms”, what if a male homosexual tries to “rape” one of us brethren ... do we bend over? (I HATE posting that! Please, please, Brethren, please forgive my crudeness.)

If I scream, will someone help me?

 

 

 

I get it that it's ok for a woman to kick and scream, but would it be spiritually immoral for her to kill him?

David Huston said:

I get it that it's ok for a woman to kick and scream, but would it be spiritually immoral for her to kill him?

 

Exo 21:12-13 KJV He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death. {13} And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee.

 

I don't think this verse applied to males only.  The guy (err, "person") that didn't lie in wait (e.g., the victim), was not punished, but, rather, he/she was protected.
 

If a women is justified in killing her rapist and is not counted a murderer by God, then any one of us is justified in killing anyone who presents a clear and immediate threat to our lives or the lives of our family members or neighbors. After all, being killed goes beyond being raped. I do not subscribe to the "legal standing" idea. We all have standing when the life of a fellow human being is being unjustly threatened. If all this is true and God does not count as sin (and may even count as righteousness) certain types of killing that may in some circumstances be considered crimes by the State, then shouldn't we stand with Peter, who declared, "Better to obey God than man"?

Is anyone willing to argue that the godly woman should submit to the rape and not do whatever she can to stop the perpetrator, even if it means killing him? 

David Huston said:

If a women is justified in killing her rapist and is not counted a murderer by God, then any one of us is justified in killing anyone who presents a clear and immediate threat to our lives or the lives of our family members or neighbors. After all, being killed goes beyond being raped. I do not subscribe to the "legal standing" idea. We all have standing when the life of a fellow human being is being unjustly threatened. If all this is true and God does not count as sin (and may even count as righteousness) certain types of killing that may in some circumstances be considered crimes by the State, then shouldn't we stand with Peter, who declared, "Better to obey God than man"?

 

Note that I have not directly said (or at least, I didn't intend to) that the individual is justified in killing attacker(s) when protecting themselves, or others.  I have said that the Individual is justified in using lethal force, which can possibly (or even probably) kill the attacker(s).  The direct objective of constructive violence is to stop the attacker, not necessarily to kill him.  Whether the attacker actually dies or not is immaterial -- the lethal force was justified.  

 

And I still don't think it's right for the Individual to execute capital punishment.  Exactly where the line is drawn between self-defense and capital punishment I'm not exactly sure.  Perhaps only in the motives of the Individual.

  

Mike R. Prevost said:

You need to respond to Bro Houston's rape scenarios, brother.  I assume that you aren't a total pacifist.

David Huston said:

I go back to my question about the woman being raped. If she is being led by the Spirit, will the Spirit lead her to not resist the evil person but simply yield to him. Is that the will of God? Is anyone willing to respond to this question?

OK, first I want to say you guys are really hard to keep up with! I'm lucky if I can get one good post in during the day on my break and one in the evening, maybe depending on the night and how late I'm willing to stay up. So, sorry for the delay.

Where to begin... you're right Bro Mike, I need to respond to Bro Dave's rape scenarios, like it or not. Honestly, I've been avoiding them a bit because I find the scenario rather sensational. It's the exact same scenario I've heard the abortion advocates themselves use so many times before. They say, "What if someone gets pregnant while being raped? Don't you think it's OK to get an abortion then?" All they're really looking for is any type of consensual justification they can get their hands on so they can say, "Gotchya". And instead here it's, "What if someone's being raped? Isn't it OK to kill them?"

These 'what if' scenarios are always taken to the extreme and can go on and on. What if someone comes into your home, holds you at gun point, and says they're going to kill one of your children and if you try to stop them they'll kill you too? And by the tone of this discussion I'm guessing at least some or perhaps most of you would say, "You've got to at least try to save them. It's your duty even if it costs you your life." BUT, but... what if they tell you they are only going to kill this one child but then they will let you go, along with your wife and other three children who are standing beside you? Where's your moral responsibility then? To play tough guy hero and lose your own life as well as one of your children, never knowing what will happen to your wife and three other children left behind without their husband or Daddy? Or to let them kill the one, choosing the lesser loss, that you would remain to be able to carry out your responsibility to the others? Would either one of these options be morally wrong? What would God have us to do? What does the Bible say about this? Like Bro Donnie said, honestly, I don't really even like posting this stuff, but this is where all of that 'what if' stuff takes you. 

I know someone said it before, but I've also said it for years, that generally speaking, you really don't know what you would do in a situation until your in it. Often times the guy who talks the biggest talk will be the one crying when the day comes and the guy you never thought could hurt a fly will be the one to stand up and take it on. 

Should a woman try to fight? Maybe. Ultimately it's up to that woman to make that decision based on the individual details of her particular situation and she will be the one who has to live or not live with the answer. Fighting back might lead to something worse such as death or a beating. Would it be or is it wrong to fight back? I don't believe so, but I also don't think you can just say, "It's always right", because it's going to be situational. It's going to take you back to what if's. If someone is being raped, they are being taken advantage of, and by that I mean someone has the 'advantage' over them. And if they are over-powered and out matched, then the best thing to do might be to just take it, because if you fight back against someone who has already over-powered you, it might just make it worse, they might strangle you or beat you. As a hunter, thank God I've never been in this situation, it's the same. If you're attacked by a bear, sometimes it's best to fight it, sometimes it's best to just take it. You've got make that decision and you've got to make it fast. And yes, as a Christian, you very well may rely on, or feel a prompting by, the Holy Spirit in your time of distress, and He may tell you to fight or He may tell you to take it. I don't believe a woman being raped would be any different. And would you stand before God and accuse Him, if in that moment, He prompts a woman to just take it because He knows that that is the safest option? And if you struggle to imagine God standing by and allowing such an injustice and atrocity, try explaining that to the Jews and the slaves. 

At this point I agree with what Mike said:

Note that I have not directly said (or at least, I didn't intend to) that the individual is justified in killing attacker(s) when protecting themselves, or others.  I have said that the Individual is justified in using lethal force, which can possibly (or even probably) kill the attacker(s).  The direct objective of constructive violence is to stop the attacker, not necessarily to kill him.  Whether the attacker actually dies or not is immaterial -- the lethal force was justified.  

Is it OK to fight back. Yep. If that is what you have decided in that split second is the wisest course of action. But, you must understand that AS SOON AS you decide to use force, death becomes an option. I remember a story from a few years ago of a local man who died in a bar. Another guy punched him and when he got hit, he fell backwards and hit his head and died. But for the sake of our discussion we know just as well that it wouldn't have to come from falling and hitting your head, just a single well-placed punch to the head could be enough to kill. So again, the point is that as soon as you fight back their is a possibility of death. Does this make it wrong to fight back? I don't think so. But like Mike mentioned, and I believe, like we have seen from the scriptures, the fine line is in intent. If someone else initiated the attack, then you have a right to fight back so long as you continue to feel endangered, but keeping in mind that the direct objective is to stop the attack, not to kill. If the attacker dies, it's his own fault and he is morally responsible for the loss of his own life, not the victim. How could we be held responsible for someone else's sin? But does this come right out and say in black and white, that 'IT IS OK TO KILL SOMEONE WHO HAS ATTACKED YOU'? No, but I feel like that is what you're looking for. 

Beyond that, there seems to be this stigma attached, throughout this discussion, to the act of 'killing'. Now don't get me wrong, I believe killing is wrong. Very wrong. Much more wronger (sorry I couldn't resist) than, let's say, cheating on your math test or stealing cigarettes. But, IF we are attacked, whether it be someone just physically attacking us and threatening our lives or whether it be a woman being raped, and we fight back and kill them, whether we intentionally kill them or accidently kill them, and God does view this as sin on our part, is this a bigger sin than all of our others? Do we have to ask extra forgiveness for this one? Maybe get baptized again, this time with a little bleach in the water? And if not, then why is this whole discussion such a big deal? This whole push has been very carnal in nature. It is our calling and responsibility to live every day in humility, submission, and repentance to our Lord and Savior and to strive to follow His teachings. And as I've said many times throughout this forum, I just don't see much, if anything, in His teachings in the way of condoning fighting or violence. Do I think it's wrong to fight back if you are being physically attacked, no, but I also don't think it's always right.

Additionally, Dave, you said:

It is interesting to note that, in general, jurisdictions where the people are heavily armed tend to have lower crime rates. 

Does this mean it's God's will? Simply because men have found a semi-effective way to police themselves? Are there any statistics on the crime rates in the most heavily 'prayed over' areas? Just because something works or works to a degree, does that make it right in the eyes of God? Is righteousness based on effectiveness or is it based on obedience? One might say, "If I can do something and get it to work and have a positive effect, then God will just have to approve of it!"

My points is, the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

This is very true, but does 'doing something' have to involve machined metal and the use of force? Wouldn't obeying the gospel, praying, rising up as a man in your home, your church, and your community, as a spiritual leader, demonstrating righteousness, humility, obedience, and integrity qualify as 'doing something'? And wouldn't a group of men doing this be just as effective (or I would argue more so) than the same sized group of men with guns in their hands?

If they know that no truly devout Christian will use any kind of threatening force to stop them from raping or killing them or their family members or their neighbors, we may as well turn our lives over to the strongest, ugliest, most evil elements of our society.

So a 'truly devout Christian' man has to have threatening force as one of the weapons in his arsenal? Is that really his greatest tool? Or his go-to weapon? And if he doesn't use 'threatening force', then he has therefore rolled over and given his and his families 'lives over to the strongest, ugliest, most evil elements of our society'? Is this really to be his measuring stick? What book is this in?

All I'm really looking for here is a principle that will guide us in this matter. Either we are expected by God to yield to evil in all its vile forms or to resist it and even destroy it in circumstances that have nothing directly to do with our labors to advance the gospel. Which is it?

Principles to guide us? We have a whole book full of 'principles to guide us', and I can't see where they point in this direction. What it sounds like to me instead is that you are looking for a specific principle that is in agreement with a preconceived notion. One last time I would ask, "Is the only method of 'resisting evil and all of it's vile forms' to rise up in violence? Is this the example Jesus gave? Or for that matter the prophets?

As for it being 'better to obey God than men', I think we should concentrate on trying to obey God first, which I think we are a long way from having mastered, before we worry about what men might do to us. 

In closing I ask, "What about Stephen?" Why didn't he go all 'Chuck Norris' on them and try to fight his way out? Why didn't he pick up the first stone that was thrown at him when he still had life in him and throw it back? Was he wrong to not fight back? Didn't he have a moral responsibility to defend the 'image of God'? 

Sorry Mike, I said '...lot's of stuff...' again! :)

I apologize for the length of this post but I am just trying to get caught up.

My love to you all, brothers, and peace,

-Brandon

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2024   Created by David Huston.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service