Comments on: Who Would Jesus Punch?

By: T.J. Mock

T.J. Mock — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:10:26 +0000

And one man tearing out the eyes of many also leaves the world blind.

Everything in all these posts boils down to one thing.

BALANCE

We must decide if we should turn the other cheek and take another blow. Or fight back and stop further abuse and suffering.

Ask yourself a series of questions.

If you could have stopped the holocaust by putting a bullet in Hitler’s head, would you? Or is that too violent.

If Hitler had survived could you ask the MILLIONS of men, women, or children he slaughtered to forgive him without any form of punishment? What about if you knew he would try to finish what he started?

Should you forgive a vehemently unrepentent mass murderer?

Should you turn the other side of your head to a pistol?

I might be able to if i had left a note to my family or friends.

Should we take a bullet for someone or let them “turn the other cheek”? What if it was a stranger? What if it was your mother? What if it was your child?

Total pacifism is not the answer….nor is aggresive violence.

The only question is…..

Who decides?

By: rachel

rachel — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 09:18:55 +0000

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind

By: Rambo » Negative99

Rambo » Negative99 — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:04:49 +0000

[...] to say that third-world plight, pacifism and the use of deadly force, militant fascism, and “who would Jesus punch” were all addressed in some way. Oh yeah, and they showed what living in some non-free [...]

By: Brian Bateman

Brian Bateman — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 05:13:56 +0000

There are many good arguments against passive Christian behavior here. Today on the radio, I heard the security guard in Colorado basically say that God told her to shoot the mass-murderer that entered her church. She credited the Holy Spirit with helping her end the situation! I’ve never heard someone say that God directed them to shoot somebody, but I can’t say He wouldn’t. Also, the image of a woman armed with a single handgun taking down a man with a semi-automatic rifle, two other guns and a backpack full of ammo seemed delightfully reminiscent of David & Goliath!

By: John III Sobieski

John III Sobieski — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 20:38:08 +0000

There is one function of justifiable violence that i’m surprised nobody touched up on. Function #1: to protect God’s property. since everyting is His, you can’t really say your body or your property. Function #2: ending the violence and/or endangerment to God’s property by putting the perpetrator in his proper place, like Jesus putting the merchants and tax collectors in the streets after they invaded His temple. I have a story to tell. It might not have performed the first function, but I know it performed the second.

I was in middle school, kicking a soccer ball around with some friends. Another kid comes and take the ball, then he decides to play keep away with a friend of his against my friends. We chase him around the playground, of course, trying to get the ball back. Eventually, I’m able to line him up in my figurative crosshairs (I love to play hockey, and I was the roughest kid on the team). I come up, lower my shoulder, and lay him out flat. He looked up at me with the most amazed look on his face. I laugh every time I remember it. You see, he was one of the worst bullies in the school, and I was probably the first kid to stand up to him so effectively. Afterwards, he would still mess with me some, but when he was done messing around he would always ask “you know i’m just joking around with you, right _________ (insert last name)?” If he was thinking of another game of keepaway, i’d give him a dirty look and he’d give the item right back. I was the only kid he ever respected. I ended his reign of bullying over me. FYI: He never came back to school after Christmas break. Rumor has it he went to Juvie hall. Might still be there. But he never wronged me without making up after I body checked him into the dust

By: Native

Native — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 22:42:40 +0000

First to apologize in advance for the moon comment….it did strike me (no pun intended) as to funny to let go by….I did not mean to offend the more gental of your readers.
A question or questions really, about all of this and in its way an answer.
Do you really KNOW the Love that Jesus is talking about, do you trust the Spirit to guide you? When conviction comes to you, to stand your ground or walk away, do you trust your God enough to listen…to obey. Have you been trusting Him enough, conversing enough to even hear the message when it comes to you? Are any of these decisions we speak of really ours, or are the Love and Trust Jesus spoke of not yet real enough so one would know in these moments that he is not alone with the violence or the decisions. In that moment all of the academics and scholars cannot help you, the translations and debate….only the depth of your relationship to Love and the strenght to hear the Spirit forged through hours of prayer. The most beautiful essence of scripture (to me) is not its harmonious consistancy (sarcasm…just a touch) but its conflict of messages. Love, defend and protect, be peaceful and trust or jump blindly (have faith…)….for all questions come back to one simple theme which may take a life time to realize. Your Creator Loves you…will you trust that Love in return…with all that Love means.

P.S. Through years of reading I do not have a romance novel’s idea of Love. To me it is fiece and powerful, so much so that its gentalness is genuine and pure. I only add this because I once had a Priest belittle me for using Love as my word for God and since you really don’t know me I wanted to be sure to be clear.

By: Native

Native — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 15:55:31 +0000

all this over the most obvious answer….he said turn the “other cheek”….”other”….he meant moon the sob. jesus was cool.

By: Cypher

Cypher — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 06:53:50 +0000

About the turn your other cheek vs self defense. When people were slapped back in bible times, they were slapped with the back of the hand showing that the person being slapped was inferior. when turning the other cheek, your forcing the person to slap you with the palm of the hand, thereby showing that you two were equals… and then fighting could begin. if he did not slaped after the cheek was turned and walked away, then he was shown to be inferior for not taking the chance to equal the battleground so to speak. in the end the turning of the cheek is not about being a pacifist but defending your honor.

By: WarAxe

WarAxe — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 22:04:24 +0000

james :: You bring up some good points. I think the physical side of self-defense is obvious (except by the most obstinate and illogical of femChrist-followers), but what about emotional assaults? This is a great question. I’m still learning what I think the answer is on this so I can’t say for sure… and I usually prefer to say for sure.

Perhaps I will say that how we respect ourself should be an example… so erring on the cautionary side is more Christ-like… but still has limits, but those limits would be much more lax compared with what we’d tolerate if someone was berating a loved one.

By: james

james — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 19:05:31 +0000

I’m a christian and I do martial arts. In my spirit and conscience and do not feel guilty for learning how to defend myself. If a person attacked me I would have to hesitation to be violent if it meant protecting my body from harm. I think people have the wrong impression of God. Many see him as humble servant. It is true that he was like this while he was on Earth. However, he is also a warrior and a conqueror and a King. He is no pushover. And on his Second Coming he certainly won’t be a pushover.
With regard to verbal abuse though- people can be snide, dismissive, rude, highly insulting….. How are christians supposed to respond to this? Verbal insults aren’t actually a threat to my body. But they do affect my soul and my wellbeing. I know if I went back in time to when I wasn’t a christian I would stand up for myself and be twice as insulting as them. And I would feel good for defending myself and not letting people walk over me. I’ve been perfectly pleasant to people and they can be plain ignorant and worse. What is achieved by letting these people walk over me? I know it is not right to be like them, but surely you have to fight fire with fire. I just don’t know how I’m supposed to respond!

By: BUZ

BUZ — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 03:37:51 +0000

Everything that I have is only placed in my care by God. I “own” nothing. Therefore, I am a steward of everything including my very life. God expects me to be a good steward. For me to stand like a dumb sheep and let an assassin destroy my life is, at best, very poor stewardship. It would in fact be tantamount to suicide. God expects me to utilize everything He has placed within my sphere of responsibility. To allow these thing to deteriorate and be destroyed by anything or anyone is to denigrate God’s gifts and presume upon His grace.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 09:21:11 +0000

I wonder about this in the context of war. The pilot flies over the city and drops his bombs on a military target. Sadly there is collateral damage and a number of civilians are killed. Would the same pilot armed with a knife kill those people, I doubt it. Distance killing is much more prevalent in our world today that it was in the time of Jesus. How about the person who makes the guidance system for the bomb? Violence takes place on many levels not just defending the wife in the street, that is the easy one

By: WarAxe

WarAxe — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 23:45:24 +0000

“Dude… how can you possibly say it’s ok to respond to violence with violence?”

Dude, how can you ask me that after reading the post? Umm… you did READ it, right? I would expect a seminary graduate student to at least try and address one of my many, many points if they sought to disagree with my conclusion. I would point out how I actually did not give patent license to respond to violence with “violence”… but since you didn’t read my post I figure you surely won’t see this comment. Therefore this comment is for those who are merely reading the one after yours.

By: NDannison

NDannison — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 20:39:19 +0000

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you…

Dude… how can you possibly say it’s ok to respond to violence with violence? Christ speaks pretty directly regarding the whole ‘eye for an eye’ business…

Christ was the original advocate of non-violence.

Better a martyr in heaven than a murderer in hell. Besides, this world isn’t your home, anyway.

By: WarAxe

WarAxe — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 21:42:19 +0000

Max :: Hey, how’d you sneak that in there? We must have each been commenting at the same time. That scripture reference you included is the “other half” of the issue that’s often omitted. Thanks for putting it up.

By: Max

Max — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 21:39:32 +0000

In John 2:14-15, it is written: “And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers doing business. When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers’ money and overturned the tables.”

Sounds kind of violent to me.

By: WarAxe

WarAxe — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 21:36:40 +0000

gortza :: You are are only half right… which is the downfall of the “flight” Christians. Violence may not be a fruit of the spirit, but that doesn’t mean that someone spirit-filled cannot throw a punch or otherwise lay a whoppin’ down when they need to. Humor is not a fruit of the spirit either… nor is laughter. How do you explain that?

Jesus used what the Pharisees would call violence to drive the tax collectors and shopkeepers out of the temple. That is an example for you… of when “violence” (although I wouldn’t exactly call it that) is an outpouring of love. Jesus showed love to His Father’s house which was holy. When you come to your wife’s aid as she’s being raped (which you better do!) you are indeed using counter-violence in a show of love for your wife. I mean… this is common friggin’ sense.

There are dozens of practical examples. When the police come and tackle that robber holding a knife… that is an outworking of blessing. When the enemy sniper pinning down a squad of US Rangers is blown to pieces by a US gunship… that is an outworking of goodness, and probably an answer to prayer.

But really, I didn’t have to go any farther than when your take on the use of force excluded Christ to know that it’s flawed. Did you even read the post? You gave a position already refuted?

By: gortza

gortza — Mon, 25 Sep 2006 04:36:42 +0000

Matthew 5:44 (King James Version) says:
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

I’m no pacifist and i’m certainly not a feminist, in fact, i love seeing a bit of biff. BUT, when is violence EVER an outworking of love, blessing, goodness or prayer. Violence is NOT a fruit of the spirit, and hence should not be used by those who are spirit filled, that is, those of us who follow Jesus Christ.

By: Sam

Sam — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:37:12 +0000

i like the argument that we should defend ourselves to protect God’s temple. if we follow Christ we give up our rights to subjucate ourselves to him. as loyal subjects we must protect the King’s property. as for the argument that we need to take a beating sometimes to advance the kingdom, i find it weak. there are a number of undesirable things that we will be called upon to do. if we are missionaries to a primitive culture we may need to eat bugs. does this mean we should cannonize the practice? i don’t think te issue ias effectiveness. sometimes God calls us to do something and doesn’t allow us to see the results. it’s about calling. called to take a punch? it’s possible but more likely i’ll be swinging back.

By: WarAxe

WarAxe — Sun, 11 Jun 2006 12:15:16 +0000

I think in Paul’s day there were definitely instances where he could take a beating for Christ and everyone knew what it was for.

It makes me wonder if that’s even possible in today’s cynical world. If I saw a cult member… let’s say of a peace cult… letting some government riot soldier hit them with riot sticks because they believed this beating would placate their goddess of peace… I don’t think I’d think any more highly of them or their blessed peace goddess. Rather I’d think they were even more whacked than I already thought (pardon the pun).