Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne
. . .
I totally agree, but where Paul didn't mention specifics, just the action verb alone, you are trying to limit Paul's intentions in what he was saying in that verse.
Uh, HELLO! That's EXACTLY what YOU are doing. I quoted scripture. You added to it.
And you aren't doing the same thing? I quoted Paul, and you add what you think he was talking about by bringing in people who aren't the man's family as if they were.
Again, show me where protecting one's family is wrong. In addition, as someone else mentioned, show me where simply holding back an attacker is allowed by Christians, but stopping them with deadly force isn't.
You all are making up the rules as you go along.
In all sincerety.
|
If a man is unwilling to do whatever it takes to stop an attacker from harming his family, he is worse than an infidel.
Abraham sacked a city and spoiled it in response to members of his extended family being captured. Afterwards, he partied and paid tithe. Abraham was a friend of God.
The law required an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Things were set up to provide the best shot at fairness. Men were
expected to avenge the blood of their kinsmen. God doesn't change, but now we have people who don't believe God wants them to be willing to fight for their families.
Brother Strange nailed it when he said that such actions, if needed, would be performed out of love for those protected.
I pray for protection, and I believe in divine protection. Yet many of God's mysterious ways of moving are through the words and deeds of men.
I wonder if EB and L&F have ever discussed this with their wives. I mean actually told them that if an intruder attacks the wife or kids that they aren't going to personally intervene, but rather ask God to do it. If this stance were explained prior to the wedding, most women would pause to reconsider the marriage.
While He was here, Jesus had needs in His flesh. Jesus met these needs of His flesh without sin. He ate, He drank, He slept, He built fires to keep warm, He obtained and wore clothing, He obtained and wore shoes, He got happy, He got sad and cried, He got angry and horsewhipped a bunch of heathen reprobates.
Uh oh! Where did
that come from???
oloroid
It isn't sin for us today to provide for the needs of our flesh. It's still a
requirement for men to meet the needs of our families. EB and L&F, your wives and children need your leadership, your prayers, and your teaching, yes, but they also need your protection from evildoers in addition to the rent, clothes, and groceries.
The principles have been spelled out a hundred different ways here. Rather than acknowledge principles, a great deal of nitpicking the details has gone on. There is only one word for a person who doesn't want to acknowledge an inconvenient principle. There is only one word for a person who ducks behind a curtain of "chapter and verse only" (NT, by the way, if you please) when their hide is on the line.
Threaded Mode
