God Commands Righteous Violence

[Brakelite]

Vlad was Catholic. An inquisitor, and defender of Europe against Islam. Interestingly, certain of the crusaders who were tasked with cleansing northern Italy of the Waldenian "heresy" had a similar penchant for impaling. Definitely a righteous war practise.

 

[Matthias]

No

That’s true. Vlad would have done to you what he did to enemies of his faith.

I'm a member of a faith that believes in idly watching as hordes of Satanists rape, enslave and kill our people in the name of piety.

That’s false.

 

[Wrangler]

There are no verses where Jesus advocates torturing and killing enemies.

What's so awesome about this post is how hypocritical it is in comparison to the thread on Scripture NOT instructing us to pray to Jesus.

In that thread, you say that was demonstrated, which is more powerful than an actual instruction. Yet, in this thread you completely disregard Jesus demonstrating using violence - immediately upon his 2nd coming and on Judgment Day at the Lake of Fire, where he is destined to kill more people than anyone in history. So, which is it; are demonstrations binding or are only instructions binding?

 

[Armour of God]

This vid is provocative from the perspective of today's overly spiritualized. One interesting observation is the Christian hero Prince Vlad, whose Dracula means order of the Knights of the dragon. He saved European Christian women and children from Islamic invaders by attacking Islamic warriors. In his home country, he is taught in schools as a hero and defender of the faith from Mehmet who conquered Constantinople after 1,000 years of being a Christian capital. Thoughts?

Great video.
Defend your family.
Defend the weak and vulnerable.
Stand against evil.
All things that the bible tells us to do as men.

 

[Lambano]

No, I'm a member of a faith that believes in idly watching as hordes of Satanists rape, enslave and kill our people in the name of piety.

Terribly sorry, old boy. I mistook you for a member of some cult that makes heroes of those who impale human beings through the anus and enjoy watching them slowly suffer and die.

32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them -Romans 1:32

 

[Lambano]

 

[Matthias]

From my X / Twitter “For you” feed this morning -

“Cruelty is always a failure of imagination, the inability to see the other person as fully human.”

Henri Nouwen (1932–1996) (@nofearinlove77) on X

“Cruelty is always a failure of imagination, the inability to see the other person as fully human.” — Discernment

x.com

The Messiah and the apostles aren’t cruel. Vlad the Impaler is infamous for his cruelty.

If your hero is Vlad, you’re not being led by Jesus.

 

[Wrangler]

Great video.
Defend your family.
Defend the weak and vulnerable.
Stand against evil.
All things that the bible tells us to do as men.

It’s amazing how suicidal the overly-spiritualized have become.

 

[Matthias]

It’s amazing how suicidal the overly-spiritualized have become.

Followers of Jesus are often thought of as “over-spiritualized” by those who aren’t followers of Jesus.

We aren’t suicidal.

 

[Lambano]

Followers of Jesus are often thought of as “over-spiritualized” by those who aren’t followers of Jesus.

Damn, so many times I've been accused of being "carnally minded"; now I'm "over-spiritualized".

"They are like children who sit in the marketplace and call to one another, and they say, ‘We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.’... Yet wisdom is vindicated by all her children.” -Luke 7:32,35.

 

[Wrangler]

Damn, so many times I've been accused of being "carnally minded"; now I'm "over-spiritualized".

The extremes of the narrow path; Too carnal or too spiritual.

Jesus didn't miraculously create spiritual fish. The miracle fed the soulful needs of the people. Security is a soulful need. The 'defund the police' ruse is revealing. Without relying on violence, there is no way to establish justice. Violence is God's ultimate solution to evil. See Lake of Fire.

 

[Matthias]

Damn, so many times I've been accused of being "carnally minded"; now I'm "over-spiritualized".

You’re on the right course. Steady as she goes. Being “over-spiritualized” is the devil‘s accusation. @Wrangler is just his mouthpiece.

"They are like children who sit in the marketplace and call to one another, and they say, ‘We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.’... Yet wisdom is vindicated by all her children.” -Luke 7:32,35.

 

[Matthias]

The extremes of the narrow path; Too carnal or too spiritual.

Jesus didn't miraculously create spiritual fish. The miracle fed the soulful needs of the people. Security is a soulful need. The 'defund the police' ruse is revealing. Without relying on violence, there is no way to establish justice. Violence is God's ultimate solution to evil. See Lake of Fire.

Jesus and the apostles didn’t implement the solution. Church leaders in the first three centuries left it to the state to handle - in accordance with the teaching of Jesus, through Paul - and prohibited followers of Jesus from doing it. You continue to willfully ignore that fact.

I haven’t seen anyone in these conversations with you calling for the police (or military) to be defunded. If anyone does, I’ll oppose it. There is no point to having police / military if they are not prepared to use the weapons of the world to carry out their God-appointed task.

As for Jesus and the lake of fire, that’s a future event. He hasn’t judged anyone yet.

 

[Matthias]

At the end of part 1 of the video presented in post #1, the speaker has this to say -

“Same people who say ‘Christians can’t use violence’ also demand police stop shooters, military stops genocides, courts imprison rapists. All require violence.”

That, I would say, is generally true. I personally have no objection with the statement.

”Here’s what they’re actually saying. I support violence. I just want someone else to do it for me.”

That aligns with my personal position.

“They’re outsourcing their violence to the state.”

Exactly. Which is what is called for in the New Testament.

”When you call 911, you’re requesting armed men to use force on your behalf.“

They may not have to use force - they shouldn’t if they don’t have to, they should if they have to - but that’s a reasonably fair statement.

”That’s not pacifism.”

I’m a pacifist. Pacifism is much broader than he is allowing, which I’ve documented in other threads.

“That’s delegation.”

I agree. Who is responsible for that? God is. It is the role which he has delegated to the state.

”And if you don’t believe the state should use force, then you’re contradicting Romans 13, which explicitly says rulers bear the sword as God’s servants.”

My only issue with this statement is his use of the word “should”. I would replace it with the phrase “is authorized by God to”. There are times when the state should and times when the state shouldn’t use force. That decision is in the hands of the rulers of the state(s). With that small caveat, I agree with the speaker.

”So which is it? Either you support righteous violence, you just want clean hands, …”

I support righteous violence - which is defined by Paul as the role of the state. As for wanting clean hands, yes, of course. Every follower of Jesus should want clean hands.

”… or you’re disobeying scripture.”

I agree.

“You want the results of righteous force, …”

Of course.

”… while condemning the men capable of it.”

The man capable of it in the Roman Empire when Jesus spoke through Paul was Nero. Does the speaker condemn Nero? Does Paul condemn Nero? Does Nero condemn himself?

”You want safety without sheepdogs, protection without protectors.”

Certainly not. I want safety with sheepdogs, protection with protectors. Nero (and rulers of other nations) are tasked by God in the New Testament to provide it for his / their respective citizens. That task hasn’t changed with the passage of nearly 2,000 years. It‘s just as true today as it was in the first century.

“That’s not Christianity. That’s parasitism.”

With his misstatement about what I want having been addressed, his concluding statement has no teeth.

P.S.

Does the speaker acknowledge the shift which took place in the thinking of church leaders in the 4th century? If he’s done his homework (i.e., if he has read the Ante Nicene Church Fathers), he will. Then it becomes a simple matter of the church being either right or wrong with its new thinking in a changed environment. Given what the speaker is advocating in his video, that’s where he and I would part ways.

It’s the compromise, the mixing of the roles of church and state, that has caused the problem.

 

[Matthias]

Returning to the video posted in the OP -

“Jesus chose not to defend himself …”

Jesus did defend himself, but he didn’t use the weapons of the world to do it. The apostles defended themselves, but they also didn’t use the weapons of the world to do it. What did they use to defend themselves? The armor of God and, at least in the case of Paul, a citizen of the Roman Empire, an appeal to the God-given role and responsibility of the state -> the delegation which the speaker referred to in part 1 of the video.

”We [followers of Jesus (i.e., Christians)] do not use the weapons of the world,” Paul wrote. The government (i.e. Nero and the government of the land) certainly did / does use the weapons of the world. (Any government that doesn’t is derelict in its duty.)

The government role and responsibility hasn’t changed. The role and responsibility of the followers of Jesus in relation to the government didn’t change according to church leaders (see their extant writings) … until the 4th century.

”… because his mission required sacrifice.”

That’s obviously right. His mission continues in the so-called Great Commission, and carrying out the Great Commission entails sacrifice of our lives, in varying degrees, in this present evil age.

Jesus and the apostles weren’t suicidal. Neither are those who follow their teaching and example.

 

[Matthias]

No …

Is the speaker in the video you posted of the same faith as Vlad the Impaler?

You brought him to us. What do you know about him?

 

[Matthias]

At the end of part 1 of the video presented in post #1, the speaker has this to say -

”That’s not pacifism.”

Scot McKnight on Christian Pacifism

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also……

kingdomharbor.com

Pastor Scot McKnight offers a gentle correction to the speakers stunted understanding of pacifism.

 

[Matthias]

Is the speaker in the video you posted of the same faith as Vlad the Impaler?

You brought him to us. What do you know about him?

Maybe he knows, maybe he doesn’t. The answer is no, the speaker is not of the same faith as Vlad the Impaler. He is, however, ecumenical. Catholics (as well as non-Catholics) are divided over the speaker’s Alpha Path program.

 

[Brakelite]

At the end of part 1 of the video presented in post #1, the speaker has this to say -

“Same people who say ‘Christians can’t use violence’ also demand police stop shooters, military stops genocides, courts imprison rapists. All require violence.”

That, I would say, is generally true. I personally have no objection with the statement.

”Here’s what they’re actually saying. I support violence. I just want someone else to do it for me.”

That aligns with my personal position.

“They’re outsourcing their violence to the state.”

Exactly. Which is what is called for in the New Testament.

”When you call 911, you’re requesting armed men to use force on your behalf.“

They may not have to use force - they shouldn’t if they don’t have to, they should if they have to - but that’s a reasonably fair statement.

”That’s not pacifism.”

I’m a pacifist. Pacifism is much broader than he is allowing, which I’ve documented in other threads.

“That’s delegation.”

I agree. Who is responsible for that? God is. It is the role which he has delegated to the state.

”And if you don’t believe the state should use force, then you’re contradicting Romans 13, which explicitly says rulers bear the sword as God’s servants.”

My only issue with this statement is his use of the word “should”. I would replace it with the phrase “is authorized by God to”. There are times when the state should and times when the state shouldn’t use force. That decision is in the hands of the rulers of the state(s). With that small caveat, I agree with the speaker.

”So which is it? Either you support righteous violence, you just want clean hands, …”

I support righteous violence - which is defined by Paul as the role of the state. As for wanting clean hands, yes, of course. Every follower of Jesus should want clean hands.

”… or you’re disobeying scripture.”

I agree.

“You want the results of righteous force, …”

Of course.

”… while condemning the men capable of it.”

The man capable of it in the Roman Empire when Jesus spoke through Paul was Nero. Does the speaker condemn Nero? Does Paul condemn Nero? Does Nero condemn himself?

”You want safety without sheepdogs, protection without protectors.”

Certainly not. I want safety with sheepdogs, protection with protectors. Nero (and rulers of other nations) are tasked by God in the New Testament to provide it for his / their respective citizens. That task hasn’t changed with the passage of nearly 2,000 years. It‘s just as true today as it was in the first century.

“That’s not Christianity. That’s parasitism.”

With his misstatement about what I want having been addressed, his concluding statement has no teeth.

P.S.

Does the speaker acknowledge the shift which took place in the thinking of church leaders in the 4th century? If he’s done his homework (i.e., if he has read the Ante Nicene Church Fathers), he will. Then it becomes a simple matter of the church being either right or wrong with its new thinking in a changed environment. Given what the speaker is advocating in his video, that’s where he and I would part ways.

It’s the compromise, the mixing of the roles of church and state, that has caused the problem.

With the caveat that the state can go to far, like Babylon did and was removed. Like Vlad did. Like the crusades did. And like all states do when in union with the church, negate the church invariably calls for the destruction of those she disagrees with calling them a meteoric menace to society. I can see that coming with the current burgeoning union between church and state in the US.