Is Revenge a Sin?

[St. SteVen]

I don't think God takes revenge. Revenge is the action taken by those who have no forgiveness in their heart.

I agree.

What did you think of @Aunty Jane 's analysis of revenge versus avenge?

Seems that revenge is a self-actuated act. But avenge is other-centric. (to coin a term)

Like the difference between hitting someone that is bothering you on the street, (revenge)
compared to stepping in when you see a bully harassing a stranger. (avenge)

Note: Avenge doesn't require violence, or punitive action. IMHO
But does require an advocate to step in and hold the perpetrator responsible, or accountable.

/

 

[St. SteVen]

Perhaps the answer lies in the difference between “avenge” and “revenge”.....

To avenge is to punish a wrong with the idea of seeing justice done. It has the idea of depending on authorities to see that their justice system administers the correct punishment for the crime committed...not hastily “taking the law into our own hands”.

Whereas, “revenge” is harsher and/or less concerned with justice than with retaliating by inflicting harm on someone whom we believe deserves it. It is reactionary and hasty, whereas due process of law allows time for guilt to be proven by the judicial means God has arranged. Once proven guilty, justice would be swiftly administered....but if proven innocent, justice would also be served.

If we can discern the difference we can see the wisdom of what Paul wrote in Romans 12:19...

“Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath,
for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay, says the Lord.”

God is the ultimate authority and he sees the whole picture, not the limited human view of things....his justice, administered through his own channels, will be true justice.

Valid points I think. Thanks.

If God's justice is to avenge rather than for revenge,
then that means he is not bringing retributive punishment
for a wrong done against him personally. Correct?

This quoted from my post #21

"Seems that revenge is a self-actuated act. But avenge is other-centric. (to coin a term)

Like the difference between hitting someone that is bothering you on the street, (revenge)
compared to stepping in when you see a bully harassing a stranger. (avenge)

Note: Avenge doesn't require violence, or punitive action. IMHO
But does require an advocate to step in and hold the perpetrator responsible, or accountable."

End quote.

Questions:
Does this not upend the doctrine of God's wrath as retributive punishment against his enemies?
That would be revenge. Correct? Is revenge a sin?

Once again, UR to the rescue.

/ cc; @quietthinker @Lambano @ChristisGod @Hillsage @BarneyFife @Chadrho

 

[Aunty Jane]

Valid points I think. Thanks.

If God's justice is to avenge rather than for revenge,
then that means he is not bringing retributive punishment
for a wrong done against him personally. Correct?

This quoted from my post #21

"Seems that revenge is a self-actuated act. But avenge is other-centric. (to coin a term)

Like the difference between hitting someone that is bothering you on the street, (revenge)
compared to stepping in when you see a bully harassing a stranger. (avenge)

Note: Avenge doesn't require violence, or punitive action. IMHO
But does require an advocate to step in and hold the perpetrator responsible, or accountable."

Hebrews 10:28-31....
“Any man that has disregarded the law of Moses dies without compassion, upon the testimony of two or three. 29 Of how much more severe a punishment, do you think, will the man be counted worthy who has trampled upon the Son of God and who has esteemed as of ordinary value the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and who has outraged the spirit of undeserved kindness with contempt? 30 For we know him that said: “Vengeance is mine; I will recompense”; and again: “Jehovah will judge his people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

The use of the word “recompense” here denotes something “deserved”.....either a reward or a penalty for one’s behavior..

Paul also wrote.....”Moreover, without faith it is impossible to please God well, for whoever approaches God must believe that he is and that he becomes the rewarder of those earnestly seeking him.” (Heb 11:6)

If God is seeking to “reward” the good, but has stated that he will also “penalise” the bad, then we see what “recompense” here really means.

Questions:
Does this not upend the doctrine of God's wrath as retributive punishment against his enemies?

No....for the reasons given above.
God’s wrath is an appropriate response to the actions of those who claim to serve him, but who are misguided in their thinking and actions, resulting in their worship being an insult to him, rather that genuine worship based on “knowing” him. (John 17:3) Those who want to tell God how to conduct his business, do not know him at all....they have created an altered image of him to suit their own sensibilities.

God knows the hearts of individuals....he does not recognise the members of any ‘denomination’ as if calling yourself by a label of some sort automatically makes you immune to his laws and standards. Judgment will be carried out on an individual basis, and those who identify as “Christians” will have to be living up to their name. Those who reject God and his Christ have already condemned themselves.

Peter put it this way...
“But if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not feel ashamed, but let him keep on glorifying God while bearing this name. 17 For it is the appointed time for the judgment to start with the house of God. Now if it starts first with us, what will the outcome be for those who are not obedient to the good news of God? 18 “And if the righteous man is being saved with difficulty, what will happen to the ungodly man and the sinner?” 19 So, then, let those who are suffering in harmony with the will of God keep on entrusting themselves to a faithful Creator while they are doing good.” (1 Pet 4:16-19)

That would be revenge. Correct? Is revenge a sin?

Once again, UR to the rescue.

Sorry...I see no ‘escape clauses’ in God’s law.....it is set in concrete, and “mercy triumphs over judgment” only when God sees a valid reason to extend it.....otherwise it is wishful thinking on the part of one who does not agree with God’s justice, but wants to create their own standards, because he sees God’s standards as somehow, ‘unfair’.

God’s actions are to “avenge”...not to take “revenge”.
“Recompense” is what one deserves when judgment has been carried out...both good and bad.

 

[quietthinker]

I agree.

What did you think of @Aunty Jane 's analysis of revenge versus avenge?

Seems that revenge is a self-actuated act. But avenge is other-centric. (to coin a term)

Like the difference between hitting someone that is bothering you on the street, (revenge)
compared to stepping in when you see a bully harassing a stranger. (avenge)

Note: Avenge doesn't require violence, or punitive action. IMHO
But does require an advocate to step in and hold the perpetrator responsible, or accountable.

/

God's justice is not payback, God's justice is liberation. AJ does not understand Jehovah even though she calls herself one of his witnesses. She glories in her understanding of the scriptures and makes many words to substantiate her paradigm but cannot tell me of Jehovah. Those who know him, witness to him.

As I see it, the Godhead works like this; The Father is pleased to reveal himself in the Son, he tells us to listen to the Son. The Son witnesses to the Father in his whole reality (it is his food and drink) The Spirit witnesses to the Son who reveals the Father and those who have the Spirit can do no other than to witness and glorify the Son who has been given all authority both in Heaven and on Earth. Acts 2 bears witness to this as does the testimony of all of the Apostles.

 

[Ziggy]

God is a righteous judge. His punishments are just.
His justice is weighed and balanced.
I call it karma. What goes around comes around.
Our own human nature to react is like saying we are as righteous or as just as the Judge himself to decide how to mete out punishments or rewards.
God's vengeance on our behalf or for those who have been wronged usually fits the crime better than we ever could.
Makes me think of the book of Ruth and how justice was given to Haman.
Ruth petitioned the King and that's what we should do.
And His Justice is right.

Hugs

I meant Esther sorry,
Hugs

 

[St. SteVen]

What do you think? (forum topic link below)

Skepticism versus gullibility

Just heard a sermon that came down pretty hard on skepticism.
Trying to process how I feel about that. Thanks for listening. (send help)

It appears that there is no room for healthy skepticism in the church.
But for some reason the skeptics weren't called gullible. No one was, actually.
We are offered apologetics to counteract skepticism. (unbelief)

I was raised evangelical Protestant.
I remember my state of shock when I found out where the Bible actually came from.
Not what the church told me.

I had never heard of the canon of scripture.
I thought a cannon was a war relic, not a religious relic. - Ha!

Same with the hell doctrine.
No one informed me that there were three biblical doctrines of the final judgment.
They did bad-mouth Universalism though.

I had no idea that Universalism was actually a Christian doctrine from the early church in the East.
Which is where the church came from, hello?

And what about inerrancy? Don't get me started... Grr...
Anyone else want to rant on either aspect? Thanks.

/

 

[Ziggy]

Gen 24:1
And Abraham was old, and well stricken in age: and the LORD had blessed Abraham in all things.
Gen 24:2
And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house, that ruled over all that he had, Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh:
Gen 24:3
And I will make thee swear by the LORD, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell:
Gen 24:4
But thou shalt go unto my country, and to my kindred, and take a wife unto my son Isaac.

Gen 24:7
The LORD God of heaven, which took me from my father's house, and from the land of my kindred, and which spake unto me, and that sware unto me, saying, Unto thy seed will I give this land; he shall send his angel before thee, and thou shalt take a wife unto my son from thence.

Gen 24:10
And the servant took ten camels of the camels of his master, and departed; for all the goods of his master were in his hand: and he arose, and went to Mesopotamia, unto the city of Nahor.

Gen 11:31
And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.

1. Ur = "flame"
   1. city in southern Babylonia, city of the Chaldeans, centre of moon worship, home of Abraham's father, Terah, and departure point for the Abraham's migration to Mesopotamia and Canaan

Chaldees:

1. a territory in lower Mesopotamia bordering on the Persian Gulf (n pr m)
2. the inhabitants of Chaldea, living on the lower Euphrates and Tigris
3. those persons considered the wisest in the land (by extension)

kas-dee'; (occasionally with enclitic) כַּשְׂדִּימָה Kasdîymâh; towards the Kasdites into Chaldea), patronymically from H3777 (only in the plural); a Kasdite, or descendant of Kesed; by implication, a Chaldaean (as if so descended); also an astrologer (as if proverbial of that people:—Chaldeans, Chaldees, inhabitants of Chaldea).

Gen 15:7
And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.

Mat 2:1
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
Mat 2:2
Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

Babylonia ( / ˌbæbɪˈloʊniə /; Akkadian: , māt Akkadī) was an ancient Akkadian-speaking state and cultural area based in the city of Babylon in central-southern Mesopotamia (present-day Iraq and parts of Syria and Iran ).

So what then? Christianity comes from Babylon in Iraq. Which is east of Jerusalem.

Because Abraham the Father of Faith, originated in Ur the land of the Chaldeans from which the wise (astrologers) who saw the star of the King of the Jews came.

I had no idea that Universalism was actually a Christian doctrine from the early church in the East.
Which is where the church came from, hello?

That is really interesting, because I always thought that Babylon refered to Egypt...
Maybe they are symbolic.
Because now what comes from the east is Allah and Muhammad and the muslim religion.

And they have their own beliefs concerning univeralism and having many wives to mary when they go to heaven.
Kind of like what the Pharisees asked concerning who's wife would the woman be seeing she had seven husbands?

Everything is backwards..

hugs

 

[Taken]

Is Revenge a Sin?

I would say no.
Rather I would say:
Sin is disbelief.
Revenge is impatience.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[St. SteVen]

St. SteVen said:
I had no idea that Universalism was actually a Christian doctrine from the early church in the East.
Which is where the church came from, hello?

That is really interesting, because I always thought that Babylon refered to Egypt...
Maybe they are symbolic.
Because now what comes from the east is Allah and Muhammad and the muslim religion.

And they have their own beliefs concerning univeralism and having many wives to mary when they go to heaven.
Kind of like what the Pharisees asked concerning who's wife would the woman be seeing she had seven husbands?

Everything is backwards..

Thank you.
I should clarify what I mean by "east". (and west) Basically Jerusalem and Rome.
The eastern/Greek-speaking church, which became the Orthodox Church,
and the western/Latin-speaking church, which became the Catholic Church.

Unfortunately, our Bible came from the western/Latin-speaking church. Catholicism.
And the translation included their doctrinal biases. As do the lexicon reference materials. (definitions)
Primarily driven by Saint Augustine.

I differentiate between the church that remained in Israel and surrounding area and the church of Rome.
The church that remained, I refer to as east (near east, middle east, not far east),
the eastern/Greek-speaking church, which became the Orthodox Church.
The Coptic Church in Egypt was another key component, (they had the best preserved Bible manuscripts)

The church that sprung up in Rome I refer to as the west, the western/Latin-speaking church. Catholicism.

"The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge" by Schaff-Herzog, 1908, volume 12, page 96 German theologian- Philip Schaff, Editor: "In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is not known."

/

 

[NayborBear]

Most readers would answer in the affirmative. Yes, revenge is a sin... for us, but not for God.
For us, but not for God?

Why? Does God operate at a lower standard than he holds us to?
Many would bristle at that question. Why?

We are required to love our enemies. Jesus taught this as godly behavior. (Matthew 5:44-48)

If revenge is a sin, then perhaps we are misunderstanding this scripture about the wrath of God.
(notice verse 21) Overcome evil with good.

Romans 12:18-21 NIV
If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.
19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath,
for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[a] says the Lord.
20 On the contrary:
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”[b]
21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

That's a good question! It's this "as far as it depends on you" issue where/when I ask questions concerning "loving your enemies." Do I love my enemies enough concerning irreconcilable differences to send these enemies to God? I mean as far as it depends on me? This enemy may not be seen as one by others (they could be bought off for political purposes. That/This never happens right?). Indicating that we should allow others to control/dictate as to who is to be considered an enemy?

Someone once remarked: "The only way for evil to triumph is for good men to DO nothing!"

 

[Ziggy]

St. SteVen said:
I had no idea that Universalism was actually a Christian doctrine from the early church in the East.
Which is where the church came from, hello?

Thank you.
I should clarify what I mean by "east". (and west) Basically Jerusalem and Rome.
The eastern/Greek-speaking church, which became the Orthodox Church,
and the western/Latin-speaking church, which became the Catholic Church.

Unfortunately, our Bible came from the western/Latin-speaking church. Catholicism.
And the translation included their doctrinal biases. As do the lexicon reference materials. (definitions)
Primarily driven by Saint Augustine.

I differentiate between the church that remained in Israel and surrounding area and the church of Rome.
The church that remained, I refer to as east (near east, middle east, not far east),
the eastern/Greek-speaking church, which became the Orthodox Church.
The Coptic Church in Egypt was another key component, (they had the best preserved Bible manuscripts)

The church that sprung up in Rome I refer to as the west, the western/Latin-speaking church. Catholicism.

"The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge" by Schaff-Herzog, 1908, volume 12, page 96 German theologian- Philip Schaff, Editor: "In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is not known."

/

So maybe God don't want us to build another tower of Babel so he confuses people's interpretations (tongues)
from doing so?

All I know is that's there's a whole lot a babbling going on today that makes no sense at all

Hugs

 

[St. SteVen]

All I know is that's there's a whole lot a babbling going on today that makes no sense at all

Right.
Has nothing to do with speaking in tongues. - LOL

/

 

[St. SteVen]

New forum topic.

The Parenthetical Greatest Commandment = Love Yourself!

/

 

[quietthinker]

All I know is that's there's a whole lot a babbling going on today that makes no sense at all

so why babble ?

 

[Ziggy]

Right.
Has nothing to do with speaking in tongues. - LOL

/

I never experienced that. I tried two years of spanish in middle school and I only got as far as Como usta usted?
How are you?
Bien gracius, y tu?
Good thankyou and you?

That's all I know in sifferent tongues.
I never experience the spiritual ones either. I never heard them, but that don't mean they don't exist.
It just means God hasn't given me that gift.
Although personally I believe it means different languages like all the people that were at pentacost heard every man in his own language.
I can see that. I just never witness the other.

hugs

 

[Ziggy]

so why babble ?

I don't babble I ramble.

Hugs

 

[quietthinker]

I don't babble I ramble.

Hugs

I've heard of babelon, now I've heard of rambleon.

 

[St. SteVen]

I never experienced that. I tried two years of spanish in middle school and I only got as far as Como usta usted?
How are you?
Bien gracius, y tu?
Good thankyou and you?

That's all I know in sifferent tongues.
I never experience the spiritual ones either. I never heard them, but that don't mean they don't exist.
It just means God hasn't given me that gift.
Although personally I believe it means different languages like all the people that were at pentacost heard every man in his own language.
I can see that. I just never witness the other.

hugs

This might help.

There are more than one kind of tongues. Not just the Gift of Tongues. (#3 below)


Five Different Uses of Tongues
1) Personal prayer language (worship/edification)
2) Intercessory prayer language (praying for others in the Spirit)
3) A prophetic message for a congregation (the Gift of tongues)
4) Singing in the Spirit (worship/edification)
5) Evangelistic language (like at Pentecost, the hearers understand it)


There may be more.
We can't limit the Holy Spirit.

Why hadn't the baptized believers in Samaria received the Holy Spirit?

Why hadn't the baptized believers in Samaria received the Holy Spirit? Just to be clear, I do not question whether the believers in Samaria had received the "indwelling" Spirit when they believed. They were missing something else. Acts 8:14-17 NIV When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that...

www.christianityboard.com

What is the initial evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit?

In a previous topic we explored why the baptized believers in Samaria hadn't received the Holy Spirit. Why hadn't the baptized believers in Samaria received the Holy Spirit? The typical response to the question about the initial evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit, is tongues. But...

www.christianityboard.com

I believe you are a prime candidate.

/

 

[Ziggy]

This might help.

There are more than one kind of tongues. Not just the Gift of Tongues. (#3 below)


Five Different Uses of Tongues
1) Personal prayer language (worship/edification)
2) Intercessory prayer language (praying for others in the Spirit)
3) A prophetic message for a congregation (the Gift of tongues)
4) Singing in the Spirit (worship/edification)
5) Evangelistic language (like at Pentecost, the hearers understand it)


There may be more.
We can't limit the Holy Spirit.

Why hadn't the baptized believers in Samaria received the Holy Spirit?

Why hadn't the baptized believers in Samaria received the Holy Spirit? Just to be clear, I do not question whether the believers in Samaria had received the "indwelling" Spirit when they believed. They were missing something else. Acts 8:14-17 NIV When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that...

www.christianityboard.com

What is the initial evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit?

In a previous topic we explored why the baptized believers in Samaria hadn't received the Holy Spirit. Why hadn't the baptized believers in Samaria received the Holy Spirit? The typical response to the question about the initial evidence of the Baptism with the Holy Spirit, is tongues. But...

www.christianityboard.com

I believe you are a prime candidate.

/

My head is so full of languages right now I can't hear myself think. lol
Been a good day so far. Storm coming tonight. Heavy winds and rain.
Tomorrow below 0 make the roads icy.
Hoping I can get to the hospital to see dad tomorrow.
Praying all kinds of prayers.
Thank you
Hugs

 

[St. SteVen]

What do you say? (forum topic link below)

Does questioning Christianity lead to Atheism? (depends)

/