Homework on the Beatitudes and Self-Defense

[Meadowchik]

Your assignment is to consider the example here:

If you prefer not to watch the video, this is a summary: a young woman is reading her phone in a hallway of the subway when a young man walks by, grabbing her phone. As he leaves, she appears to get his attention.  He turns around and she begins to slap him with her bag. When he puts his hands up to block the bag, she kicks him in the groin. He falls to his knees and she lands a kick to his face.  Now with her assailant on the ground, she grabs her phone and runs away.

 

Disregarding the chance that he might have been armed and could have hurt her when she fought back,  I'd like to examine her response to his attempted theft.

If this happened to you, your child, spouse, or someone else you're called on to help protect, would you approve of self-defense?

How is self defense consistent or inconsistent with the teachings of Christ on the Mount?

Last spring, I completed my first year of karate. Karate is intended purely as self defense.  There is a legend of a karate master who allows himself to be beaten by kids who want to "fight the master." He says he knew he could survive their beating him better than they could survive him beating them.

In both the self defense example, the Beatitudes, and the karate legend, I find wisdom.

In all cases, I feel the wisdom is about seeking the best outcome, once we are fully aware of the identity of our assailant as a child of God. I believe that very often stopping an attack is among the best choices. Very rarely do I think it is appropriate to let it happen. And if that choice is made, it is at the victim's discretion to extend mercy. A victim should never be pressured to accept an attack.

I think that most of us would agree to this. However, there's still the question of how this can be consistent with Jesus's teachings. I think that, especially with some personality types, this is a genuine struggle.

Edited January 16, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Woody]

It seems odd to me that the guy grabbed her phone like that. He had just stepped around the corner and grabbed, after seeing it for like one second. Robbery usually involves a bit of study, a few seconds at least... It almost looks staged, except this appears to be security cam footage. Maybe they knew each other? Brother & sister? Friends? And he is following her? As he's walking away, he's not worried about escaping, he's just examining the phone. I wonder if this is a robbery, or is it just a friend grabbing and peeking to see what she was texting. He underestimated what her response would be. She put him in his place pretty conclusively. I really don't understand what this is.

I notice that several (six) priests and Levites walked right on by the unfortunate character rolling on the ground.

Edited January 16, 2017 by Woody

[RevTestament]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Your assignment is to consider the example here:

 

Last spring, I completed my first year of karate. Karate is intended purely as self defense.  There is a legend of a karate master who allows himself to be beaten by kids who want to "fight the master." He says he knew he could survive their beating him better than they could survive him beating them.

In both the self defense example, the Beatitudes, and the karate legend, I find wisdom.

In all cases, I feel the wisdom is about seeking the best outcome, once we are fully aware of the identity of our assailant as a child of God. I believe that very often stopping an attack is among the best choices. Very rarely do I think it is appropriate to let it happen. And if that choice is made, it is at the victim's discretion to extend mercy. A victim should never be pressured to accept an attack.

I think that most of us would agree to this. However, there's still the question of how this can be consistent with Jesus's teachings. I think that, especially with some personality types, this is a genuine struggle.

Our Lord taught us to put ourselves behind our enemy, and to be his servant.

However, I don't believe this always means to be utterly docile. In the restored gospel He also says not to go to war UNLESS He commands it. There are still times when violence against our fellow man is justified. In the face of imminent threat of death to my family I will respond with appropriate and overwhelming force if need be to prevent that, and to protect life. However, I would probably try to restrain from taking another life unless absolutely necessary. In other words if I can stop a would-be murderer by shooting him/her in the leg or non-vital place, I would probably try that first. However, I have never instigated a violent fight in my life, and have never even been involved in a physical altercation that wasn't play with the possible exception of attempting to give my oldest son corporal punishment which he decided he no longer wanted to accept, so it became a bit of a tussle. I don't really believe in corporal punishment and we used it as a very last resort after a warning. I believe this is God's basic stance as well. He would rather us mature by using other means. His prophets always warned the people before the punishment/consequence came.

[Stargazer]

Did the Lord teach us that we are to allow ourselves to be passive in the face of physical assault?  I am pretty sure he didn't.  I'd like to suggest reading this Q&A from the 1993 Ensign for some thoughts on the matter.

And I'll quote a couple of scriptures to you...

Luke 22:35-38:

Quote

 

35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.

36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

 

Alma 43:47

Quote

And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed....

If we are not supposed to defend ourselves, how could the Lord recommend that his apostles buy swords, and approved of the two swords that they had with them.  Now, some people bring up the Savior's response to Peter's attempted defense of the Lord by cutting off the high priest's servant's ear as a general prohibition against self-defense, but this contradicts what the Savior said to the apostles just a few hours before.  The Lord was telling Peter that He was waiving his right to self-defense because it was his duty to submit -- and also said that he had the right to call forth legions of angels to his defense if he wanted them.

Self-defense is not wrong, in and of itself.  But the advice to "turn the other cheek" gives us guidance as to when it is appropriate.  A slap to the face is insult.  It includes someone deliberately offending us.  By accepting the insult without seeking revenge we justify ourselves, and may prevent further violence.  On my mission I got assigned a problem missionary to be my companion.  He had driven several other companions to beg the mission president to take him off their hands (the MP should have sent him home, in my opinion, but whatever).  He was very difficult to work with, and offered personal insults to me on a number of occasions.  One time we were on our bicycles and on the way back to our apartment we managed to get separated on the road.  I arrived first, and several minutes later he got there.  I was in the bedroom when he arrived, steaming mad at me.  He proceeded to offer several dire insults and loomed at me threateningly.  I listened to him patiently (truth be told I was more than a bit frightened of him at the time), and when his diatribe wound down, I simply said "OK, then.  I'll just go and get lunch prepared."  I then slid past him and did so.  He later told me that he had been deliberately pushing my buttons so I would attack him and give him justification to beat the hell out of me, and said my response took all the wind out of his sails.

But while insult does not in itself justify physical self-defense, if the insult extends to bodily harm, then self-defense is definitely called for.  But the physical defense must not extend past the point of ending the threat.  If threat of violence in response to attack suffices to stop the attack, then that is where it must end.  If temporary disablement of an attacker stops him, then that is where it must end.  In extremis, however, self-defense may require the termination of life.  The question is, does one want this responsibility?  Some do not, and I can respect this.  It is a heavy thing to take a life, even when it is justified.

Edited January 17, 2017 by Stargazer

[Meadowchik]

On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Woody said:

It seems odd to me that the guy grabbed her phone like that. He had just stepped around the corner and grabbed, after seeing it for like one second. Robbery usually involves a bit of study, a few seconds at least... It almost looks staged, except this appears to be security cam footage. Maybe they knew each other? Brother & sister? Friends? And he is following her? As he's walking away, he's not worried about escaping, he's just examining the phone. I wonder if this is a robbery, or is it just a friend grabbing and peeking to see what she was texting. He underestimated what her response would be. She put him in his place pretty conclusively. I really don't understand what this is.

I notice that several (six) priests and Levites walked right on by the unfortunate character rolling on the ground.

Whats more relevant, whether the example itself is real or whether it is realistic? Would you like to address the homework questions? 

 

[Meadowchik]

On Monday, January 16, 2017 at 5:41 PM, RevTestament said:

Our Lord taught us to put ourselves behind our enemy, and to be his servant.

However, I don't believe this always means to be utterly docile. In the restored gospel He also says not to go to war UNLESS He commands it. There are still times when violence against our fellow man is justified. In the face of imminent threat of death to my family I will respond with appropriate and overwhelming force if need be to prevent that, and to protect life. However, I would probably try to restrain from taking another life unless absolutely necessary. In other words if I can stop a would-be murderer by shooting him/her in the leg or non-vital place, I would probably try that first. However, I have never instigated a violent fight in my life, and have never even been involved in a physical altercation that wasn't play with the possible exception of attempting to give my oldest son corporal punishment which he decided he no longer wanted to accept, so it became a bit of a tussle. I don't really believe in corporal punishment and we used it as a very last resort after a warning. I believe this is God's basic stance as well. He would rather us mature by using other means. His prophets always warned the people before the punishment/consequence came.

My dad experienced a similar lesson regarding corporal punishment with my oldest siblings. Thank you for sharing that.

I think that much of this involves "line upon line." The new commands given by Christ imo encapsulate a perfection that may be impossible for this life. 

Even the Golden Rule taught by different religions in different ages is one-upped when Jesus replaces, "Do into others as you would have them do unto you," with, "As I have loved you, love one another." No longer are we to treat one another as mere equals in some degenerable system of quid-pro-quo, we're supposed to treat them as Christ does, as children of God.

So what's the point of an unattainable  (at least for now) command? I think that when taught in its spirit, with the pure love of Christ, and when likewise recieved, it generates humility, compassion, and effort to improve and repent habitually, but also to simply love and think about others more.

Going back to karate, one thing I learned as a clumsy beginner was that the training creates mental discipline which may help a person avoid actual conflict in the first place, long before any violence. By the same token, I believe the higher law of Jesus, when recieved, helps put us in a better state to move toward it.

Going by your post, it seems the teaching worked in you in similar fashion, line upon line, that is. Maybe that is how it works most of the time.

Edited January 18, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

On Tuesday, January 17, 2017 at 5:58 PM, Stargazer said:

Did the Lord teach us that we are to allow ourselves to be passive in the face of physical assault?  I am pretty sure he didn't.  I'd like to suggest reading this Q&A from the 1993 Ensign for some thoughts on the matter.

And I'll quote a couple of scriptures to you...

Luke 22:35-38:

Alma 43:47

If we are not supposed to defend ourselves, how could the Lord recommend that his apostles buy swords, and approved of the two swords that they had with them.  Now, some people bring up the Savior's response to Peter's attempted defense of the Lord by cutting off the high priest's servant's ear as a general prohibition against self-defense, but this contradicts what the Savior said to the apostles just a few hours before.  The Lord was telling Peter that He was waiving his right to self-defense because it was his duty to submit -- and also said that he had the right to call forth legions of angels to his defense if he wanted them.

Self-defense is not wrong, in and of itself.  But the advice to "turn the other cheek" gives us guidance as to when it is appropriate.  A slap to the face is insult.  It includes someone deliberately offending us.  By accepting the insult without seeking revenge we justify ourselves, and may prevent further violence.  On my mission I got assigned a problem missionary to be my companion.  He had driven several other companions to beg the mission president to take him off their hands (the MP should have sent him home, in my opinion, but whatever).  He was very difficult to work with, and offered personal insults to me on a number of occasions.  One time we were on our bicycles and on the way back to our apartment we managed to get separated on the road.  I arrived first, and several minutes later he got there.  I was in the bedroom when he arrived, steaming mad at me.  He proceeded to offer several dire insults and loomed at me threateningly.  I listened to him patiently (truth be told I was more than a bit frightened of him at the time), and when his diatribe wound down, I simply said "OK, then.  I'll just go and get lunch prepared."  I then slid past him and did so.  He later told me that he had been deliberately pushing my buttons so I would attack him and give him justification to beat the hell out of me, and said my response took all the wind out of his sails.

But while insult does not in itself justify physical self-defense, if the insult extends to bodily harm, then self-defense is definitely called for.  But the physical defense must not extend past the point of ending the threat.  If threat of violence in response to attack suffices to stop the attack, then that is where it must end.  If temporary disablement of an attacker stops him, then that is where it must end.  In extremis, however, self-defense may require the termination of life.  The question is, does one want this responsibility?  Some do not, and I can respect this.  It is a heavy thing to take a life, even when it is justified.

That's a really good example, Stargazer! Thank you.

And I agree. When my son was being harassed on his way home from school, I told him the priority was to get out of the situation.  If he could do so without contact, good. But if he used force, he must only do enough to get away.

So how did the missionary finish his mission? Did he get his wish and go home, did he have a change of heart?

[RevTestament]

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I think that much of this involves "line upon line." The new commands given by Christ imo encapsulate a perfection that may be impossible for this life. 

Even the Golden Rule taught by different religions in different ages is one-upped when Jesus replaces, "Do into others as you would have them do unto you," with, "As I have loved you, love one another." No longer are we to treat one another as mere equals in some degenerable system of quid-pro-quo, we're supposed to treat them as Christ does, as children of God.

So what's the point of an unattainable  (at least for now) command? I think that when taught in its spirit, with the pure love of Christ, and when likewise recieved, it generates humility, compassion, and effort to improve and repent habitually, but also to simply love and think about others more.

I don't know that it is unattainable. However, as I have said the lives of my family are not really mine to give up. I can lay down my own life, but I still feel obligated to protect theirs, and I feel responding with force to a would-be murderer threatening my family is not breaking the commandment. I can still even have empathy (or love) for such an attacker, while shooting them in the leg, etc. I do feel we are basically on the same page.

I feel the primary mission of our Savior was to teach us to the intent of the law, which was to love others as ourselves. That includes our families. I don't believe that the law requires us to do away with the death penalty for instance. I don't believe it requires us not to protect our families. It does mean that I won't try to "better my position" at the expense of others - especially by using intimidation, force, fear, etc which are tools of the adversary. If everyone lived the law, there would be no more war, thievery, bribery, fraud, etc - in short it would be akin to heaven or paradise. This world might achieve that for a few centuries before Satan once again gains power, but I can look forward to the time when men at least temporarily learn and follow our Savior. Thank you for a thought-provoking thread. ;)

[JLHPROF]

I think we do ourselves a disservice by separating the various attacks and persecutions we can suffer.

What did Christ say about dealing with the attacks of the adversary or his servants?  How did Christ respond when he personally was attacked by the adversary?
Did he not resist, fight back, cast out?

Why should an attack from a physical adversary be any different?  They both intend harm.  It is a false idea that Christ is pacifist above all (one that is based on the incident with Peter and the Roman ear).

To assume we should not fight back against persecution (even defend our families unto bloodshed) is taking a too literal approach to Christ's words, not unlike our dearly departed friend ETZ who though that we should all be giving away all our possessions.  There are limits to literalism.

[Anijen]

She had an appropriate and very adequate, capable response. Her self defense was enough for the defense of her property and herself. It also would deter other would be attackers and cause them to probably attack a softer target in the future. I see no problem or contradiction with this and with the Saviors Sermon on the Mount. After all she was the victim not the aggressor here.

[Meadowchik]

3 minutes ago, Anijen said:

She had an appropriate and very adequate, capable response. Her self defense was enough for the defense of her property and herself. It also would deter other would be attackers and cause them to probably attack a softer target in the future. I see no problem or contradiction with this and with the Saviors Sermon on the Mount. After all she was the victim not the aggressor here.

Thanks! How does not being the aggressor change things? Do you mean to say that the command to walk a second mile or to give even our coat does not apply when a person pushes or grabs? Or maybe do the commands apply to genuine need and not wants? Not criticising, just curious about your thought process.

[Anijen]

21 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Thanks! How does not being the aggressor change things? Do you mean to say that the command to walk a second mile or to give even our coat does not apply when a person pushes or grabs? Or maybe do the commands apply to genuine need and not wants? Not criticising, just curious about your thought process.

Commandments are for us to follow, which in turn blesses us. If I never kill someone or better yet if no one ever killed someone, would there be a commandment not to kill? Here, the aggressor needs the sermon on the mount and its following blessing (for obedience) more than the victim. I am not saying only the cell phone thieves of the world need the commandments, we all do. After all the Sermon on the Mount, it is my opinion a map to take us from our carnal selves to perfection. Those who have had their cell phones stolen need the sermons as well.

Edited January 18, 2017 by Anijen

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

That's a really good example, Stargazer! Thank you.

And I agree. When my son was being harassed on his way home from school, I told him the priority was to get out of the situation.  If he could do so without contact, good. But if he used force, he must only do enough to get away.

So how did the missionary finish his mission? Did he get his wish and go home, did he have a change of heart?

Oh, he finished it, but it wasn't that he wanted to go home early -- it was just something that I thought (later) might have been best for him and the others he had to work with.

Through someone on this board whose name I no longer remember I found out that although he had some rough years after his mission (including health problems), he eventually found a good wife and lived his last years in some happiness.  His health challenges ended his sojourn on this earth rather earlier than the average.

[strappinglad]

A few thoughts.

1. The woman was very lucky that the thief was not more aggressive, or armed.

2. A little knowledge ( of self defense ) can be a dangerous thing. In other words , don't take a few lessons and then walk down dark alleys in Chicago .

3. Is a cell phone worth your life? Yes I know some people have their whole life tied up in their phone.

4. Even a wounded animal can do great damage. If I've learned one thing from Hollywood, it is to finish off an attacker because , otherwise, they will jump you from behind later.

5. In my opinion, the Amish are able to live without retaliation better than most.

6. The world would certainly be better off with less violence and more compassion. I don't see that happening until we destroy all those violent people.

[mfbukowski]

On 1/16/2017 at 2:25 AM, Meadowchik said:

Your assignment is to consider the example here:

If you prefer not to watch the video, this is a summary: a young woman is reading her phone in a hallway of the subway when a young man walks by, grabbing her phone. As he leaves, she appears to get his attention.  He turns around and she begins to slap him with her bag. When he puts his hands up to block the bag, she kicks him in the groin. He falls to his knees and she lands a kick to his face.  Now with her assailant on the ground, she grabs her phone and runs away.

 

Disregarding the chance that he might have been armed and could have hurt her when she fought back,  I'd like to examine her response to his attempted theft.

If this happened to you, your child, spouse, or someone else you're called on to help protect, would you approve of self-defense?

How is self defense consistent or inconsistent with the teachings of Christ on the Mount?

Last spring, I completed my first year of karate. Karate is intended purely as self defense.  There is a legend of a karate master who allows himself to be beaten by kids who want to "fight the master." He says he knew he could survive their beating him better than they could survive him beating them.

In both the self defense example, the Beatitudes, and the karate legend, I find wisdom.

In all cases, I feel the wisdom is about seeking the best outcome, once we are fully aware of the identity of our assailant as a child of God. I believe that very often stopping an attack is among the best choices. Very rarely do I think it is appropriate to let it happen. And if that choice is made, it is at the victim's discretion to extend mercy. A victim should never be pressured to accept an attack.

I think that most of us would agree to this. However, there's still the question of how this can be consistent with Jesus's teachings. I think that, especially with some personality types, this is a genuine struggle.

I agree in principle but it is not likely I will have an opportunity to interview the assailant before getting my head knocked off.

[Gray]

On 1/16/2017 at 4:25 AM, Meadowchik said:

Your assignment is to consider the example here:

If you prefer not to watch the video, this is a summary: a young woman is reading her phone in a hallway of the subway when a young man walks by, grabbing her phone. As he leaves, she appears to get his attention.  He turns around and she begins to slap him with her bag. When he puts his hands up to block the bag, she kicks him in the groin. He falls to his knees and she lands a kick to his face.  Now with her assailant on the ground, she grabs her phone and runs away.

 

Disregarding the chance that he might have been armed and could have hurt her when she fought back,  I'd like to examine her response to his attempted theft.

If this happened to you, your child, spouse, or someone else you're called on to help protect, would you approve of self-defense?

How is self defense consistent or inconsistent with the teachings of Christ on the Mount?

Last spring, I completed my first year of karate. Karate is intended purely as self defense.  There is a legend of a karate master who allows himself to be beaten by kids who want to "fight the master." He says he knew he could survive their beating him better than they could survive him beating them.

In both the self defense example, the Beatitudes, and the karate legend, I find wisdom.

In all cases, I feel the wisdom is about seeking the best outcome, once we are fully aware of the identity of our assailant as a child of God. I believe that very often stopping an attack is among the best choices. Very rarely do I think it is appropriate to let it happen. And if that choice is made, it is at the victim's discretion to extend mercy. A victim should never be pressured to accept an attack.

I think that most of us would agree to this. However, there's still the question of how this can be consistent with Jesus's teachings. I think that, especially with some personality types, this is a genuine struggle.

Jesus was a provocative wisdom teacher whose ideas were rather shocking and overturned a lot of conventional wisdom. Maybe his intent behind some of it was not to try to issue absolute rules for life, but rather to get people to stop and reconsider their assumptions, to jolt them out of their comfort zones. Just a thought. 

[pogi]

On 1/16/2017 at 3:25 AM, Meadowchik said:

If this happened to you, your child, spouse, or someone else you're called on to help protect, would you approve of self-defense?

This didn't look like an act of self-defense to me, the dude was walking away when she went after him.  I can't help but cheer for her and applaud the heel of vengeance to the face, but I think that was a pretty dangerous move.

I think the command in question here is this one:

Quote

Give to every man that asks of you; and of him that takes away your goods ask them not again.

Because she did not "ask" for her goods back per se, but instead karate chopped the crap out of the jerk and forced it from him, the law remains inviolate

Edited January 19, 2017 by pogi

[Meadowchik]

On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 10:22 PM, pogi said:

This didn't look like an act of self-defense to me, the dude was walking away when she went after him.  I can't help but cheer for her and applaud the heel of vengeance to the face, but I think that was a pretty dangerous move.

I think the command in question here is this one:

Because she did not "ask" for her goods back per se, but instead karate chopped the crap out of the jerk and forced it from him, the law remains inviolate

She was defending her property. And, who knows, her phone could be critical to her safety and livelihood.  I think that disabling him enough so she has a fair expectation of getting away safely is reasonable.

[Meadowchik]

On Thursday, January 19, 2017 at 10:22 PM, pogi said:

 

Because she did not "ask" for her goods back per se, but instead karate chopped the crap out of the jerk and forced it from him, the law remains inviolate

Haha!

[Five Solas]

On 1/16/2017 at 2:25 AM, Meadowchik said:

Your assignment is to consider the example here:

If you prefer not to watch the video, this is a summary: a young woman is reading her phone in a hallway of the subway when a young man walks by, grabbing her phone. As he leaves, she appears to get his attention.  He turns around and she begins to slap him with her bag. When he puts his hands up to block the bag, she kicks him in the groin. He falls to his knees and she lands a kick to his face.  Now with her assailant on the ground, she grabs her phone and runs away.

Disregarding the chance that he might have been armed and could have hurt her when she fought back,  I'd like to examine her response to his attempted theft.

If this happened to you, your child, spouse, or someone else you're called on to help protect, would you approve of self-defense?

How is self defense consistent or inconsistent with the teachings of Christ on the Mount?

Last spring, I completed my first year of karate. Karate is intended purely as self defense.  There is a legend of a karate master who allows himself to be beaten by kids who want to "fight the master." He says he knew he could survive their beating him better than they could survive him beating them.

In both the self defense example, the Beatitudes, and the karate legend, I find wisdom.

In all cases, I feel the wisdom is about seeking the best outcome, once we are fully aware of the identity of our assailant as a child of God. I believe that very often stopping an attack is among the best choices. Very rarely do I think it is appropriate to let it happen. And if that choice is made, it is at the victim's discretion to extend mercy. A victim should never be pressured to accept an attack.

I think that most of us would agree to this. However, there's still the question of how this can be consistent with Jesus's teachings. I think that, especially with some personality types, this is a genuine struggle.

To begin with, there's nothing in Matthew 5 - 7 that forbids resisting a robbery (or any other crime, for that matter).  Yes, 5:39 reads "do not resist an evil person"--but to understand that phrase to be an admonition for passivity in the face of all evil would be to disregard the rest of scripture, a poor exegesis by any standard.  And while the historical record of Christianity may seem a mixed bag to some, plenty of Christians have actively resisted evil, e.g., slavery, Hitler.     

Are there some specific verses in the Bible that make you think defense of one's person, family or property is an ungodly response to evil, Meadowchik?

--Erik

[bcuzbcuz]

On 2017-01-19 at 1:22 PM, pogi said:

This didn't look like an act of self-defense to me, the dude was walking away when she went after him.  I can't help but cheer for her and applaud the heel of vengeance to the face, but I think that was a pretty dangerous move.

I think the command in question here is this one:

Because she did not "ask" for her goods back per se, but instead karate chopped the crap out of the jerk and forced it from him, the law remains inviolate

I see the phone as the problem. Cell phones are evil. If an evil person wants to relieve you of your evil possession, it should be handed over with glee. Yes, some people will hold on to evil even when offered assistance to break free from such an addictive tool of satan, but we must deny our lust for evil and accept help, no matter the  source. That young man paid a high price for trying to be of assistance.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

To begin with, there's nothing in Matthew 5 - 7 that forbids resisting a robbery (or any other crime, for that matter).  Yes, 5:39 reads "do not resist an evil person"--but to understand that phrase to be an admonition for passivity in the face of all evil would be to disregard the rest of scripture, a poor exegesis by any standard.  And while the historical record of Christianity may seem a mixed bag to some, plenty of Christians have actively resisted evil, e.g., slavery, Hitler.     

Are there some specific verses in the Bible that make you think defense of one's person, family or property is an ungodly response to evil, Meadowchik?

--Erik

I do not think it is an ungodly response. But I do think that some, especially women, might have a more difficult time being so assertive and aggressive because of prevailing oversimplifications of scripture.

That's why I enjoy sorting through the meanings and seeing why, for example, meekness does not require full submission to all things. Or, neither does anything in Matthew 5:44 require it either, but people can be conditioned in their cultures to not act "unpleasant" even against the worst offenses.

An extremely kind young woman, a daughter of childhood friends, was murdered by a stranger. From all available witnesses, it looks like she resisted minimally, not enough for onlookers of the abduction to know a criminal act was taking place. I don't know why, no one in this life will lijely know, but I have taught my children that being "nice" is not the absolute. I want to be sure that they know that some situations might warrant extreme unpleasantness.

[Meadowchik]

50 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I see the phone as the problem. Cell phones are evil. If an evil person wants to relieve you of your evil possession, it should be handed over with glee. Yes, some people will hold on to evil even when offered assistance to break free from such an addictive tool of satan, but we must deny our lust for evil and accept help, no matter the  source. That young man paid a high price for trying to be of assistance.

I am reading World War Z and one of the best parts so far is when a mom grabs a zombie trying to bite her child. The mother rips the zombie's head right off. Reminds me of a dream I had, a tiger attacking my family. I'm a lucid dreamer and can often consciously direct the outcome of my dreams, and I grabbed a side of the tiger's jaw with each hand and broke it.

Don't mess with mama bear! ( And don't touch her phone!   )

[Five Solas]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I do not think it is an ungodly response. But I do think that some, especially women, might have a more difficult time being so assertive and aggressive because of prevailing oversimplifications of scripture.

That's why I enjoy sorting through the meanings and seeing why, for example, meekness does not require full submission to all things. Or, neither does anything in Matthew 5:44 require it either, but people can be conditioned in their cultures to not act "unpleasant" even against the worst offenses.

An extremely kind young woman, a daughter of childhood friends, was murdered by a stranger. From all available witnesses, it looks like she resisted minimally, not enough for onlookers of the abduction to know a criminal act was taking place. I don't know why, no one in this life will lijely know, but I have taught my children that being "nice" is not the absolute. I want to be sure that they know that some situations might warrant extreme unpleasantness.

I think it's a misunderstanding of the Sermon on the Mount to see it as a checklist of do's & don't's (do--be meek, don't--call your brother a "fool").  And if we did view it as a collection of moralism to be followed, what then are we to make of 5:48 ("you are to be perfect")?  The context is the human heart and our relationship to God.   

It sounds like wise instruction, that niceness is not absolute.  We teach that too.  And for scriptural support--one need not get very far into the Psalms (which Jesus references repeatedly in the New Testament and Christians view as Scripture) to see violence in response to evil.  

--Erik

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

I think it's a misunderstanding of the Sermon on the Mount to see it as a checklist of do's & don't's (do--be meek, don't--call your brother a "fool").  And if we did view it as a collection of moralism to be followed, what then are we to make of 5:48 ("you are to be perfect")?  The context is the human heart and our relationship to God.   

It sounds like wise instruction, that niceness is not absolute.  We teach that too.  And for scriptural support--one need not get very far into the Psalms (which Jesus references repeatedly in the New Testament and Christians view as Scripture) to see violence in response to evil.  

--Erik

It's especially a difficult lesson for children to learn, how to be loving while maintaining boundaries appropriately.