Evidence for God from Science

As some know, there has been a Christian discussion about "taking up swords" to defend oneself.

Many people in the US (and elsewhere), especially Christians, argue the killing in defense is justified.
So the first video to discuss:



Two questions I'd ask are whether:
1) These missionaries would be justified in using guns to kill and defend themselves?
2) Whether it would be valid for them as Christians to lethally defend themselves?

Not enough info to answer.

First, it's a short clip from a movie.

Since I didn't see the movie, I don't know the context of the scene.

First place, I can see we're now injecting the emotional use of a missionary into the previously basic argument over defending one's person and family against an armed attacker. And, categorically, the previous smoke and heat did NOT answer my question over why God allowed, even encouraged, resistance against attackers. Why allow and direct Israel to have an army? This was never answered. Why war against Hitler? Where do we see it is wrong to stand up to evil and violence? This is NOT an argument from the Bible! THIS insertion of missionary situations is an attempt to win points unrelated to the other discussion.

ANY man unwilling to defend his family is unworthy of being blessed to have them! And you should PLAN to defend based upon what you are most likely to face, and that would be reasonably considered likely to be effective against that threat. Please don't attempt to inject missionaries into THAT (our previous) argument - as it POTENTIALLY has different considerations, DEPENDING UPON the unique circumstances. Yes, as the Disciples were going to be engaged in MISSIONARY work, Jesus DID indeed instruct them to take a sword. He even noted the the dangers AND approved of the two swords the disciples said they had. Very interesting is, He not only doesn't rebuke them for possessing them - as if this was somehow wrong or showing a lack of faith - but He affirms them to be adequate and proper to have.

RickD wrote:Not enough info to answer.

First, it's a short clip from a movie.

Since I didn't see the movie, I don't know the context of the scene.

Basically, a handful of men took the gospel to a very tribal people that were far removed from society. Without these men, the people would have died in their sins.

The men left families...babies....and their mission was sucessful in God's eyes but at cost of their lives. The movie is VERY emotional and dont tell me we cant bring emotions into it! Jesus was MOVED with compassion and cried. God can use our emotions to motivate us.

And this has everything to do.with intrudents....we arent just talking about issues here.

We are talking about having an attitude that imitates Christ regardless of the circumstance.
After the men died, the wives went to the tribal people and continued to share the gospel. Now that is agape love!

Kurieuo wrote:As some know, there has been a Christian discussion about "taking up swords" to defend oneself.

Many people in the US (and elsewhere), especially Christians, argue the killing in defense is justified.
So the first video to discuss:



Two questions I'd ask are whether:
1) These missionaries would be justified in using guns to kill and defend themselves?
2) Whether it would be valid for them as Christians to lethally defend themselves?

3. What if the family had come with the missionaries and the tribal people turned up at their hut with spears?

Sounds like the Auca Indian story, with Jim Elliot.

It's an amazing story of how God can reach even those who seem to be unreachable.

So, if that's the story that the video clip was from, then I'd say that those missionaries already made up their minds that they were going to die to bring the gospel to the aucas.

Did they have the right to use force to defend themselves?

Of course they did. And even in the murderous evil that happened to those missionaries, God still was able to get through to other aucas. So, what Satan meant for evil, God turned into something glorious.

And K, I guess I'd ask you...

If the missionaries defended themselves, and survived the attack, could God still have been able to get through to some of the aucas?

I don't know...maybe the missionaries could have killed some of the aucas, then showed "agape" love, as they tended to the wounds of the injured aucas.

The clip shows an ambush. It shows the missionaries weren't ready for an attack. If they were ready, maybe they'd have still been alive.

Who knows.

Nessa wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:As some know, there has been a Christian discussion about "taking up swords" to defend oneself.

Many people in the US (and elsewhere), especially Christians, argue the killing in defense is justified.
So the first video to discuss:



Two questions I'd ask are whether:
1) These missionaries would be justified in using guns to kill and defend themselves?
2) Whether it would be valid for them as Christians to lethally defend themselves?

3. What if the family had come with the missionaries and the tribal people turned up at their hut with spears?

Then if the missionaries were as unprepared for that, as they were for what happened on the sand bar, then women and children would've been killed. And God STILL could've gotten through to the aucas. But we'd have women and children killed, really, for what purpose?

But, taking a story about how God can change the lives of the most evil, murderous people, and use it to make an argument against defending one's own life, seems a little wrong.

RickD wrote:

Nessa wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:As some know, there has been a Christian discussion about "taking up swords" to defend oneself.

Many people in the US (and elsewhere), especially Christians, argue the killing in defense is justified.
So the first video to discuss:



Two questions I'd ask are whether:
1) These missionaries would be justified in using guns to kill and defend themselves?
2) Whether it would be valid for them as Christians to lethally defend themselves?

3. What if the family had come with the missionaries and the tribal people turned up at their hut with spears?

Then if the missionaries were as unprepared for that, as they were for what happened on the sand bar, then women and children would've been killed. And God STILL could've gotten through to the aucas. But we'd have women and children killed, really, for what purpose?

But, taking a story about how God can change the lives of the most evil, murderous people, and use it to make an argument against defending one's own life, seems a little wrong.

For example if it was just the wife and husband...and the tribal people came knocking and said...go home or I will kill.your wife....and the guy didnt defend the wife..is that 'wrong'?

Nessa wrote:

RickD wrote:

Nessa wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:As some know, there has been a Christian discussion about "taking up swords" to defend oneself.

Many people in the US (and elsewhere), especially Christians, argue the killing in defense is justified.
So the first video to discuss:



Two questions I'd ask are whether:
1) These missionaries would be justified in using guns to kill and defend themselves?
2) Whether it would be valid for them as Christians to lethally defend themselves?

3. What if the family had come with the missionaries and the tribal people turned up at their hut with spears?

Then if the missionaries were as unprepared for that, as they were for what happened on the sand bar, then women and children would've been killed. And God STILL could've gotten through to the aucas. But we'd have women and children killed, really, for what purpose?

But, taking a story about how God can change the lives of the most evil, murderous people, and use it to make an argument against defending one's own life, seems a little wrong.

For example if it was just the wife and husband...and the tribal people came knocking and said...go home or I will kill.your wife....and the guy didnt defend the wife..is that 'wrong'?

That would depend...

If the aucas told them in Queen's English, "I say my dear chap, I beseechist thou to depart from our area. If not, thou has forceithed my hand, to layist a spear in your belly."

But obviously in that hypothetical case, the wife would've made tea and scones, and offered them as a peace offering. Then for sure, the aucas would've played nice. Then they all could've sat around the fire, singing "He's got the whole world in His hands..."

Maybe the aucas know that when the tent's a rockin' don't come a knockin'.

But seriously, the aucas weren't the "ask politely" kind of people.

If your hypothetical story happened, more likely than not, the husband and wife would've been unprepared for the aucas "knocking" on their tent, and both would've been killed.

RickD wrote:

Nessa wrote:

RickD wrote:

Nessa wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:As some know, there has been a Christian discussion about "taking up swords" to defend oneself.

Many people in the US (and elsewhere), especially Christians, argue the killing in defense is justified.
So the first video to discuss:



Two questions I'd ask are whether:
1) These missionaries would be justified in using guns to kill and defend themselves?
2) Whether it would be valid for them as Christians to lethally defend themselves?

3. What if the family had come with the missionaries and the tribal people turned up at their hut with spears?

Then if the missionaries were as unprepared for that, as they were for what happened on the sand bar, then women and children would've been killed. And God STILL could've gotten through to the aucas. But we'd have women and children killed, really, for what purpose?

But, taking a story about how God can change the lives of the most evil, murderous people, and use it to make an argument against defending one's own life, seems a little wrong.

For example if it was just the wife and husband...and the tribal people came knocking and said...go home or I will kill.your wife....and the guy didnt defend the wife..is that 'wrong'?

That would depend...

If the aucas told them in Queen's English, "I say my dear chap, I beseechist thou to depart from our area. If not, thou has forceithed my hand, to layist a spear in your belly."

But obviously in that hypothetical case, the wife would've made tea and scones, and offered them as a peace offering. Then for sure, the aucas would've played nice. Then they all could've sat around the fire, singing "He's got the whole world in His hands..."

Maybe the aucas know that when the tent's a rockin' don't come a knockin'.

But seriously, the aucas weren't the "ask politely" kind of people.

If your hypothetical story happened, more likely than not, the husband and wife would've been unprepared for the aucas "knocking" on their tent, and both would've been killed.

Take the mickey...thats fine.
No the communication wouldnt have been like us talking...but actions speak louder than words...they could have grabbed the wife and gone to show he might spear her and point to the door...I mean we all can point in the same language right?

Made it clear, go or I spear her

Nessa wrote:

RickD wrote:

Nessa wrote:

RickD wrote:

Nessa wrote:
3. What if the family had come with the missionaries and the tribal people turned up at their hut with spears?

Then if the missionaries were as unprepared for that, as they were for what happened on the sand bar, then women and children would've been killed. And God STILL could've gotten through to the aucas. But we'd have women and children killed, really, for what purpose?

But, taking a story about how God can change the lives of the most evil, murderous people, and use it to make an argument against defending one's own life, seems a little wrong.

For example if it was just the wife and husband...and the tribal people came knocking and said...go home or I will kill.your wife....and the guy didnt defend the wife..is that 'wrong'?

That would depend...

If the aucas told them in Queen's English, "I say my dear chap, I beseechist thou to depart from our area. If not, thou has forceithed my hand, to layist a spear in your belly."

But obviously in that hypothetical case, the wife would've made tea and scones, and offered them as a peace offering. Then for sure, the aucas would've played nice. Then they all could've sat around the fire, singing "He's got the whole world in His hands..."

Maybe the aucas know that when the tent's a rockin' don't come a knockin'.

But seriously, the aucas weren't the "ask politely" kind of people.

If your hypothetical story happened, more likely than not, the husband and wife would've been unprepared for the aucas "knocking" on their tent, and both would've been killed.

Take the mickey...thats fine.
No the communication wouldnt have been like us talking...but actions speak louder than words...they could have grabbed the wife and gone to show he might spear her and point to the door...I mean we all can point in the same language right?

Made it clear, go or I spear her

And again,

All evidence points to the fact that it wouldn't happen that way. The aucas didn't seem to play "Let's Make a Deal", and let people choose a door. They just killed for the sake of killing.
http://www.cowart.info/AucasTheWorstPeopleOnEarth.htm

Kurieuo wrote:As some know, there has been a Christian discussion about "taking up swords" to defend oneself.

Many people in the US (and elsewhere), especially Christians, argue the killing in defense is justified.
So the first video to discuss:



Two questions I'd ask are whether:
1) These missionaries would be justified in using guns to kill and defend themselves?
2) Whether it would be valid for them as Christians to lethally defend themselves?

So you did watch those clips
We have the movie, heart wrenching stuff

RickD wrote:Sounds like the Auca Indian story, with Jim Elliot.

It's an amazing story of how God can reach even those who seem to be unreachable.

End of the Spear, the book and movie were both good, although the book was better (more details perhaps?)

RickD wrote:So, if that's the story that the video clip was from, then I'd say that those missionaries already made up their minds that they were going to die to bring the gospel to the aucas.

Shouldn't we be that way naturally as Christians wherever we are?

RickD wrote:Did they have the right to use force to defend themselves?

Of course they did. And even in the murderous evil that happened to those missionaries, God still was able to get through to other aucas. So, what Satan meant for evil, God turned into something glorious.

I agree they had a right to defend themselves as humans.
But, I'd disagree that it would have been valid for them to do so as Christians.

In part because they'd made up their minds as you say to go there, but also because they are missionaries and well it doesn't sit right with me for them to carry arms when Christ is about peace and laying down one's life for another.

It gives the wrong message, and I dare say would be wrong in Christ's eye even if understandable and forgiven.

RickD wrote:And K, I guess I'd ask you...

If the missionaries defended themselves, and survived the attack, could God still have been able to get through to some of the aucas?

More missionaries probably would have died. In reality, any effort could have just fizzled
And it possibly could have been some time later, maybe even once civilisation reached them (which was only generations reach away). Then they wouldn't have had their own land secured, and then the government probably would have just killed them off to protect their society.

The thing is, why fear death? Perhaps that's too hard for some Christians.
Maybe it's the dying that scares people. I personally don't fear death only the dying.
Here is what happened due to their deaths:

• The deaths of the men galvanized the missionary effort in the United States, sparking an outpouring of funding for evangelization efforts around the world. Their work is still frequently remembered in evangelical publications, and in 2006 was the subject of the film production End of the Spear. Several years after the death of the men, the widow of Jim Elliot, Elisabeth, and the sister of Nate Saint, Rachel, returned to Ecuador as missionaries with the Summer Institute of Linguistics (now SIL International) to live among the Huaorani. This eventually led to the conversion of many, including some of those involved in the killing. While largely eliminating tribal violence, their efforts exposed the tribe to increased influence from the outside.

While, if there was another way, that'd obviously be preferred.
But, evidently much was gained by their sacrifice.

RickD wrote:I don't know...maybe the missionaries could have killed some of the aucas, then showed "agape" love, as they tended to the wounds of the injured aucas.

I don't think they would have gotten that chance if they retaliated.
Also, perhaps they could have overrun then with guns and made them all submit,
but then that's more Mohammad style isn't it than Christ?

RickD wrote:The clip shows an ambush. It shows the missionaries weren't ready for an attack. If they were ready, maybe they'd have still been alive.

One had a gun, could have used it, but fired into the air.
I believe the missionaries had made a decision that they would not retaliate with violence at all.
That was already the way of the native aucas, vengeance killings and the like, and they didn't come to bring a message of violence but peace in Christ.

RickD wrote:

Nessa wrote:

RickD wrote:

Nessa wrote:

RickD wrote:
Then if the missionaries were as unprepared for that, as they were for what happened on the sand bar, then women and children would've been killed. And God STILL could've gotten through to the aucas. But we'd have women and children killed, really, for what purpose?

But, taking a story about how God can change the lives of the most evil, murderous people, and use it to make an argument against defending one's own life, seems a little wrong.

For example if it was just the wife and husband...and the tribal people came knocking and said...go home or I will kill.your wife....and the guy didnt defend the wife..is that 'wrong'?

That would depend...

If the aucas told them in Queen's English, "I say my dear chap, I beseechist thou to depart from our area. If not, thou has forceithed my hand, to layist a spear in your belly."

But obviously in that hypothetical case, the wife would've made tea and scones, and offered them as a peace offering. Then for sure, the aucas would've played nice. Then they all could've sat around the fire, singing "He's got the whole world in His hands..."

Maybe the aucas know that when the tent's a rockin' don't come a knockin'.

But seriously, the aucas weren't the "ask politely" kind of people.

If your hypothetical story happened, more likely than not, the husband and wife would've been unprepared for the aucas "knocking" on their tent, and both would've been killed.

Take the mickey...thats fine.
No the communication wouldnt have been like us talking...but actions speak louder than words...they could have grabbed the wife and gone to show he might spear her and point to the door...I mean we all can point in the same language right?

Made it clear, go or I spear her

And again,

All evidence points to the fact that it wouldn't happen that way. The aucas didn't seem to play "Let's Make a Deal", and let people choose a door. They just killed for the sake of killing.
http://www.cowart.info/AucasTheWorstPeopleOnEarth.htm

Sigh, ok, say the impossible happened and they did do that...answer the question..please

Despite what they would or wouldnt do...you can answer me hypothetically...

You complained it wasnt a relevant comparison so I was saying 'what if'