Boston's Answer to Tolstoy's "unconditional nonviolence"

[Boston]

This is my 4-page reply to Jeffery Snyder's essay "Words We Do Not Want To Hear"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/snyder2.html

Lew Rockwell refused to publish my rebuttal:

Sorry, sir, I do not run anon. pieces, and do not, at this juncture, want to criticize pacifists, whatever their problems.

My reply:

My name is Kenneth W. Royce, and I have been writing
under the pseudonym of "Boston T. Party" since 1992.

This was explained in the bio paragraph at the essay's end.

Not that any of this is a secret, as I have, after
eight books, hundreds of thousands of readers.

My essay did not "criticize" pacifists, but merely one
of their particularly fallacious doctrines (which you
posted on your site).  So, in the name of "equal time"
and "rational discussion" I ask you to reconsider
airing the _other_ side of this issue.

(Also, LR confused "anonymous" with "pseudonymous".)

When he still refused to publish my rebuttal, I emailed him:

Lew,

I am profoundly disappointed in your lack of courtesy
and intellectual courage in refusing to post my
rebuttal to Snyder/Tolstoy.

Happily, I don't need your help.
For starters, it's now been posted elsewhere

While you may continue to shield the hideous doctrine
of "unconditional nonviolence," I will continue to
strafe its smoking ashes all over the Net--i.e.,
wherever truth and rational discussion are welcome.

You may have posted Snyder's "Words We Do Not Want To
Hear" out of ignorance, but you had your chance to
atone for that.  Thus, your site goes far beyond being
"anti-war"--it is anti-self-defense.

I am thoroughly disgusted with wussy libertarians
living in ethereal clouds.  How fortunate that armed
men actually exist to protect you and your ilk!

Sincerely,
Kenneth W. Royce/Boston T. Party

(How's that for burning a bridge?)

Snyder emailed me:

"I am happy to know the truth of the matter, as it is certainly not a source of joy to me to think that defending my life or the lives of my loved ones might be impermissible to a [Christian].... Anyway, please send the papers (along with the title page so I can see the source), and I will tell you what I think about it."

I sent him the below rebuttal three years ago, and am still waiting for his reply.

The reason I was (am) so hot on the issue was not because Snyder and I
had a mere difference of opinion, but that he was so utterly mistaken about
such a crucial matter...and has yet to correct it.

Boston

Boston's Answer to Tolstoy's "unconditional nonviolence"

by Boston T. Party
Common Law Copyright 2003-2006 by Javelin Press.
All rights reserved without prejudice.


On LewRockwell.com was a 9/2001 essay "Words We Do Not Want To Hear" by Manhattan attorney Jeffery Snyder, author of the superb Nation of Cowards. Snyder, a 2nd Amendment champion, incongruously revived the Tolstoyan notion that Jesus preached unconditional nonviolence at the Sermon on the Mount:

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also..." (Matthew 5:38-39)

"This is all you need to know if you want to do what is right... We should not wage war on terrorists or the Taliban, not try to bring them to justice...
...According to Tolstoy (in The Kingdom of God is Within You, 1894), the meaning of Christ's command to "resist not evil" is plain enough: it is wrong to use force or violence to oppose evil. Since Christ's command is unconditional, there are no exceptions. Not for a "just" war, not for retribution, not for justice, not even for self-defense at the time of the assault.
...People do not try to answer [Tolstoy's] arguments. They are just sensibly ignored (because they are allegedly unarguable--BTP)."

-- Jeffery Snyder, "Words We Do Not Want To Hear"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/snyder2.html

"On this basis (Matthew 5:38-48), it is immoral or sinful to use violence to resist evil. Violence against our fellow man is never permissible and never proper, not even for self-defense. He who endeavors to live a Christian life, then, does not bear arms against another.
...Christ's injunction contains no sanitizing exception for the use of force..."

-- Jeffery Snyder, Nation of Cowards (2001), p.11

(BTP Note: original emphasis underlined; added emphasis in bold.)

I've just one word for this: hogwash.

This tragically warped belief is an example of what can happen even to highly intelligent people who eschew original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, and entrust Scriptural interpretation to a Russian novelist writing during the chaos of his country's imminent demise. (In order to avoid "topic drift" I will at the outset acknowledge the truth of Matthew 5:43-48, that Christians are not to hate and curse their enemies, but to love and pray for them. However, that does not mean that we are to passively allow them to kill and maim us. Proof en route.)

Although I am both a Christian and a scholar, I would not quite go so far as to classify myself as a "Christian scholar." Certainly, I have had no formal training in Hebrew or Greek. However, I do possess the three things necessary to utterly level the Tolstoyan doctrine of "unconditional nonviolence"--which is both unChristian and nonlibertarian. I have intelligence, common sense, and a copy of The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.

In order to truly understand Matthew 5:39, it is necessary only to define--as used in the original Greek--these three words: resist, evil, and smite. We've all heard the saying "The Greeks had a word for it." As the Eskimos have two dozen words for "snow" the Greeks employed many words to express different nuances of the subject. Greek translates to English about as well as Mozart concertos are played on a kazoo. You'll hear the basic melodic line, but the subtlety is lost--hence the danger of spouting Scripture from English Bibles. In my experience, whenever I have encountered an apparent biblical paradox, such was invariably due to poor translation. Whether secular scholar or practicing Christian, one should often confer with the ancient Hebrew and Greek.


"resist"
There are fifteen New Testament (N.T.) usages of "resist", "resisted" and "resisteth." In Strong's "resist" of 5:39 is #436 in the Greek Dictionary (or, G436, for short). The word is anthistemi. G436 "resist" means to block or withstand something harmful. Most of us probably have a bottle of antihistamine in our medicine cabinet. Histamines naturally occur in our bodies to facilitate allergic reactions (which tell us to avoid certain substances), but when allergic reactions get out of control we take an antihistamine as an artificial means of controlling the reaction--i.e., blocking unwanted effects.

Now let's compare G436 anthistemi (used 9 of 15 times) with the three other versions of "resist."

Next frequently used (4 of 15 times) is G498 antitassomai, which means "to range oneself against" (e.g., James 5:6 "Ye have condemned and killed the just; and he doth not resist you" as well as in Romans 13:2, James 4:6, and I Peter 5:5). The connotation of G498 antitassomai is to arrange in an orderly manner a disposition against something; to formally ordain one's opposition.

Used only once is G496 antipipto in Acts 7:51. "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." G496 antipipto "resist" means to "oppose falling down." The seemingly odd choice of this word actually makes perfect sense. To be "slain in the Spirit" is to be physically knocked down and temporarily rendered quasi-paralyzed while God performs a work of healing. Those in Acts 7:51 who "resist" the Holy Ghost "oppose falling down" and prevent what God would do for them.

Finally, the severest form of resistance used in the N.T. (G478 antikathistemi) means "to set down troops against" and is found only at Hebrews 12:4 (employed in a marvelous allegory).

The G436 anthistemi "resist" in Matthew 5:39 is the mildest and most generic version of resistance. "Resist not" does not mean "do not range oneself against" or "do not oppose falling down" or "do not set down troops against." Rather, Jesus forbids routine reaction to "evil." Although this seems to justify Tolstoy's "unconditional nonviolence" we have yet to examine what Jesus actually meant by "evil" in that verse.


"evil"
As we just seen from studying "resist," Greek words have progressions of intensity. Hence, we should not be surprised to learn that there is "evil" and there is "eeeevehl" (as Mike Meyers distinguished in So I Married An Axe Murderer ). While there are a few N.T. references to blasphemous "evil" (G987) and slanderous "evil" (G1426, G2635-7), most usages of "evil" fall into one of two camps: effect and character.

G4190 poneros comes from the root ponos (origin of "penance" ) which means "pain." Thus, this form of "evil" means something "painful in effect or influence."

In the second camp of evil/degenerate/depraved/wicked character, many similar kinds of "evil" orbit around the root word kakos, G2556. (E.g., G2549 "malice," G2551 "curse," G2554 "to be an evil-doer," and G2560 "diseased"). Also in this same camp is G5337 phaulos, or "foul."

So, which "evil" did Jesus mean in Matthew 5:39  Outright wickedness (G2556 et al ) or moderate physical pain (G4190)  Whom are we not to retaliate against: Adolf Hitler or the abusive drunk at the next table? Whom should we not resist: A serial rapist/murderer or some profane, greasy cur at the park? Whose pain should we endure: a road rager with a Colt .45 or a road rager with merely a filthy mouth?

I'll answer that by defining the third critical word in verse 5:39--"smite."


"smite"
There are six different forms of "smite" in the Greek N.T. The "smite" used in Matthew 5:39 is rhapizo. It means to "slap" (with the palm of the hand). In fact, many contemporary versions of the Bible correctly translate rhapizo as "slap." This is in full accord with the cheek reference of 5:39.

It is quite telling that rhapizo is seen only twice in the entire N.T. In the 28 other usages of "smite" (including "smitest", "smiteth," "smitten" and "smote") they all refer to vigorous beatings, one of them fatal. Nine are G5180 tupto, which means "repeated blows" or "pummeling." G3960 patasso means a single (often fatal) blow, also used nine times. Thrice used is G1194 dero "thrash" or "scourge." G3817 paio "to strike" appears twice. And finally, once used is G4141 plesso "to pound flat."

Compare rhapizo (G4474 "slap") with getting struck (G3817) or pummeled (G5180) or thrashed (G1194) or flattened (G4141) or struck dead (G3960), and it is clearly evident that Jesus did not admonish Christians to accept severe beatings or fatal blows. His "slap" example is perfectly harmonious with the similarly picayune forms of "resist" and "evil" (which is the mere G4190 poneros "hurtful in effect or influence").


END OF PART 1 OF 2

[Boston]

And the real moral of Matthew 5:39 is...
"Don't sweat the small stuff." (Gee, somebody oughta write a book on that...) If some scumbag gets in your face or gives you a little shove, absorb it and move on. (Any good martial arts sensei will tell his students the same thing. The best way to win a fight is to avoid fighting, if you can.) Or, more succinctly, we must wisely avoid some skirmishes in order to successfully wage a higher campaign.

Christians are "in" the world but not "of" it; Christians are not to be "conformed to the world" (Romans 12:2). Hence, Jesus commands us not to be dragged down to the world's level by getting mired in petty disputes and disturbances. (Notice I said "petty"? So meant Jesus. His examples were a slap on the cheek, a coat, and a mile down the road. All of this is about as petty as petty can be.) So, you get sued by some cretin in civil court for $200? It's worth $300 to be utterly rid of him (v. 5:40). Get dragooned into something for an hour? Do it for two hours and they'll be happy to see you go (v. 5:41). (Obviously, one musn't get carried away with acquiescence.)

This is all variously elegant. First, by giving the creeps and users what they haughtily demand, you in effect pay them to go away (often forever). For example, the fastest way to be free of a pest is to lend him some cash (v. 5:42). I once lent an erstwhile friend $10 and I haven't seen him in 17 years. (At less than 5?/month I'd say I got my money's worth.) Furthermore, there is a sly and enormous power in giving people what they want; letting them lie down in the bed of their own choosing. "Beware what you ask for. You just might get it."

Lastly, how can hate fight love? It can't. Having nowhere to go, hate can only rebound into itself--which was the point of Matthew 5:38-48. How can one fight another who refuses to become an energized opponent? How does the belligerent argue with the accommodating? The most devastating way to win an argument is to lose it by agreeing with your opponent: "You're right. Thank you for sharing your wisdom. Have a good day." Where can he go from there? His "victory" is actually a defeat and there's really nothing he can do about it.

By agreeing, you refuse to be drawn into a petty dispute; you maintain the high ground. Never wrestle with a pig. There's no winning, and the pig enjoys it. The moral of Matthew 5:38-48 is Don't mudwrestle with the world. Stay out of the ring. (Jesus later amplifies this at verse 7:6: "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." )

However, Jesus did not mean for Christians to be punching bags for authentic wickedness. Jesus did not mean that Christians are to be unconditional passivists. He did not proclaim that we must roll over and die by the murderous hand of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and street assailants. If Jesus had meant that, He would have said that by using an injurious form of "smite" such as: getting pummeled (G5180 tupto ) or thrashed (G1194 dero ) or flattened (G4141 plesso ) or struck dead (G3960 patasso ). Don't go to war over a mere slap is the lesson here.

A conscientious study of Matthew 5:39 (the foundation of Tolstoy's "unconditional nonviolence") clearly illustrates that larcenous and lethal evil is fully within the purview of Christian resistance. To say otherwise would make a mockery of common sense and place decent people at the total mercy of the wicked.

To say otherwise would declare Jesus himself a sinner for His violence to the moneychangers in the temple. This was not just some lone example of sudden temper loss, but repeated violence. He threw them out on three separate occasions! The first time (John 2:14-16, just after His first miracle of turning water-into-wine at the wedding), Jesus actually constructed a hand weapon (a whip of plaited rush-ropes; see G5416 and G4979), which clearly proves premeditation. The second (Matt. 21:12, Mark 11:15, on the Friday before his crucifixion) and third (Luke 19:45, the following Monday) times made no mention of a whip (His reputation was undoubtedly sufficient by then), but he nonetheless "cast" them out again.

The Greek verb in all four verses is G1544 ekballo "to eject" which is a violent form of expulsion (always used whenever demons were "cast out"), to be distinguished from the G906 ballo "to throw" (e.g., "cast your net" and "cast lots"). Every time Jesus went to the Jerusalem temple He violently cleaned out the defilers, like baseball bat-wielding Carrie Nations in a saloon. This was no small feat. According to Josephus, 256,000 animals were sacrificed each Passover, so we're talking about a very large market. Since the priests sold licenses to the vendors this was a huge source of revenue to them, and His actions were the last straw. After the second and third temple purifications on Friday and Monday, the Jewish leaders arrested Jesus late Tuesday night and crucified Him on Wednesday.

However, to the Tolstoy/Kierkegaard/Snyder cabal, the violent Jesus must have been in sin (thrice!). Well, if He was a sinner then He could not have been the Savior, and if He was not the Savior then we can ignore all that "resist not evil" stuff in Matthew 5, right? Oh, and what about Jesus allowing the disciples to be armed with swords in the Garden of Gethsemane (Luke 22:38, 49)? What about His command in Luke 22:36, "Then He said unto them, But now...he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one." The allegedly Scriptural doctrine of "unconditional nonviolence" is an insoluble paradox, thus it simply cannot be true on its very face.

Another Tolstoyan assertion Snyder offers is the "violence never solves anything" argument:

"A change in this state of affairs will come about only after most men have learned, through generations of bitter and futile experience, the inability of violence to put an end to evil, and to accept the truth of Christ's counsel."

-- Jeffery Snyder, "Words We Do Not Want To Hear"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/snyder2.html

Whoever said that violence would ever "put an end" to evil? It cannot do so any more than a broom can put an end to dirt. But that's not the point. The purpose of reactionary, defensive violence is to stay alive, just like the purpose of a broom is to keep your home clean. Attackers and dirt will always remain intrusive, but individual vigilance and vigor will keep them at bay. History has proven that. Where a high enough percentage of people protect themselves (e.g., in the rural West), criminal violence is so rare that it can almost be considered eradicated there. Armed citizens create an "Evil-free Zone" wherever they go. Their Bad Guys are dead, imprisoned, reformed, or relocated to docile areas.

Is criminal violence still rampant in disarmed D.C. and Manhattan? Certainly, but that's their problem. Goethe once wrote, "If everyone swept his own porch, the whole world would be clean." Americans who daily pack iron have swept porches. An individual duty performed is Duty performed. We are not required to sweep the porch of a stranger (who refuses to own a broom); we are not required to put an end to another locale's evil.

And we certainly are not required to discard our brooms so that our porches become as filthy as others'. To claim otherwise, which is the inevitable consequence of "unconditional nonviolence" can only be attributed to stupidity, laziness, or cowardice. (The next farcical dragon I must slay is unlimited obedience to government based on Romans 13:1-7. Another time...)

While I'm at it, let me take out a couple of other similar sappers in the wire.

Firstly, the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13, Deut. 5:17) has been horribly mistranslated from the ancient Hebrew. The word "kill" found in Strong's at H7523, ratsach, means "to murder" and "to dash into pieces." In fact, of the several Hebrew words for "murder" ratsach seems the second most violent. It is not involuntary manslaughter or even casual murder. Of the hundreds of times the root word "kill" appears in the O.T., ratsach is seen only six times. Within the appearance of "murder," however, ratsach is about 50/50 with H5408 nathach "to dismember" or "to hew into pieces." Nathach (a Fargo woodchipper-style murder) is even more violent than ratsach as it does not appear under "kill" even once; it is found only under "murder." So, the correctly translated commandment is "Thou shalt not murder."

Secondly, in Mark 26:52 when Jesus rebuked Peter for slicing off Malchus's ear in the Garden ("Put your sword in its place for all who take the sword shall perish with the sword." ), He was not being "anti-sword." Rather, Jesus was upset with Peter for (1) attacking a defenseless servant in an empty gesture of rage, (2) his substitution of a weapon for his own lack of faith, and (3) his lack of understanding of God's sacrificial plan for Jesus.

While the Gospel of Jesus is one of love generally supplanting the ancient Jewish system of "an eye for an eye" retaliation, Jesus did not forbid reactive and righteous use of force in self-defense, justice, or even war. (Pacifists only imagine that He did.) We have not only the right, but the duty, to bring violent criminals to justice, assuming, of course, that they survive their encounters with properly armed and trained citizens.

So, let us hear no more that Christians must submit to violence. They do not. They must not. Train at your local martial arts dojo. Buy quality defensive firearms and train at renowned academies such as Gunsite and Thunder Ranch. Daily carry weapons appropriate to your situation and do not hesitate to deploy them during a lethal emergency. Do whatever it takes to win. "The only dirty fight is the one you lose."

Because he died in 1910 Tolstoy cannot clear his tarnished name by publicly repenting of his putrescent doctrine. However, Jeffery Snyder et al ? can. Lawyers certainly know their Latin, but they should study their Greek before they attempt to lecture others from the New Testament. "Unconditional nonviolence" ("UN") has no basis in Scripture, and it certainly has no place in a country which evicted a monarchial tyranny by sheer force of arms. Anyone who fatuously claims otherwise has much to learn, and even more for which to atone.

"UN" is the most fallacious, deleterious, and inexcusably lame doctrine I have recently encountered. Lives are at stake here, hence the savageness of my rebuttal. While I devoutly hope that the dangerously silly doctrine of "unconditional nonviolence" hasn't gotten anybody killed, I suspect otherwise. It's probably even kept many people from becoming Christians (and who could blame them?). This poses a dilemma for Snyder. Anyone who advocates, on moral grounds, that others not resist physical attack:

"...bears the moral responsibility... He himself becomes a source of harm in the world; ...he has blood on his hands!"

-- Jeffery Snyder, Nation of Cowards (2001), p.116

Snyder correctly lambastes Handgun Control, Inc. for not showing any crisis of conscience after ignoring John Lott's irrefutable evidence (More Guns, Less Crime) that "shall issue" CCWs reduce crime. Similarly, it remains to be seen if Snyder himself has a crisis of conscience after having been shown in the original Greek that Jesus never meant for Christians to passively accept severe injury, rape, and murder in some twisted creed of "love."






Boston T. Party (a.k.a. Kenneth W. Royce) is a libertarian author of 12 books on history, law, politics, and government. A gun collector/historian and free-lance shooting instructor, his Boston's Gun Bible (revised 4/2002) is an 848 page "how-to/why-to" of firearms which is currently selling briskly throughout the gun culture. His first novel Molôn Labé! , a political thriller set in 2006-2021, was published in 2004, and led to his founding of www.freestatewyoming.org .

Pertinent, intelligent, and concise email may be sent to him through www.javelinpress.com .

Common Law Copyright 2003-2006 by Javelin Press. All rights reserved without prejudice.

[Mike in NC]

Boston,

That was the best essay on the Christian view of self defense and arms I've ever read.? I could not believe what I was reading when I read Snyder's commentary.? I used to have a high opinion of Jeff Snyder, but after that drivel, he dropped several notches in my view while you went up several notches (not that I had a low opinion of you before ... I just had not read any of your writings).? This makes me want to go out and get one of your books? .

Snyder almost sounds like an anarchist.? His views on the Biblical roles of government are equally uninformed ... very disappointing? .  He needs to read Romans 13.

Snyder unfortunately parrots a common misconception among unbelievers and among uninformed believers.? I will definitely print out your essay for future reference to illuminate the unenlightened.

Thank You,
Mike

[archy]

That was the best essay on the Christian view of self defense and arms I've ever read.?

Back when I was about 17 and soon to go into the Army, our parish priest took the handful of us so inclined- some to the Marines, some Navy or AF, and the rest of us for the Green Machine, and gave us a few? observations based on his experience as a former Army [I think, but come tothink of it, he never really said] Chaplain.

One of us, an ex-alter boy heading for the Infantry, asked if we should confess it if we happened to kill an enemy trying to kill us.

No, son; keeping yourself alive isn't a sin- suicide is, replied the good Padre, but it's a good thing if you can find it in you to pray for their souls afterward.[/i]

I've always tried to take Father Arnold's advice....

[wyomiles]

Hay Mike, you should absolutely buy some of Bostons books, he has opened my eyes in many ways.

Miles

[Mike in NC]

Hi Miles,

Which do you recommend I read first?

Mike

[Boston]

from Mike:

Snyder almost sounds like an anarchist.  His views on the Biblical roles of government are equally uninformed ... very disappointing  .  He needs to read Romans 13.

Snyder unfortunately parrots a common misconception among unbelievers and among uninformed believers.

In his emails to me, Snyder wrote that he was not a Christian.
I then cautioned him on the wisdom of writing whole essays
about the duties of Christians, especially if he wasn't going to
first invest in a Greek/Hebrew Concordance.

Mike, thanks for your kind praise of my essay.

As to which books of mine to read in which order, oooh that's a tough one.
Go to www.javelinpress.com and scour the descriptions.

Boston's Gun Bible should be likely in the top 3, as with Mol?n Lab?!.
www.fredsm14stocks.com has a great deal on the pair.

archy, I like your Padre's advice. 

On the commandment mistranslation, I just a few days ago noticed
a bumper sticker as a woman was getting into her car:

"What part of 'Thou shalt not kill' don't you understand?"

I couldn't resist.

"Ma'am, I've a comment about one of your bumper stickers."  (very neutral tone)
"Oh?  Which one? (polite, but suspicious)

I then informed her that the proper translation of the Hebrew verb ratsach
meant "murder."

"We are permitted to kill in self-defense," I said, as I got in my car and drove away.
She just sat there, speechless and rather stunned.

Boston
[/color]

[planetaryjim]

Dear Boston,

Your excellent essay is truly food for thought.  I am humbled by its majesty.

One of the thoughts that instantly occurred to me when I read that Tolstoy had died in 1910 was, "So many millions followed."

No, of course, Tolstoy's mistaken ideas didn't cause 250 million or so people worldwide to submit passively while their governments slaughtered them.  Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, and others caused the slaughter.  Each individual who chose not to resist is responsible for his own choice.  But the idea that Tolstoy, as a very influential writer, may have encouraged many millions of his readers to a completely mistaken and incredibly bad choice was a bit of a shudder-starter for me.

It is indeed worth remembering that what we write is often read, and what we say with conviction is taken seriously by our readers, however few or many they may be.  It is something of a burden, which is, happily, less than the bursting pressure that comes from not writing at all.

The idea that private property is wrong, the idea that self defense is wrong, the idea that individual liberty is bad for the economy, or the idea that people left to themselves would not develop systems of money and exchange, are among the many ideas which I regard as basically perverse.  They are as perverse as "freedom is slavery," "war is peace," or "lies are truth."

One of the things that keeps showing up as I study history is the source of a lot of truly perverse things.  It seems, to me, that certain individuals are identifiably covetous.  They not only want to have a lot of their own money and property, but they want to have control over the money and property (and thus labor) of others.  In some instances, these people are identifiably bankers or financiers.  Thus, it is not mere coincidence that Jesus was outraged by the presence of money changers demanding that Temple shekels be bought only at their tables.

Resistance and self-defense are difficult in many ways.  One of the tools your essay provides is a sense of ethical conduct, of righteousness if you don't mind my saying so.  Doing the right thing in earnest and accurate upholding of God's law is righteous behavior.  It is much easier, in my view, to do difficult things if one feels that doing them is right.  It certainly encourages me in my diet, exercise, and training programs to think it is right to be on this path.

Regards,

Jim
 http://vertoro.com/

[padre30]

That was a great rebuttal to the "Christians should be doormats" line of thinking Boston. Concise complete and well referenced with a Strong's Concordance.


I do have one qustion as to the "Turn the other Cheek" philosophy though. It was my understanding that the turn the other cheek came from telling someone about Christ and getting slapped for it. In essence it is a call to patience for those who have a hard time understanding Faith in Jesus.

the earliest Biblical example of speaking the message of God and it not being accepted is 2. Chronicles 18.23 when Zedekiah struck Miiciah for telling the truth. The same for Paul in Acts 23.2 . Neither took direct physical offense they left that up to God. So that being posted, is there a sort of division between suffering for speking the Truth of Christ, and being physically assualted (mugged robbed etc)?

I would say yes there is.

[Boston]

Jim,

Thanks so much for your kind praise of my essay. 
If it bolsters one's sense of ethical conduct, then no higher
praise could be given!  It encourages me that you are encouraged.


from padre30:

I do have one qustion as to the "Turn the other Cheek" philosophy though. It was my understanding that the turn the other cheek came from telling someone about Christ and getting slapped for it. In essence it is a call to patience for those who have a hard time understanding Faith in Jesus.

 is there a sort of division between suffering for speking the Truth of Christ, and being physically assualted (mugged robbed etc)?

I would say yes there is.

I've also heard this understanding, though the Sermon on the Mount
in Matthew 5-7 was given to the multitudes, vs. only His disciples.  So, I'd
say that the context of 5:38-39 was not limited to persecution for the Gospel's sake.

I think this is supported by the fact that the "eye for an eye" in 5:38 is a direct
reference to the old Judaic law of Exodus 21:24, Lev. 24:20, and Deut. 19:21.

Happily, a religious persecution context of Matt. 5:38-39 is not necessary for
Christians to believe in their right of self-defense, as my essay proved.

However, I do agree with you that we are not to fight God's battles by our own
worldly means and tactics.

Boston
[/color]

[wyomiles]

Mike, as Boston said above, Molon Labe and the Gun Bible. I would also add Hologram of Liberty. Probably Molon Labe first.  Miles

[RazorCityRifleman]

The 'freedom' and 2nd Amendment related chapters in BGB are easily worth the price of the book in thier own right.

It's a rare thing these days when you have gun writers that can shoot and authors of liberty related material that 'live the life'. 

RCR

[archy]

archy, I like your Padre's advice.?

Boston

Yeah, but I'm really glad he's not around to notice how I spelled *altAr boy*.

[padre30]

Boston,

I ahve been pondering your reply and two things stood out if you don't mind the asking,

1. If this was a teaching for the multitudes, then weren't they also individually implemented? It would be indeed strange to read a list of things that shoudl be taught, then the teaching was not applicable to a individual.

2. The status of the law of talion a eye for an eye. This is interesting as the gentiles were never under the Law of Moses so how could those teachings be stretched to include a largely Gentile audience?

The words in Romans come to mind "When the Gentiles who have not the Law, do the things that are contained in the Law,these, having not the Law, are a Law unto themselves" Rom 2.14

So if the Law of Moses never applied to the Gentiles, then how can the teaching of talion law be applied in either a postive or negative light apply to Gentile Disciples?

Believe me, I am not trying to get in a "verse a thon" on your well written essay, rather I would like your take on this.

[Boston]

padre30,

1)  You missed my point.  I didn't mean that the teachings were not
to be individually implemented, only that "turn the other cheek" was
not construable solely during religious persecution.  (I.e., had He been
preaching only to his 12 disciples, then such a construction would make sense.)

2)  You're assuming a "largely Gentile audience" when this appears not to
have been the case.  Matt. 7:28-29 mentions that the people were surprised
that Jesus taught "not as the scribes" (which implies a Jewish crowd familiar
with the O.T.).

In short, I think Matt. 5:38-39 was primarily directed towards the Jews and
relevant Mosaic law.

Boston