Persecution

[Godzilla1985]

I have known and met many people that have faced Persecution for various reasons, and I have been persecuted for being Christian, but no where near the extent of what they have faced.  

We are entering a time when Christians are facing more Persecution than ever.  Watchdog groups may keep count of the acts of violence, human rights violations, what groups, nations and governments are doing to Christians, we must not learn hate.  We must remember to love those that persecute us and pray for them and never take retaliation.  

The purpose of this is, THEIR soul.  We know where we are going when we die, especially if it's by the hands of the persecutor.  They aren't going to the same place, that is the saddest part of all and exactly why they need our prayers and love.

The Flip Side to Persecution is Christians weak in their walk with the Lord may be willing to comprise their beliefs to save face.  Which it turns out, that person is lying to whomever, and their selves.    

[JudgeNot]

Hi 'Zilla,

...and never take retaliation.

 
That's a hard pill to swallow.  Retaliation is sometimes necessary to protect ourselves, our families, our communities and our Christian ideals.  I don't believe God intends for us to turn belly-up to the sword.

But you are right on about loving an praying.  We can and should pray for our enemies - even as we are retaliating against their transgressions.

[Soldier4Christ]

I think?? that what Godzilla is saying that we are not to take revenge. The word retaliation is usually used in reagards to taking revenge. To take actions to protect ourselves and bring about peace is not necessarily an act of revenge.

[2nd Timothy]

Theres no question that it would take the Grace of God in certain situations for me not to want to retaliate.   And really I believe that is the key.  Its hard to say how we would react to any given situation.  Its human nature to strike back, and we all know the struggles of our own humanity.   Even Peter took up the sword and chopped off the soldiers ear....(I'm sure he was really aiming for his head though   )    

For us to respond in the way Jesus would have us respond, I think comes down to His measure of Grace at that moment, and us being ever mindful and yielding to the Holy Spirit who abides in us.

[Soldier4Christ]

A very good point 2T. Was Peters actions those of revenge or those of defense?

[2nd Timothy]

A very good point 2T. Was Peters actions those of revenge or those of defense?

Hmmm....I would say defense.   BTW, I was wrong before, John says it was the high priest's slave Malchus who Peter struck, not a Soldier

[Soldier4Christ]

A very good point 2T. Was Peters actions those of revenge or those of defense?

Hmmm....I would say defense.   BTW, I was wrong before, John says it was the high priest's slave Malchus who Peter struck, not a Soldier

Ooopps. I should have caught that one, too. It got right by me.

[2nd Timothy]

Now that I think about it more, why would Peter even be wearing sword....could it have been for defense purpose?  Pretty odd for fisherman huh...lol?

[Soldier4Christ]

He was wearing the sword because Jesus had told them that were with Him to purchase one. Was it so that they were not all taken with Jesus (defense)? Or was it so that Jesus could heal the ear of the servant and allow the word of this miracle to return to the people that sent Malchus so they would know who He was?

[2nd Timothy]

You know, I've read this many times but this is a point I had never really stopped to think about in this light.

A few commentaries state that it was common for Galileans to carry swords for defense due to thieves animals etc, but none of them give a reference to follow.  

Hmmm

[Soldier4Christ]

It is in Luke 22:36, 37 that tells where Jesus told them to purchase the swords just prior to going to the mount of Olives. One other thought here ... Perhaps Jesus was showing that the Lamb went to the Slaughter willingly without a fight to prove that He willingly went to the cross for us.

[JudgeNot]

I think?? that what Godzilla is saying that we are not to take revenge. The word retaliation is usually used in reagards to taking revenge. To take actions to protect ourselves and bring about peace is not necessarily an act of revenge.

Of course you're right PR - I guess I was thinking if someone killed my mother I'd go after them before they had time to kill my father.  The war on terror is retaliation - in a defensive sense.  To me revenge and retaliation are different - at least a little...
Revenge is selfish.
Retaliation is putting an issue to rest so it won't happen again.

[2nd Timothy]

I like this discussion guys.   I looked up the following and find the definitions interesting.

Retaliate
transitive senses : to repay (as an injury) in kind
intransitive senses : to return like for like; especially : to get revenge

Revenge
1 : to avenge (as oneself) usually by retaliating in kind or degree
2 : to inflict injury in return for <revenge an insult>

Defend
1 a : to drive danger or attack away from b (1) : to maintain or support in the face of argument or hostile criticism (2) : to prove (as a doctoral thesis) valid by answering questions in an oral exam c : to attempt to prevent an opponent from scoring at <elects to defend the south goal>
2 archaic : PREVENT, FORBID
3 : to act as attorney for
4 : to deny or oppose the right of a plaintiff in regard to (a suit or a wrong charged) : CONTEST
5 : to seek to retain (as a title or position) against a challenge in a contest
intransitive senses
1 : to take action against attack or challenge <couldn't fight back, could only defend>
2 : to play or be on defense <playing deep to defend against a pass>
3 : to play against the high bidder in a card game

I have never really considered the exact definition of these terms.   Do these change the way we are using them at all?

[JudgeNot]

You got me, 2ndT.
I guess me an Meriam Webster (or maybe 'American Heritage') need to be a little closer to one another!  

'Zilla - I beg your understanding of my sometimes lacking knowledge of the language I try to call my own.
 

Does this mean we shouldn't whup-up on terrorists???  

God bless!
JN

[2nd Timothy]

Does this mean we shouldn't whup-up on terrorists???  

As a nation, definitely not!  lol   Scripture clearly states that God uses governments as a channel for His justice and vengance.  As individual believers, I'm not sure.   I think that goes back to the moment I was talking about in my first reply.   I still think it comes down to the situation, and level of Grace we are willing to allow Christ to display through us.   If a gunman walked through my front door this evening, my first reaction would most certainly be a defensive one, however, should my reaction as a believer be one for myself, or one for Him?   BTW, I'm not arguing here, just stating my uncertanty about what I would do if push came to shove.

Defense is obviously necessary....but as Christians, where should we draw the line?