Contingent Christian pacifism is theologically sound

Thank you, Con."Your body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit. How can we argue that we should be careful to care for our body and yet call it holy to allow others to destroy it except for some specific purpose (Such as Jesus' sacrifice). Jesus didn't permit people to put their hands on Him until it was His time."I have already stated that there is a specific purpose in the non-violence of the church. Violence in response to violence is the established order of the world. To break this established order draws attention and questioning. Books like Foxe's Book of Martyrs and the more recent Jesus Freaks are filled with examples of the persecutors of Christians who became Christians themselves because they were so deeply impressed with the patience and humility that Christians endure their tortures with.There is a clearly defined purpose to contingent pacifism: to glorify God."Brother, you are taking the passages you mentioned out of context. They are discussing Jesus sacrifice on our behalf, not a standard we live by. People ask "Aren't we supposed to act like Jesus?". I answer that by saying it depends on what you mean by that. If we mean in his character and attitude then yes but if we mean his specific acts then no. If you say yes then I'm going to have to insist that you make the blind see and raise the dead."Completely ignoring the fact that the New Testament does indeed teach that Christians are to heal the sick, this argument is a straw man. To not be able to imitate Jesus in every detail of his life does not mean that we should not imitate him in those areas that we can. Also, since it was his "character and attitude" that prompted his actions, we can assume that even Con's highly dubious standards for the imitation of Christ would require us to be pacifists as he was. "I pointed out that it says 'Flee persecution'. The main goal in self defense training is escape not beating the heck out of an attacker. We do what we must to free ourselves from the persons control and no more. I would say this scripture clearly supports that action."Saying that you think it supports that action and not explaining how or why is not a valid argument. To quote from my previous speech, "Being told not to have some sort of masochistic penchant for running into the hands of those who would do Christians harm is not the same as being told that it is permissible to use self-defense." "I find myself very uncomfortable with the suggestion that it is commanded that we cannot defend ourselves. The scripture nowhere teaches that. It is legalistic and abusive to teach that it is a commandment. I also consider it blasphemous. It is putting words in God's mouth."This paragraph is both a ludicrous accusation and as fine an example of begging the question as I have ever seen. I could just as easily accuse you of blasphemy as you have me by saying that the Bible does promote limited pacifism and that you are detracting from God's word. Let's remember that there was theological dispute between the apostles and that they still managed to refrain from accusing each other of being blasphemers, shall we?That aside, whether or not you are comfortable with a certain theology has nothing to do with it being correct or not. Also, to make the bare assertion that the Scriptures nowhere teach pacifism is ridiculous as that is the very topic we are debating."The Bible also says: Ephesians 5:29'for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it,...'We have the right to care for ourselves in a reasonable manner. Letting someone beat us unless it is our appointed time is failing to do that. The Bible no where teaches that we have to take a beating. It only teaches we are not to take revenge. Jesus tells His disciples that He'll be leaving them."Con's vague accusation that I am taking verses out of context is rather ridiculous after reading this paragraph. I fail to see how the fragment of a sentence he pulled from a passage in which Paul is urging husbands to love their wives in an unselfish manner is a refutation of pacifism. Pacifism in the face of adversity is not a failure to properly care for oneself, but rather a sacrifice for spiritual reasons. One might as well say that fasting is unbiblical if this is their reason for rejecting pacifism. Following this terrible example of eisegesis, Con goes on to make a few more bare assertions in this paragraph."That now they would be facing hard times and have to care for themselves more than they did when He was walking physically with them. He warned them by saying in: Luke 22:36' He said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don"t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.'"It is worth quoting Ben Witherington at length on this issue. What about the famous text in Lk. 22.36-38 where Jesus seems to advise the disciples to go out and obtain a weapon? Again context is king here. Remember this is the same Jesus who: 1) advised that those who live by the sword will die by the sword and 2) who immediately put a stop to Peter’s violence against the high priest’s slave, and indeed reversed it’s effects by healing the man’s ear. So what is the meaning of this little story, taking into account the larger context of Jesus’ teaching? Vs. 37 is the key where Jesus quotes Is. 53.12—“he was numbered with the transgressors”. Jesus is saying to the disciples—you must fulfill your role as transgressors of what I have taught you!!! They must play the part of those who do exactly the opposite of what Jesus taught them in the Sermon on the Mount. The disciples become transgressors by seeking out weapons and then seeking to use them. This much is perfectly clear from the context for the disciples then go on to say “look Lord here is two swords”. They already have such weapons and Jesus responds in disgust to the fact that they are already transgressing his principles of non-violence by responding “that’s enough” (of this nonsense). Clearly, Jesus knew that two swords would not be enough to hold off a Roman legion, so we must take his response as highly ironic not as straight forward. Either he says ironically “oh that will be plenty”, or more likely as I have suggested, he means “that will be enough” of this foolishness. Either way, there is absolutely no endorsement here by Jesus of his followers using weapons. Carrying weapons makes them fulfill the role of transgressors, as the citation of Is. 53.12 makes evident.[1]I would like to question Con as to why he believes that two swords were "enough" for twelve men being sent out in pairs of two? Exactly how does that work? A much more believable interpretation of this passage is that Jesus is either commissioning the disciples to fulfill Isaiah 53:12 or that he is simply warning that hard times are coming in a fanciful way, which they take literally, prompting him to reply in annoyance with, "It is enough!""Finally let's think about the practicalities of what you are saying Brother. If a woman is being raped does she have the right to defend herself? If yes then why does she enjoy more rights than a man as a human being. The Bible certainly doesn't support that view. If no, how do you explain that to rape victims? [...]"Ignoring your implied assertion that all victims of rape are women, I do actually believe that a woman has the right to defend herself from rape. To willingly submit to rape is to submit to a form of sexual immorality (Deuteronomy 22:24; after all, is it even rape if it is voluntary?). It falls outside the bounds of the question of self-defense.ConclusionCon has failed to properly respond to my contention that Christians are to emulate the Prince of Peace.Sources1. http://benwitherington.blogspot.com...