Contingent Christian pacifism is theologically sound

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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." Some have attempted to escape the plain meaning of the text here by saying that the word sword doesn't really mean sword but is a reference to a utensil used for everyday things like eating. This interpretation fails for anyone who cares to take the time to study the Greek. The same Greek word for sword is used in this passage: Luke 22:52 "Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, "Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs?" Clearly it cannot be argued that the Greek word for sword used at the Last Supper can only mean a utensil. The passage seems to indicate that Jesus had more than a utensil for practical uses in mind because a persons cloak would be more important to his survival than a utensil for eating and cutting things. Arid environments can be very cold at night and a cloak was used as a blanket. 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? How do you justify that view to any human being who asks about such a teaching. That you believe that a person has the ability to violate another person in such an extreme way, but that person isn't allowed to fight back in order to stop that person. If you think that's OK to fight back, then why are mens bodies any less valuable?Why do we have to accept abuse and violence and aren't allowed to stop it but women are?