Jazman wrote: ↑Wed Aug 13, 2025 12:55 pm
I'm a flawed interpreter, but when I read the Bible, I see the perpetrator generally getting the worst of the reaping they sow... It also seems to suggest that people will receive different 'rewards' at the judgement based on what they did. (Romans 2:6, 2 Cor 5:10, Rev 20:12-13) Therefore, I believe it's ok / Biblical, to say the perpetrator is morally worse than the victim (regardless of what the victim then chooses to do in response).
Do you really truly mean the part in parenthesis?
This kind of reasoning not only justifies self defense but also revenge - violence for violence is not God's way. God says vengeance is His, not ours.
Using that kind of reasoning, the Germans can be excused for their part in WW2, because they were simply responding to the humiliating, economically disastrous conditions forced upon Germany in the Treaty of Versailles.
Jazman wrote: ↑Wed Aug 13, 2025 12:55 pm
I'm a flawed interpreter, but when I read the Bible, I see the perpetrator generally getting the worst of the reaping they sow... It also seems to suggest that people will receive different 'rewards' at the judgement based on what they did. (Romans 2:6, 2 Cor 5:10, Rev 20:12-13) Therefore, I believe it's ok / Biblical, to say the perpetrator is morally worse than the victim (regardless of what the victim then chooses to do in response).
Do you really truly mean the part in parenthesis?
This kind of reasoning not only justifies self defense but also revenge - violence for violence is not God's way. God says vengeance is His, not ours.
Using that kind of reasoning, the Germans can be excused for their part in WW2, because they were simply responding to the humiliating, economically disastrous conditions forced upon Germany in the Treaty of Versailles.
I think that’s a false leap.
Even for Caesar, self-defense isn’t “do whatever you want because you feel hurt.” Self-defense is not vengeance. Self-defense is about stopping an unjust, imminent attack with the least force necessary, and it ends when the threat ends. That’s very different from revenge.
The Germany/Versailles example doesn’t fit: grievance ≠ imminent attack; launching invasions is aggression, not defense. So yes, calling the perpetrator morally worse doesn’t license retaliatory violence. It names the first wrong while still binding the victim’s response to love, restraint, and protection of the innocent.
0 x
1. Are we discussing the topic? Good.
2. Are we going around and around in a fight? Let's stop doing that.
3. Is there some serious wrongdoing or relational injury? Let's address that, probably not in public and certainly not for show.
Jazman wrote: ↑Wed Aug 13, 2025 12:55 pm
I'm a flawed interpreter, but when I read the Bible, I see the perpetrator generally getting the worst of the reaping they sow... It also seems to suggest that people will receive different 'rewards' at the judgement based on what they did. (Romans 2:6, 2 Cor 5:10, Rev 20:12-13) Therefore, I believe it's ok / Biblical, to say the perpetrator is morally worse than the victim (regardless of what the victim then chooses to do in response).
Do you really truly mean the part in parenthesis?
This kind of reasoning not only justifies self defense but also revenge - violence for violence is not God's way. God says vengeance is His, not ours.
Using that kind of reasoning, the Germans can be excused for their part in WW2, because they were simply responding to the humiliating, economically disastrous conditions forced upon Germany in the Treaty of Versailles.
That is the same justification used by a killer who walks into his workplace with an AR-15 and shoots everyone in sight because he got fired the week before.
Grievances don't justify violence and revenge is not the same thing as self-defense.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Ken wrote: ↑Thu Aug 14, 2025 10:42 am
That is the same justification used by a killer who walks into his workplace with an AR-15 and shoots everyone in sight because he got fired the week before.
Grievances don't justify violence and revenge is not the same thing as self-defense.
On the other hand, Caesar may have the responsibility to stop that killer to save lives.
The two cases are not the same.
0 x
1. Are we discussing the topic? Good.
2. Are we going around and around in a fight? Let's stop doing that.
3. Is there some serious wrongdoing or relational injury? Let's address that, probably not in public and certainly not for show.
Bootstrap wrote: ↑Thu Aug 14, 2025 10:34 am
I think that’s a false leap.
Even for Caesar, self-defense isn’t “do whatever you want because you feel hurt.” Self-defense is not vengeance. Self-defense is about stopping an unjust, imminent attack with the least force necessary, and it ends when the threat ends. That’s very different from revenge.
Bootstrap wrote: ↑Thu Aug 14, 2025 10:34 am
I think that’s a false leap.
Even for Caesar, self-defense isn’t “do whatever you want because you feel hurt.” Self-defense is not vengeance. Self-defense is about stopping an unjust, imminent attack with the least force necessary, and it ends when the threat ends. That’s very different from revenge.
No military operates this way.
Even the police rarely operate this way.
But surely it's easy to tell the difference between:
1. Defending against a military invasion, and
2. Invading another country out of some sense of victimhood.
It feels like people are clouding that issue. Some things really are obvious and easy ...
0 x
1. Are we discussing the topic? Good.
2. Are we going around and around in a fight? Let's stop doing that.
3. Is there some serious wrongdoing or relational injury? Let's address that, probably not in public and certainly not for show.
Bootstrap wrote: ↑Thu Aug 14, 2025 10:34 am
I think that’s a false leap.
Even for Caesar, self-defense isn’t “do whatever you want because you feel hurt.” Self-defense is not vengeance. Self-defense is about stopping an unjust, imminent attack with the least force necessary, and it ends when the threat ends. That’s very different from revenge.
No military operates this way.
Even the police rarely operate this way.
But surely it's easy to tell the difference between:
1. Defending against a military invasion, and
2. Invading another country out of some sense of victimhood.
It feels like people are clouding that issue. Some things really are obvious and easy ...
If Country A invades Country B in response to Country B invading Country A - is that defending against a military invasion or is it invading another country out of a sense of victimhood? Is a military invasion of a country particularly more immoral than demanding huge amounts of money from another country and utilizing economic levers to make sure that country has no alternative except to pay?
But surely it's easy to tell the difference between:
1. Defending against a military invasion, and
2. Invading another country out of some sense of victimhood.
It feels like people are clouding that issue. Some things really are obvious and easy ...
If Country A invades Country B in response to Country B invading Country A - is that defending against a military invasion or is it invading another country out of a sense of victimhood? Is a military invasion of a country particularly more immoral than demanding huge amounts of money from another country and utilizing economic levers to make sure that country has no alternative except to pay?
I'm not saying there are no scenarios where it is unclear.
But there are certainly scenarios where it is. Hamas attacked Israel on October 7th. Russia attacked Ukraine, it was not the other way around. There seems to be an attempt to make clear things cloudy here.
0 x
1. Are we discussing the topic? Good.
2. Are we going around and around in a fight? Let's stop doing that.
3. Is there some serious wrongdoing or relational injury? Let's address that, probably not in public and certainly not for show.
But surely it's easy to tell the difference between:
1. Defending against a military invasion, and
2. Invading another country out of some sense of victimhood.
It feels like people are clouding that issue. Some things really are obvious and easy ...
If Country A invades Country B in response to Country B invading Country A - is that defending against a military invasion or is it invading another country out of a sense of victimhood? Is a military invasion of a country particularly more immoral than demanding huge amounts of money from another country and utilizing economic levers to make sure that country has no alternative except to pay?
I'm not saying there are no scenarios where it is unclear.
But there are certainly scenarios where it is. Hamas attacked Israel on October 7th. Russia attacked Ukraine, it was not the other way around. There seems to be an attempt to make clear things cloudy here.
Just like Japan attacked America. There was no nuance behind it.
It’s an overly simplistic view of war that ignores substantially more context in view of making a simple binary, good or bad idealistic view.
I don’t think we should be involved in making these decisions at all and I think as stated multiple times this is one of the differences between conservative Anabaptists and not.
But surely it's easy to tell the difference between:
1. Defending against a military invasion, and
2. Invading another country out of some sense of victimhood.
It feels like people are clouding that issue. Some things really are obvious and easy ...
If Country A invades Country B in response to Country B invading Country A - is that defending against a military invasion or is it invading another country out of a sense of victimhood? Is a military invasion of a country particularly more immoral than demanding huge amounts of money from another country and utilizing economic levers to make sure that country has no alternative except to pay?
I'm not saying there are no scenarios where it is unclear.
But there are certainly scenarios where it is. Hamas attacked Israel on October 7th. Russia attacked Ukraine, it was not the other way around. There seems to be an attempt to make clear things cloudy here.
What clear thing are you talking about? Who do you think is trying to make it cloudy, and in what way?
It feels to me like rather than wrestling with the inherent difficulties and contradictions of your chosen world view, you would rather hand-wave away all objections and all nuances and pretend they don't exist. I don't that's good faith discussion.