Defense

[ph33r]

Is deadly force for self defense or defense of others bibical? Why or why not?
Btw I think it is and have no qualms expediating the life of someone who would threaten my family or any other defenseless person.

[AngelAuthor]

Is it Biblical in what sense? The use of deadly force in self-defense is all over the Bible, but it's not specifically promoted. That doesn't mean much because neither is electricity.

Not using force (deadly if appropriate and required) in the defense of your own family would seem to me, especially for a man to be a bigger shirking of your Christian duty than killing someone to save them. The Bible says that the man who does not provide for his own family is worse than an infidel. Getting out, getting a job, providing a home, food, clothing, shelter and PROTECTION all fall under that.

The man who would pay for his wife and kids to live in a home and eat, but then just stand by while someone walked in and murdered them is no man at all, and all that he had worked for to provide for them is in vain.

[ph33r]

I agree with you completly, while I don't think we should go out looking for fights I think self defense is a Christian solution. I am running into a increasing number of christians who believe we should just stand and turn the other cheek and be non-violent no matter what. I wonder if it is because I live in Seattle which is extremely liberal.

[ChristianKnight]

I am kinda lost, are you meaning:

Would killing someone that is trying to kill you be wrong? Well, I'd say a big fat NO. I think every person should defend their family, and if neccessary others, even if it means death.

[ph33r]

I agree but I run into allot of Christians who think otherwise. Just go post this on the bible chat or Christian answers and you will get people who think violence is a no no even though in the old testament God approved genocide.

[ChristianKnight]

I agree but I run into allot of Christians who think otherwise. Just go post this on the bible chat or Christian answers and you will get people who think violence is a no no even though in the old testament God approved genocide.

Everyone has their opinoin.

[ph33r]

Everyone has their opinoin.

But which opinion is right?

[nato]

I agree with the majority opinion stated. I got into a rather heated discussion with a friend of mine over this issue recently. The argument, of course, is whether Jesus would approve of violence. I don't think that He was arguing with God the Father when the walls came tumbling down.

[ph33r]

People tend to forget Jesus will return wielding a sword and killing millions.

[Lefty]

I agree with you completly, while I don't think we should go out looking for fights I think self defense is a Christian solution. I am running into a increasing number of christians who believe we should just stand and turn the other cheek and be non-violent no matter what. I wonder if it is because I live in Seattle which is extremely liberal.

I'll tackle the "turn the other cheek" passage in Mt. 5:38 because that gets twisted around;
As I understand it the "if someone strikes you on the right cheek turn to him the other also" explains a situation in which someone is being publicly insulted by a backhanded slap to the face, which supposedly was a public insult to the personal dignity of a Jew that the hearers at the sermon on the mount understood, and Jesus is just telling them here that this is a way we show that we hold God's honor above man's honor. This passage isn't about someone's life being threatened, it's about showing contempt for the value of other's opinions over God's.

Here in MI we have a self defense law that allows deadly force to defend against an imminent threat to life, great bodily harm or sexual assault with no duty to retreat. That sounds sane to me. What are you gonna do, die or watch someone die? So I agree with you, plus, I've never read anywhere in the Bible where this kind of self defense was judged wrong by God.

[Slug1]

Also something to look at... if it was wrong (a sin) for a Christian to defend themselves but yet when an intruder is in their house and they call 911 and the cops come to defend this Christian homeowner, what does this Christian homeowner expect them to do if it's a sin to defend yourself?

Let them do the sin of possibly killing an intruder?

:rolleyes:

1 Timothy 5:22 Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure.

If it's a sin to kill in the defense of oneself then it's a sin for someone else to kill in your defense. Now that doesn't make much sense now does it especially when the most classic 911 call put out in the Bible was when Paul called for help while he planned to travel to Caesarea and he knew there was an ambush waiting for him that planned to kill him. We can read all about this in Acts 23.

Those soldiers (law enforcement also back then) sure would have put a hurting on those assassins if the ambush was executed when Paul and his armed escort rode on by.

So yeah, turn the other cheek when your pride is hurt... but pull the trigger before an attacker is about to kill you. It's a little quicker then calling 911 in the heat of battle.

[ChristianKnight]

But which opinion is right?

I am pretty sure none are really right, that is why their called opinoins isn't it? I am pretty sure I remembered that from English cause me and a teacher got into a argument, but that was about everyday :lol:

[Biastai]

Its hard to overlook the realistic element of this problem. When theatened in this way, you will be making this decision in a split-second. I'd imagine if any threat of this nature involved my wife or baby daughter (well...I'm expecting a baby daughter in a couple months), my thoughts would only be on disabling the other man in a definitive and prompt manner. This might involve destroying a limb or inadvertently taking a life. I don't believe I would hold any regrets.

[HisLeast]

EXODUS 22:2 - If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed.

Deuteronomy 22:25-27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
(what happens if someone DOES come to rescue her)

[Midyrvette]

Also something to look at... if it was wrong (a sin) for a Christian to defend themselves but yet when an intruder is in their house and they call 911 and the cops come to defend this Christian homeowner, what does this Christian homeowner expect them to do if it's a sin to defend yourself?

Let them do the sin of possibly killing an intruder?

:rolleyes:

1 Timothy 5:22 Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure.

If it's a sin to kill in the defense of oneself then it's a sin for someone else to kill in your defense. Now that doesn't make much sense now does it especially when the most classic 911 call put out in the Bible was when Paul called for help while he planned to travel to Caesarea and he knew there was an ambush waiting for him that planned to kill him. We can read all about this in Acts 23.

Those soldiers (law enforcement also back then) sure would have put a hurting on those assassins if the ambush was executed when Paul and his armed escort rode on by.

So yeah, turn the other cheek when your pride is hurt... but pull the trigger before an attacker is about to kill you. It's a little quicker then calling 911 in the heat of battle.

Agreed, but I don't use deadly force, I have baseball bats stratigically placed and an exit plan incase someone breaks in.

[Slug1]

Agreed, but I don't use deadly force, I have baseball bats stratigically placed and an exit plan incase someone breaks in.As long as a criminal doesn't bring a pistol to your ballgame you should be fine ;)... steal home out that escape path.

[Midyrvette]

As long as a criminal doesn't bring a pistol to your ballgame you should be fine ;)... steal home out that escape path.

You're right about that. If he was armed I would have to go for the escape plan. I do have a Beeman pellet rifle that could pass as a .22, espcecially in the dark, and it could break the skin if I fired it as some unfortunate burgular.:)

[Slug1]

You're right about that. If he was armed I would have to go for the escape plan. I do have a Beeman pellet rifle that could pass as a .22, espcecially in the dark, and it could break the skin if I fired it as some unfortunate burgular.:)In battle I've seen enemy shot three times and keep coming... use your escape plan.

[Warrior4God]

I've seen plenty of places in the Bible where God allowed the use of deadly force. God isn't a God that enjoys seeing people die, and as a general rule He does not want people killing each other, but He does allow it to be done where necessary. Yes, God is the giver and taker of life, but He also has given mankind the permission to take life at various times. Any person that doesn't use deadly force when called for to protect one's self, and especially their family, is a fool and a coward. Period. Any man that just stands by and watches his wife and children be murdered in a misguided effort to "turn the other cheek" and so that he "shall not murder" is pathetic. I would die trying to protect my family if I had to.

[Slug1]

is a fool and a coward. Period. Any man that just stands by and watches his wife and children be murdered in a misguided effort to "turn the other cheek" and so that he "shall not murder" is pathetic. Misguided yes, foolish/coward... sure, but pathetic, No. A person bound by the spirit of religion and/or legalism isn't pathetic. Just in a position where satan has authority over them to the point such a person bound by these spirits would actually let others die, or even themselves die when in a position to save another or themselves.

Again, such a person would turn their cheek while calling the police so they can come and save them with a chance that leathal force may be necessary and such a bound Christian see's nothing wrong with another killing in their defense... doesn't make sense but then to those bound... don't see this as these spirits blind them.

Or worse they turn their cheek and die for nothing and satan laughs as another person that God could have used is gone and the blessing this person would have enjoyed or purpose that this person would have been used for by God, once delivered from those 2 spirits has been stolen by satan.

There is no Glory in dying needlessly while turning your cheek for a wrong reason.

Now, if your purpose for God is say... that of a missionary and you find yourself in a position where the enemy has sent someone to kill you "because" of the work you do leading people to Jesus Christ... then sacrifice is easy and such a death God will "use" to bring glory to Himself. Such deaths show people how a person believed so strongly that they would die for their belief in Jesus... many more would also put faith in Jesus as well.

I can talk about dying for a purpose cause I was used as a soldier (not a missionary obviously) by God for over 21 years in the US Army Infanty and I still am used to minister to soldiers now that I'm retired. To die in this capacity was always in the back of my mind and God ministered to me and the thought that I may die in battle never bothered me. It actually enabled me and strengthened me to know that I served this purpose for God and I was very effective on a battlefield as I led my troops in firefights and faught the enemy myself.

Turn the other cheek... I'd be ineffective and God would not be able to use me as a servant.

[HisLeast]

If it came to fisticuffs in my own home, I wouldn't be hitting to hurt.

[Warrior4God]

If it came to fisticuffs in my own home, I wouldn't be hitting to hurt.

Amen! If somebody breaks into my home, points a gun at me, and I'm able to wrestle it away, they're dead. Game over. No do-overs. End of story. They get to meet their Maker, and I'll leave the judging of that person to God. I'm legally and morally entitled to take their life in an effort to save mine and/or my family. Would I enjoy what I did? Nope. Do I think God would be dancing around with excitement and saying, "That was awesome, Aaron! That was so cool how you blew that guy away!" Nope. Would I regret it? Nope. I, and possibly my family, get to live, and I believe God would know why I did it and wouldn't use it against me in judgment. The person that should be feeling regret is the one that was unfortunate enough to have pointed a gun at me and now has to stand before God in eternity. That's how I see things.

[parker]

I am one of those bleeding heart Christians who believe in nonviolence. No killing. No war. No violence. Peace, like Jesus taught and lived. And I am aware that the vast majority of Christians reject nonviolence, not only because of confusion about its biblical foundations, but also because there are just too many situations where they cannot imagine it working. I have also found that many believers argue violently against nonviolence and actually seem disturbed and uncomfortable that anyone would commit to it. But I believe it is the only way.

[Slug1]

I am one of those bleeding heart Christians who believe in nonviolence. No killing. No war. No violence. Peace, like Jesus taught and lived.Since the beginning, for only the three years of His ministry, or how He'll be when He returns?

He's taught us He's a warrior if you take the Bible all in context.


many believers argue violently against nonviolence and actually seem disturbed and uncomfortable that anyone would commit to it.
I'd bet many of these are the ones who would call a cop to help them and figure as long as it's not them doing the violence and it's that cop they called, then all is good :rolleyes:

[Buck shot]

I am one of those bleeding heart Christians who believe in nonviolence. No killing. No war. No violence. Peace, like Jesus taught and lived. And I am aware that the vast majority of Christians reject nonviolence, not only because of confusion about its biblical foundations, but also because there are just too many situations where they cannot imagine it working. I have also found that many believers argue violently against nonviolence and actually seem disturbed and uncomfortable that anyone would commit to it. But I believe it is the only way.

I hope you never have to see the violence that can come about by drug addicts wanting to kill you or your family for whatever little bit of cash you may have in your wallet.

Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

This does not sound like the passive Jesus you are thinking of.



As far as just wounding someone who is wanting to do you harm, be ready for him to sue you. I think it would be better to just finish it, if it is at that point. Not that it would be easy to live with killing someone for any reason, but it would be harder to live with fighting them in court to defent your right to defend yourself :B

I carry daily, hopefully i'll never have to use it.

I would rather have the tool and not need it than need it and not have it :(

[parker]

I hope you never have to see the violence that can come about by drug addicts wanting to kill you or your family for whatever little bit of cash you may have in your wallet.

Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

This does not sound like the passive Jesus you are thinking of.



As far as just wounding someone who is wanting to do you harm, be ready for him to sue you. I think it would be better to just finish it, if it is at that point. Not that it would be easy to live with killing someone for any reason, but it would be harder to live with fighting them in court to defent your right to defend yourself :B

I carry daily, hopefully i'll never have to use it.

I would rather have the tool and not need it than need it and not have it :(Both of us can agree to disagree, I hope. After being a member of BibleForums (if only for a short time) I am beginning to see the interpretation of Scripture on many of these threads a bit like the 9/11 Conspiracy discussions: Bush did it, yeah but what about the physcis, yeah but this architect says, yeah but the government did this 20 years ago, etc.

I could pull out quotations and historical evidence from Jesus himself to bolster my ideas, as can you. At the end, we both have to trust our own particular interpretation, even though we both may agree to the meaning underlying all of the verses and books in the Bible.

If you have particular, specific questions about Jesus, the Bible and nonviolence and about how I apply them to my own life, then PM me. I have found that this approach is more useful because we are both focused on the problem and the questions rather than each other. And sometimes when I feel attacked by those in the open forum, I have a tendency to be "flip" or superficial and my intent and message get muddled.

I guess I am saying that as Christians we can agree to disagree at this point.;)

[Buck shot]

I guess I am saying that as Christians we can agree to disagree at this point.;)

I agree, we can disagree :hug:

Great responce with brother love Parker!

[Biastai]

I agree nonviolence should be one's #1 preferred option in any of these situations. Disabling the threat is the main objective, so if that can be accomplished by safely fleeing with your loved ones, one should take that route whenever available. In my post, I meant to refer to violent defense as a last resort if all other safer alternatives are not feasible. So if one attacks the offender when he was able to flee, its not only unnecessarily violent but the more unnecessarily risky choice was taken as well.

[Ixthus]

I believe that it depends on the situation. If someone just slapped you across the face without the intent of killing you I believe that you could turn the other cheek. But if he started to violently beat you then thats a time when you have to protect yourself.

[parker]

I offer the quote below as clarification. I am not trying to set myself up as superior to anyone--only to explain my belief as to what I think Christian nonviolence is and is not.
My intention is to explain myself--not to excuse myself--and not to sow discord.



Turn the Other Cheek
"If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also." Why the right cheek? A blow by the right fist in that right-handed world would land on the left cheek of the opponent. An open-handed slap would also strike the left cheek. To hit the right cheek with a fist would require using the left hand, but in that society the left hand was used only for unclean tasks. Even to gesture with the left hand at Qumran (the ancient Hebrew community of the Dead Sea Scrolls) carried the penalty of ten days' penance. The only way one could naturally strike the right cheek with the right hand would be with the back of the hand. We are dealing here with insult, not a fistfight. The intention is clearly not to injure but to humiliate, to put someone in his or her place. One normally did not strike a peer thus, and if one did the fine was exorbitant. The Mishnaic tractate Baba Qamma specifies the various fines for striking an equal: for slugging with a fist, 4 zuz (a zuz was a day's wage); for slapping, 200 zuz; but "if [he struck him] with the back of his hand he must pay him 400 zuz." But damages for indignity were not paid to slaves who are struck (8:1-7).
A backhand slap was the usual way of admonishing inferiors. Masters backhanded slaves; husbands, wives; parents, children; men, women; Romans, Jews. We have here a set of unequal relations, in each of which retaliation would be suicidal. The only normal response would be cowering submission.
Part of the confusion surrounding these sayings arises from the failure to ask who Jesus' audience was. In all three of the examples in Matt. 5:39b-41, Jesus' listeners are not those who strike, initiate lawsuits, or impose forced labor, but their victims ("If anyone strikes you...wants to sue you...forces you to go one mile..."). There are among his hearers people who were subjected to these very indignities, forced to stifle outrage at their dehumanizing treatment by the hierarchical system of caste and class, race and gender, age and status, and as a result of imperial occupation.
Why then does he counsel these already humiliated people to turn the other cheek? Because this action robs the oppressor of the power to humiliate. The person who turns the other cheek is saying, in effect, "Try again. Your first blow failed to achieve its intended effect. I deny you the power to humiliate me. I am a human being just like you. Your status does not alter that fact. You cannot demean me."
Such a response would create enormous difficulties for the striker. Purely logistically, how would he hit the other cheek now turned to him? He cannot backhand it with his right hand (one only need try this to see the problem). If he hits with a fist, he makes the other his equal, acknowledging him as a peer. But the point of the back of the hand is to reinforce institutionalized inequality. Even if the superior orders the person flogged for such "cheeky" behavior (this is certainly no way to avoid conflict!), the point has been irrevocably made. He has been given notice that this underling is in fact a human being. In that world of honor and shaming, he has been rendered impotent to instill shame in a subordinate. He has been stripped of his power to dehumanize the other. As Gandhi taught, "The first principle of nonviolent action is that of noncooperation with everything humiliating."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_3_29/ai_n11838798

[Denny606]

Brother Parker while you may believe in non violence and that is your undeniable right. In today's society of people who are bent on getting what they want no matter who it hurts it is a noble yet naive in my opinion,position to take.I don't care to die and I fear no man who can kill this fleshly body of mine because if Heaven is all they have to threaten me with,I don't care.But if and it is a big if here, someone is trying to kill someone around me or my family that I don't know the case between and God and my loved one. I will defend them and me along with them if that be the case. I am armed and armed for a reason,not for senseless killing but to defend the defenseless.I harbor no animosity toward my fellow man whatsoever,Buy I don't trust criminals sense of right and wrong or what is fair and what is not.I admire you for thinking so much about this and I would not Say you are wrong ,I just pray you and your family never have to face any real danger.God Bless and I can agree to disagree with you and still Love you,Denny

[HisLeast]

Question: Had the Samaritan witnessed the man being attacked, would he have kept moving on?

[Warrior4God]

Question: Had the Samaritan witnessed the man being attacked, would he have kept moving on?

Not if he had any guts and compassion for the man being attacked. However, some people probably believe he should've asked the assailant nicely to please stop beating his victim. Maybe he should've told the beaten man to just turn the other cheek and let the other side get a good thrashing to even it out. :rolleyes: