Self Defense - Is it wrong?
- Thread starter DavidLOVESsnow
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
K
There is nothing wrong with being a pacifist, even though I am not one. But I also don't believe that you have the right to shot to kill some one if they are not attempting to kill you.
Example: Just break in your house to steal some thing, or beating you up. Do you have the right to kill them in defending yourself ? ......NO !!!
Plus even though the old testament says Eye for eye, tooth for a tooth, and if man sheds man blood, his blood shall be shed by man. ( Which this is used for defending capital punishment )
However in the new testament it says to forgive, turn the other cheek, and do not repay evil with evil.
Once again like I said it comes down to the measure you use in self defense. Because if you kill some one in self defense when they are not attempting to kill you, then you are in the wrong also.
Example: Just break in your house to steal some thing, or beating you up. Do you have the right to kill them in defending yourself ? ......NO !!!
Plus even though the old testament says Eye for eye, tooth for a tooth, and if man sheds man blood, his blood shall be shed by man. ( Which this is used for defending capital punishment )
However in the new testament it says to forgive, turn the other cheek, and do not repay evil with evil.
Once again like I said it comes down to the measure you use in self defense. Because if you kill some one in self defense when they are not attempting to kill you, then you are in the wrong also.
A
I suppose you have some utility as a human shield if the need ever arises. In the meanwhile, let's put your misinterpretation of Matthew 26 in the correct context.
Jesus (who was sinless with the supernatural power of God) said, "Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and He will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”
Obviously, Jesus was withholding his ability to exercise lethal force to save the righteous from physical death within a specific context to accomplish a specific one-time cosmic changing event.
The proverbial saying repudiates violence in this specific situation while explaining the ultimate consequence of embracing violence and lethal force as a way of life. This does not translate into a prohibition against self-defense or just war.
Jesus (who was sinless with the supernatural power of God) said, "Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and He will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”
Obviously, Jesus was withholding his ability to exercise lethal force to save the righteous from physical death within a specific context to accomplish a specific one-time cosmic changing event.
The proverbial saying repudiates violence in this specific situation while explaining the ultimate consequence of embracing violence and lethal force as a way of life. This does not translate into a prohibition against self-defense or just war.
Luke 22:35-36 (KJV) [SUP]35 [/SUP]And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. [SUP]36 [/SUP]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.
On April 15, Nicholas D. Kristof's column: "Loyal soldier traumatized by horrors of war" overwhelmed me with sadness.
Kristof writes about Mike Yurchison, who suffers from a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury. As for his mental health, he is not hopeful. "In a lot of ways, it's getting worse," he said. The Department of Veterans Affairs rates him 30 percent disabled and pays him a monthly stipend.
Many U.S. military veterans have experienced multiple back-to-back deployments which affected their mental health. The stigma, stress and bureaucracy they face when attempting to access care and support from the Department of Veterans Affairs adds to their sense of futility and despair.
During the Iraq war an untold number of soldiers with PTSD were misdiagnosed with a personality disorder, a pre-existing condition, making them ineligible for military health care and benefits.
I hope the recent law, that protects people with pre-existing conditions from being denied health insurance coverage, applies to the Department of Veterans Affairs. I also hope there is retroactive medical expense and benefit compensation for those who were unjustly deemed ineligible. Veterans traumatized by war deserve more from their country (Your letters) | syracuse.com
As a dog lover, I found the report of post-traumatic stress disorder among “dogs of war” deeply sad. We bring such animals into the violent conflicts of our species on our accord, not theirs.
But as a doctor, I couldn’t help but catch the gleam of a silver lining. All too many of my human patients with mental health problems have been denigrated throughout their lives for issues that are “all in their heads.” I doubt that many would dismiss canine PTSD as a dog’s discretionary self-indulgence.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/opinion/dogs-traumatized-by-war.html?_r=0
Kristof writes about Mike Yurchison, who suffers from a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury. As for his mental health, he is not hopeful. "In a lot of ways, it's getting worse," he said. The Department of Veterans Affairs rates him 30 percent disabled and pays him a monthly stipend.
Many U.S. military veterans have experienced multiple back-to-back deployments which affected their mental health. The stigma, stress and bureaucracy they face when attempting to access care and support from the Department of Veterans Affairs adds to their sense of futility and despair.
During the Iraq war an untold number of soldiers with PTSD were misdiagnosed with a personality disorder, a pre-existing condition, making them ineligible for military health care and benefits.
I hope the recent law, that protects people with pre-existing conditions from being denied health insurance coverage, applies to the Department of Veterans Affairs. I also hope there is retroactive medical expense and benefit compensation for those who were unjustly deemed ineligible. Veterans traumatized by war deserve more from their country (Your letters) | syracuse.com
As a dog lover, I found the report of post-traumatic stress disorder among “dogs of war” deeply sad. We bring such animals into the violent conflicts of our species on our accord, not theirs.
But as a doctor, I couldn’t help but catch the gleam of a silver lining. All too many of my human patients with mental health problems have been denigrated throughout their lives for issues that are “all in their heads.” I doubt that many would dismiss canine PTSD as a dog’s discretionary self-indulgence.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/opinion/dogs-traumatized-by-war.html?_r=0
Yes, but remember the requirements of a just war. It's not just whether a wrong has been committed. It requires a reasonable chance at victory, it must try to stop collateral damage, it must be against a regime and not a people, it must be a last result, and it must be fought to end the wrong, not victory. The war in Europe in the 1940s, mostly meets these requirements, except for Dresden and the fire bombing of Berlin, as did the war in Asia, except for the final acts of the war, such as the nuclear weapons and the fire bombing of Tokyo.
A
How would you have felt 4enlightenment if you and your family were enslaved in a hard work death camp knowing there was no chance that anyone would ever come to rescue you because the righteous in the world had decided to align with your "theology" that God ordained they should not resist evil but rather submit to genocide and hard labor enslavement instead and allow evil to triumph the world over?
And just because wars are fought that shouldn't be and suffering is always incurred with respect to war, that doesn't equate to an invalidation of Just War Theory (e.g. the ethical theory that Christians may legitimately fight in wars, but only when certain conditions are met. Those conditions include the following: the cause must be just; the war must be waged by a legitimate government; the means used must be moral; the war must be a last resort; and there must be a reasonable chance of achieving the goals of the war).
As Augustine points out, war should only be undertaken when necessary and always have as its goal the establishment of justice and the restoration of peace. It must be fought under the authority of the legitimate ruler and be conducted in a just manner.
And just because wars are fought that shouldn't be and suffering is always incurred with respect to war, that doesn't equate to an invalidation of Just War Theory (e.g. the ethical theory that Christians may legitimately fight in wars, but only when certain conditions are met. Those conditions include the following: the cause must be just; the war must be waged by a legitimate government; the means used must be moral; the war must be a last resort; and there must be a reasonable chance of achieving the goals of the war).
As Augustine points out, war should only be undertaken when necessary and always have as its goal the establishment of justice and the restoration of peace. It must be fought under the authority of the legitimate ruler and be conducted in a just manner.
1
We're not to pay back evil with evil.
Is defending yourself evil?
If someone hits you, and you hit them back just to get revenge, then that's evil.
If someone takes your stuff, and you rob them just to get revenge, that's evil.
If you use defense to protect yourself, and others, I really don't see how that can be classified as returning evil for evil, considering that self defense is not intrinsically evil.
Revenge = evil.
Defense does not equal evil.
Unfortunately I think Christians conflate the terms.
Turning the other cheek is about not seeking revenge. It's not about honestly wanting to defend yourself or others.
Let's learn to decipher the difference between revenge=evil, and simple self defense.
Is defending yourself evil?
If someone hits you, and you hit them back just to get revenge, then that's evil.
If someone takes your stuff, and you rob them just to get revenge, that's evil.
If you use defense to protect yourself, and others, I really don't see how that can be classified as returning evil for evil, considering that self defense is not intrinsically evil.
Revenge = evil.
Defense does not equal evil.
Unfortunately I think Christians conflate the terms.
Turning the other cheek is about not seeking revenge. It's not about honestly wanting to defend yourself or others.
Let's learn to decipher the difference between revenge=evil, and simple self defense.
1
If you had a five-year-old daughter, would you tell her to "turn the other cheek" and not inflict pain upon a stronger older man trying to violate her, all as a means of defending her innocence?
Gimme a break. She wouldn't be "returning evil" with evil. Because it's not evil to stop someone from from hurting you that way.
Let's get a less broad definition of evil.
Gimme a break. She wouldn't be "returning evil" with evil. Because it's not evil to stop someone from from hurting you that way.
Let's get a less broad definition of evil.
A
We've fought wars we never should have. That's just as big of a deal as failing in the how. BUT, we've also fought wars that needed to be fought and performed well on those occasions with respect to how we fought them.
We've got two threads going in this discussion: Just War Theory and personal self-defense. I think it's important to remember that though principles correspond to both, they really are different topics in and of themselves.
We've got two threads going in this discussion: Just War Theory and personal self-defense. I think it's important to remember that though principles correspond to both, they really are different topics in and of themselves.
K
That would not be returning evil because he would be trying to hurt her, so she can hurt him back to try to stop him and escape...It does not give the right to kill him though unless that is his intent as well. Which comes to a hard area of discussion because one can easily say how do you know ones intent, which is why it is always better to try to escape or yell for help if you can.
A
This is a good girl: Okla. girl, 12, shot home intruder while hiding in closet, police say - CBS News
Sometimes the bad guys do a lot worse than burglary. A whole lot worse. Sometimes they torture, rape, and murder.
Sometimes the bad guys do a lot worse than burglary. A whole lot worse. Sometimes they torture, rape, and murder.