Philosophy behind self-defense/guns etc.

[-terry]

Dr. Dickie,
That is what Plato said. He believed that to know the good was automatically to do it. Evil only exists because some people don't know the good.

Roscoe,
So the pacificists would claim, as the sig line says, that "A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to one with a dead rapist at her feet.", right?

 

[RPCVYemen]

The "kill" would more properly be translated as "murder" as far as modern English usage is concerned and, in fact, many modern translations of the Bible generally use "murder" in this passage. Check it out in a modern language translation of the Bible or--better yet--with someone who knows Hebrew.

Here is a discussion of the topic from people that know Hebrew (BTW, Artscoll is a publishing house pretty closely associated with Orthodox Judaism) - arguring about the proper translation:

As I remember it, Rabbi Bidderman explained that the staff at ArtScroll
had met on this subject of how to translate the word "tirtzach" (murder
according to most translations). The reason they rejected the "murder"
translation is because it is not 100% accurate. The example he brought
up was when someone kills someone accidentally it is NOT murder but yet
it is still forbidden under the commandment "Lo Tirtzach". Since this
type of accidental killing is also forbidden and since it is not murder
per se, ArtScroll decided that it was better to stick to a more
encompassing translation like "kill" rather than a very specific one
like "murder" which does not include the concept of accidental killing
according to my semantic understanding of the word.

Personally, I have always felt that the best translation for "Lo
Tirtzach" (You shall not ...) is -You shall not shed innocent blood-.
Although somewhat wordy, I feel that this seems to cover all bases as it
were.

I am not sure that I like "Do not shed innocent blood" - if the writer(s) of the Torah had wanted to say "innocent blood", they could have said "innocent blood".

In general, I think that the Torah accepts/endorses the notion of self defense. But that doesn't to my mind constitue a philosophy - the discussion of accidental vs. intentional murder is really part of a legal system. One might try to derive a philosophy from the Torah, but I don't think of the Torah as a philosophical document.

Don't get me wrong - I love the Torah, and have accepted the covenant as my spiritual path (incuding gettting circumcised at 53 years old - ouch ). But I don't think of the Torah as a philosophical document. From a philosophical point of view, "Because the Bible says so!" is sort of a dead end.

The Bibical Jesus is far from meek.

Pacifism does not imply meekness (even if the meek shall inherit the earth). If you ever read the Journal of George Fox (Quaker leader), you will not find him a meek man.

But I notice that yiou skipped over the "turn other other cheek" stuff. Did I miss your discussion of this quote? That's the most common verse I hear from Christian pacifists.

Mike

 

[AntiqueCollector]

Don't forget though where Jesus said to buy swords.

My interpretation of the "turn the other cheek" thing, is that Jesus was arguing against resorting to violence over insults and the like, but mentioning buying swords, suggests self-defense would be acceptable. Which would fit with the Old Testament and Jewish teachings Jesus and others at that time knew.

 

[willbrink]

"It seems like every intellectual person is condemning weapons etc."

Only the stupid ones. Would Ayn Rand not be considered one of the worlds best known intellectuals? She was very much in favor of law abiding people having guns.


"and here in Germany even the priests teach that the bible is pacifistic."

Then they must be reading a different Bible than the one the rest of the world reads, 'causs it's far from a pacifist document. Speaking of pacifists, two of the worlds best known had this to say on the matter:

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." -Mohandas K. Gandhi

and

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." -- The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times) speaking at the "Educating Heart Summit" in Portland, Oregon, when asked by a girl how to react when a shooter takes aim at a classmate

 

[Isildur]

"It seems like every intellectual person is condemning weapons etc."

Only the stupid ones. Would Ayn Rand not be considered one of the worlds best known intellectuals? She was very much in favor of law abiding people having guns.

Yeah but we don't have a lot of these folks here, that's probably because I don't know about them. This is one of the main reasons I love American or international forums and the more I think about this issue the more I think about moving to the US after school.

@lysander:Thanks a lot. I will have a look at it.
@Nomad:Wow impressive article, at least for someone like me who has never got to know these quotes and this interpretation of the bible.

And would like to thank all of you. This discussion provides me with a lot of new ideas, sources and thoughts. It's like I always somehow knew that self-defense was a right and that many folks here were wrong(probably the simple use of reason told me that) and now I start realizing why this is the case.

 

[Johnny B]

Germany also has a very strong Lutheran heritage and anyone who has read Luther knows that he condemned violence for the purpose of self-defense. It was not Christian to defend oneself, since it was not "turning the other cheek"; however, it is, for some reason, inherently Christian to take up arms and defend others, and when it is necessary, a Christian has the duty to do so. Also, Luther Regularly referred to "two kingdoms": the kingdom of God, or that which is governed by God's laws, i.e., the church, and the kingdom of earth, which is essentially a smaller subset of the kingdom of God, in that the legitimacy of a ruler of the kingdom of earth was derived from God. The kingdom of earth, or what we would call "civil" or "secular authority", was meant to see to it that order was kept and that no Christian was prevented from being able to behave like a Christian. It's primary task, however, was to keep the sinners in check. For this reason, Luther referred to the state as "the sword"; while the church could never use violence or compulsion against others, it was necessary that the state did simply so that there could be a Christian church at all. Otherwise, sinners would run free and a true Christian could find no quarter. Armed rebellion against the state was never permitted, and the only recourse a subject had in the event of oppression would be either to leave or to endure. However, once the state, whose jurisdiction is over men's bodies, began trying to make laws that governed men's souls, its subjects could disobey, or simply not comply; this should not be confused with rebellion, however, since disobedience is passive, where rebellion is active. Additionally, if the state gets its authority to rule from God, to rebel would be to rebel against God. Anyway, sorry to chime in again, but I thought it was an interesting sidebar. Plus, the reformers have been one of my favorite things to study in my academic career. I just figure it helps to look at the history to understand why Germans might have such a pacifistic take on the bible.

 

[RPCVYemen]

Also, Luther Regularly referred to "two kingdoms": the kingdom of God, or that which is governed by God's laws, i.e., the church,

That's interesting to know. I didn't now about Luther's "two kingdoms" beliefs. At least part of the Quaker pacifist view is the we are currently living in the Kingdom of God - that the second coming has already happened. They read things like "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." pretty literally. They claim that the notion that this meant sometime hundreds or thousands of years later is un-Scriptural.

By which second coming thou and you understand his outward coming; for which you have no ground to say, that he bid them observe it, till his outward coming so many hundred years after: for the Scripture speaks nothing so, ...

Now we say, he did come according to his promise, in a spiritual and inward way of appearance in their hearts, feeding them with the heavenly food and refreshment of his own life and Spirit, which is the substance. And concerning his coming he speaks unto them in many places, particularly John xiv. 18.

Back to topic (more or less): Quaker pacifism is predicated on the notion that you can now live in the kingdom of God, and if you chose to do so, you are obligated to speak to that of God in every man. You can't do that while using violence against him or her.

It looks to me as though you can start with one set of axioms and derive pacifism, you can start with a different set of axioms and derive a right to self defense.

If you want to find justification for self-defense in the Bible, you can. if you want to find justification for pacifism in the Bible you can (though it's a good deal harder to do that in my Bible than in this New Testament thing you guys keep bringing up ).

Pacifism can be consistent, biblical, and still wrong.

Mike