Self Defense & the Christian

Status
Not open for further replies.
Force vs. Violence

Violence is a wrongful action initiated against an innocent party.

Force is an action to stop the improper use of power against an innocent party.

No Christian can or would initiate an act of violence.

Any decent Christian would use any force necessary -- including lethal force -- to stop an act of violence.
 
I was raised very conservative LDS I have a lot of stuff I could write, but as is my style I will boil it down:

The odds that you will have to defend yourself against an attacker and having that defense result in death are so slim; that I would view carrying/training to be a martial art that is often practiced but never applied.
 
It involved a lot of thinking but for me it boiled down to this, if God loves us as much as the Bible professes I don't think he would expect any of his children to go down like a lamb before slaughter if it were in our power to avoid it.
 
Any decent Christian would use any force necessary -- including lethal force -- to stop an act of violence.
Click to expand...

Jesus was a dcent Christian. He never did.

Anyway, a great thread. Like most I’m very unwilling to pass judgment on this.

Never the less, and only to sitr the pot, it’s amazing. Over 100 posts – Nearly every one an excuse to justify killing by Christians.

Some posts are short and concise, some even a shade sheepish. Others are a long, tortured dissertation on what God really meant to say (I’m thinking God knows how to say what He means), and some even on what the definition of ‘is’ is. Mostly they read pretty weak, and almost without exception work overtime to skirt the real issue.

One surprise to me, all this smoke from a group who, at the first hint of discussion around the 2nd Amendment, jump on the high moral ground to demand “which part of ‘…shall not be infringed’ don’t you understand?”.

So, the 800 lb. gorilla. In the language of the 2A purists: which part of ‘thou shalt not…’ don’t you understand?

I do admit this thread is the first time I’ve ever seen it as ‘thou shalt not murder’, and I’ve seen a few bibles. I'm surely no Biblical scholar.

Anyhow. The commandment God gave is clear, simple, and precise. It admits no dissembling, no lawyering, no views, no takes, no second guesses. It’s a commandment.

If you manage to read it as ‘…murder’, there is no problem.

If you read it as ‘…kill’, there is no defense.

I don't know the answer, and I sure don't want to be wrong.
 
Here are all the English translations I found:

NIV: You shall not murder.
NASB: You shall not murder.
The Message (paraphrase): No murder.
Amplified Bible: You shall not commit murder.
New Living Translation: You must not murder.
King James Version: Thou shalt not kill.
New King James Version: You shall not murder.
English Standard Version: You shall not murder.
Contemperary English Version: Do not murder.
New Century Version: You must not murder anyone.
God's Word Translation: Never murder.
21st Century King James Version: Thou shalt not kill.
American Standard Version: Thou shalt not kill.
Young's Literal Translation: Thou dost not murder.
Darby Translation: Thou shalt not kill.
Holman Christian Standard: Do not murder.
New International Reader's Version: Do not commit murder.
Today's New International Version: You shall not murder.

The King James Version definitely goofed on this one. :) There are more than numerous resources on the web that google will find you to explain the original meaning in the Hebrew - both Jewish and Christian perspectives.
 
David was led by God to kill Goliath. why? becasue he was evil and would have undoubtedly killed many more innocent people.

Same reason we are overseas fighting terrorists in order to prevent another 9/11.

I do believe in being as loving as possible and not doing anything that would escalate a potentially violent encounter and whenever possible I would remove myself from a hinky situation, however, as the old saying goes, violence is not always the answer but when it is it is the ONLY answer.
 
self-defense is expected of christians, as id the defense of others (I'm a black belt and a christian)
 
In the language of the 2A purists: which part of ‘thou shalt not…’ don’t you understand?
Click to expand...

The difference is with the Second Amendment we can go back to the original source and see it.

The Book of Exodus we read today has been passed down, translated, retranslated to and from at least three languages and massaged for political effect.
 
The difference is with the Second Amendment we can go back to the original source and see it.
Click to expand...

A nice point. We can see the source text, yes. But in both cases not intent, which seems the crux of the argument (and in the 2a case was decreed our way by luck and the thinnest possible margin).
 
A nice point. We can see the source text, yes. But in both cases not intent, which seems the crux of the argument (and in the 2a case was decreed our way by luck and the thinnest possible margin).
Click to expand...

It wasn't by luck and Gura did a very good job of (in Heller) presenting the original meaning and intent of the founders from materials we've always had. Those on the bench who didn't agree are of the mindset that original intent is not important. But that's a topic not for this thread.

The meaning of the sixth commandment is pretty clearly understood in Jewish circles - it's origin is known and we can go back directly to the Hebrew to find it's meaning. If anything, it's much more clear cut than the meaning of the 2A (which is pretty clear cut when we look at historical documents of the era).
 
Jesus said, "I am not come to replace the law (Old Testament), but to fulfill it.

This is Old Testament:

Exodus 22:2

New International Version (©1984)
"If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed;

New Living Translation (©2007)
"If a thief is caught in the act of breaking into a house and is struck and killed in the process, the person who killed the thief is not guilty of murder.

English Standard Version (©2001)
If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him,

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
"If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.

King James Bible
If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, [there shall] no blood [be shed] for him.

American King James Version
If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.

American Standard Version
If the thief be found breaking in, and be smitten so that he dieth, there shall be no bloodguiltiness for him.

Bible in Basic English
If a thief is taken in the act of forcing his way into a house, and his death is caused by a blow, the owner of the house is not responsible for his blood.

Douay-Rheims Bible
If a thief be found breaking open a house or undermining it, and be wounded so as to die: he that slew him shall not be guilty of blood.

Darby Bible Translation
If the thief be encountered breaking in, and be smitten so that he die, there shall be no blood-guiltiness for him.

English Revised Version
If the thief be found breaking in, and be smitten that he die, there shall be no bloodguiltiness for him.

Webster's Bible Translation
If a thief shall be found breaking through, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.

World English Bible
If the thief is found breaking in, and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt of bloodshed for him.

Young's Literal Translation
'If in the breaking through, the thief is found, and he hath been smitten, and hath died, there is no blood for him;
 
Anyhow. The commandment God gave is clear, simple, and precise. It admits no dissembling, no lawyering, no views, no takes, no second guesses. It’s a commandment.

If you manage to read it as ‘…murder’, there is no problem.

If you read it as ‘…kill’, there is no defense.
Click to expand...
Yes, but is that one word accurately translated through all the years and languages?

God himself killed countless people (flooding the earth, red sea, etc.) so unless you think God a murderer you must believe that He only kills when justified. Therefore it must be read you shall not murder, instead of, you shall not kill. Otherwise God has broken his own commandment.
 
but is that one word accurately translated through all the years and languages?
Click to expand...

No, and therein lies the confusion.
In both the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the Greek text of the New Testament, the word "kill" in the Commandment is "murder".

Exod 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
(KJV)
7523 ratsach (raw-tsakh');
a primitive root; properly, to dash in pieces, i.e. kill (a human being), especially to murder:
KJV-- put to death, kill, (man-) slay (-er), murder (-er).

Matt 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
(KJV)
5407 phoneuo (fon-yoo'-o);
from 5406; to be a murderer (of):
KJV-- kill, do murder, slay.
 
Being an just an ol' Christian lay person...

I pray, O Lord, forgive me for those I have killed in fear and anger.

And others, if it were to fall to me the duty of defense of the innocent, or for the sake of God and Country.


Forgiven,


Dave
 
Jesus was a dcent Christian. He never did.
Click to expand...

Firstly, Jesus wasn't a Christian, but is the basis of Christianity (semantics, I know).

Secondly, if you believe in the Trinity Jesus has killed...he just didn't do so while walking the earth as a man.
 
Jesus did violence ...

... against the money-changers in His Temple, using a cat-o-nine-tails. I bet it hurt. I bet He was mad. And He was well acquainted with swords, telling His disciples that it was O.K. to keep and bear one, or more. A sword has a legitimate place in a civil society. As for how He died, we are not to emulate that, 'though some try. I think that a short sword would equate to a concealable pistol nowadays.
 
Jesus wasn't a Christian, but is the basis of Christianity (semantics, I know).
Click to expand...
I was waiting for someone to point that out, Eddie.
I don't think gbw is anti-semantic tho:rolleyes:.

if you believe in the Trinity Jesus has killed...he just didn't do so while walking the earth as a man.
Click to expand...
Excelent point.
 
I know some naysayer will say there's too much confirmation bias in this post, but that's exactly what was requested, so :neener:.

Nehemiah 4:14 (NIV) After I looked things over, I stood up and said to the nobles, the officials and the rest of the people, "Don't be afraid of them. Remember the Lord, who is great and awesome, and fight for your brothers, your sons and your daughters, your wives and your homes."

If you do not know what sort of man Nehemiah was, you should go read the book (I am learning a lot about prayer from it).
 
Au contrere.

I said:

"Any decent Christian would use any force necessary -- including lethal force -- to stop an act of violence."

Someone else said:

"Jesus was a dcent Christian. He never did."

Sure He did. He slaughtered entire tribes in the blink of an eye, without blinking -- in groups, and often quite painfully -- long before the virgin Mary was ever conceived. Without apology or even much explanation.

He made quick mincemeat of all kinds of scumbags.

Reference: "Before Abraham was, I AM."
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
To Christian Gun Owners: Why do you disagree with the Amish position?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
131
Views
5K
hso
hso
A
  • Locked
A good book about guns in churches ...
Replies
5
Views
796
FPrice
F
E
  • Locked
"Self defense is a Myth"
2 3 4
Replies
81
Views
5K
another okie
A
W
  • Locked
(LA) Woman who shot ex-lover acted in self-defense 10-08-03
Replies
3
Views
760
Matthew Courtney
M
Skribs
  • Locked
5 Myths of Self Defense Shootings
Replies
14
Views
1K
Carter
C
Back
Top