Can a Christian defend himself OR others? (Defensive killing)

SteveIndy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 27, 2007
421
178
75
Zionsville, Indiana
✟247,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Maybe you should read the book of Job.

Also, do research on the permissive will of God.

"
  • Deborah: Facing Down ‘900 Chariots of Iron’
In answering the call, Deborah became a singular biblical figure: a female military leader. She recruited a man, the general Barak, to stand by her side, telling him God wanted the armies of Israel to attack the Canaanites who were persecuting the highland tribes. Barak was reluctant, and he insisted that Deborah go with him to the battle. Her answer was assertive and prophetic: "I will surely go with you; nevertheless, the road on which you are going will not lead to your glory, for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman."

So it was an unlikely commander who led the Army to a decisive battle with the Canaanites. Faced with "900 chariots of iron," the height of military technology at the time, Deborah's army of 10,000 Israelites rushed down from the hills, clashing with the Canaanite general Sisera near the Kishon River. The "Song of Deborah," one of the oldest in the Bible, says the stars strayed from their courses and the river washed Sisera's armies away in a massive flood. The battle was a total victory. "All the Army of Sisera fell by the sword; no one was left."

Defeated, Sisera fled, taking refuge in an ally's tent. Expecting refuge from the army chasing him, the Canaanite general was greeted by a woman named Jael. Sisera demanded shelter and water. Instead, Jael gave him a bowl of milk—and a tent peg through the skull.


The violence of Deborah's story is a radical departure from standard biblical themes, which rarely place women in roles as warriors and generals. "Every other instance we have of women acting in a military context is of a woman acting as an assassin, using sexual attraction to lure male war leaders to their deaths," says Susan Ackerman, a religion and women's and gender studies professor at Dartmouth College. "Deborah, in terms of the portrayal of her taking the lead as a military commander, is unique."


Deborah's story would stand out even without her unusual role as a military leader. It's essentially told twice: first in a sort of prose summary in Judges 4 and then in a poem or song in Judges 5. The song may be one of the Bible's oldest texts, "probably composed not long after the original events, possibly by Deborah herself," writes University of Chicago Divinity School Prof. Tikva Frymer-Kensky in Women of Scripture. The song's archaic language also sets it apart. Ackerman says the song's Hebrew is as distinct from the Hebrew in the rest of the Bible as the English of Beowulf is from the modern tongue.
"
https://www.usnews.com/news/religio...y-leader-deborah-is-a-rare-biblical-character

Your reply shows a lack of understanding of the New Testament and the advent and death of Christ. Jesus makes it clear that the O.T. was abrogated and the N.T. established in its place. In Matthew 5 Jesus says six times, "You have heard it said . . . But I say . . . ." with these words, He has established a New Covenant. In the book of John He states that "The law and the prophets were until John." In Hebrews the author says, alluding to the Old and the New Testaments that a will is not valid while the testator is still alive and that the document can be changed or rewritten, but once the testator dies (Jesus being the testator) then the document is can not be changed, and that is exactly what Christ did. This fact is also alluded to in the parable of the wine bags, "You cannot put New wine into old wine bags, the New wine will burst the bags and all will be lost. If you don't understand this you will make the serious mistake of referencing the O.T. for practical advice for life today, and it simply will not work. The Judge will not recognize the abrogated document.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DavidaAC
Upvote 0

SteveIndy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 27, 2007
421
178
75
Zionsville, Indiana
✟247,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
John 2:15
And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;

Revelation 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.


Revelation 2:16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.


Revelation 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

There is one prophecy where it is said, "Zeal for Your house has eaten Me up." Yes, Jesus did show that it was well within His ability to cleanse the house, but we mustn't add anything to this and assume that He actually touched anything other than animals with the scourge. When we look at the life of Christ at His first advent He is portrayed as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. The life He lived during that time and the life we are instructed to follow is the life of a Lamb. With the advent of Christ's second coming, we will not see the Lamb but rather the Lion of Judah come to conquer and judge. Do not mix-up the first with the second coming of Christ or you will confuse yourself and others.
 
Upvote 0

SteveIndy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 27, 2007
421
178
75
Zionsville, Indiana
✟247,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Jesus is the same God in the OT. You have an unbalanced view of God.

Psalm 91

The answer to this problem is "understanding." We can all agree that there is a drastic different between the Old and the New Testament and understanding the difference is the key. Christ rebuked the Pharisee's for not understanding that the O.T. spoke of Him, He said: "Ye error not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God, because if you did know you would understand they spoke of Me." Pro. 14:12 “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” He also said that, :A scribe (one who studies the word) take from his treasury things both old and new." What He meant by this saying is that the O.T. is given as instruction and should be interpreted and understood by the N.T. The O.T. is a riddle and can only be understood with reference to the N.T.
 
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,536
2,724
USA
Visit site
✟134,858.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Every human has a duty to protect himself and his loved ones against bodily harm or death at the hands of an aggressor. It is part of love of self and of others. Any harm that comes to the aggressor as a consequence is of his own doing. This doesn't mean that we are justified in using excessive force of course. It merely means that if indeed the person is harmed in the encounter despite our use of reasonable force then it isn't our fault.

BTW
In some cultures it seems as if it is taken for granted that humans have a right to physically threaten or attack other humans when frustration sets in. That is not so. If you are indeed frustrated by another person you can walk away, report him tote proper authorities to have him removed.

But if he has not physically aggressed you have absolutely no rightt lay a finger on him or threaten to do so. In fact, if indeed you do threaten by approaching him suddenly as if to strike-then HE has the right to assume himself in imminent danger and take whatever preemptive actions necessary to protect himself. That might even involve using a gun or some other deadly weapon to stop you dead in your tracks.


I strongly suggest taking that into serious consideration next time the thought of aggressively stepping up to somebody crosses the mind of those subscribing to that kind of uncivilized behavior..
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

SteveIndy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 27, 2007
421
178
75
Zionsville, Indiana
✟247,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Every human has a duty to protect himself and his loved ones against bodily harm or death at the hands of an aggressor. It is part of love of self and of others. Any harm that comes to the aggressor as a consequence is of his own doing. This doesn't mean that we are justified in using excessive force of course. It merely means that if indeed the person is harmed in the encounter despite our use of reasonable force then it isn't our fault.

BTW
In some cultures it seems as if it is taken for granted that humans have a right to physically threaten or attack other humans when frustration sets in. That is not so. If you are indeed frustrated by another person you can walk away, report him tote proper authorities to have him removed.

But if he has not physically aggressed you have absolutely no rightt lay a finger on him or threaten to do so. In fact, if indeed you do threaten by approaching him suddenly as if to strike-then HE has the right to assume himself in imminent danger and take whatever preemptive actions necessary to protect himself. That might even involve using a gun or some other deadly weapon to stop you dead in your tracks.


I strongly suggest taking that into serious consideration next time the thought of aggressively stepping up to somebody crosses the mind of those subscribing to that kind of uncivilized behavior..

These words of your would make good civil law and reasonable, unfortunately, they are not Biblical at all. Self-protection is considered a basic human right, but we are not here considering "human" rights we are considering spiritual laws of the Kingdom of God. The New Testament has laid down for us how we as spiritual beings should conduct ourselves in a foreign land. Christ gave us His example, followed by His Apostles, and followed by His disciples for the next 300 years. Those rules of conduct were written in a book which we then told to study. And, we are told to not lean on our own understanding, i.e. basic human rights, but rather to trust the inspired word for guidance, which very few do. Besides this, who is it that decides what is "reasonable force"? I suppose the one being attacked would arbitrarily decide what is reasonable force. You admit that some cultures have differing ideas of what is reasonable force. Christians, on the other hand, are citizens of another Country with a totally different Constitution and an allegiance to a different King to whom we are subject to obey. Hence, we commanded to not be duplicitous in our obedience and to obey our Lord and King in all things and not serve two masters. Joshua said it very well, "Choose you this day who you will serve, as for me and my family we will serve the Lord."
 
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,536
2,724
USA
Visit site
✟134,858.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
n
These words of your would make good civil law and reasonable, unfortunately, they are not Biblical at all. Self-protection is considered a basic human right, but we are not here considering "human" rights we are considering spiritual laws of the Kingdom of God. The New Testament has laid down for us how we as spiritual beings should conduct ourselves in a foreign land. Christ gave us His example, followed by His Apostles, and followed by His disciples for the next 300 years. Those rules of conduct were written in a book which we then told to study. And, we are told to not lean on our own understanding, i.e. basic human rights, but rather to trust the inspired word for guidance, which very few do. Besides this, who is it that decides what is "reasonable force"? I suppose the one being attacked would arbitrarily decide what is reasonable force. You admit that some cultures have differing ideas of what is reasonable force. Christians, on the other hand, are citizens of another Country with a totally different Constitution and an allegiance to a different King to whom we are subject to obey. Hence, we commanded to not be duplicitous in our obedience and to obey our Lord and King in all things and not serve two masters. Joshua said it very well, "Choose you this day who you will serve, as for me and my family we will serve the Lord."

How were the chaplains and priests of the Allies during WWII justifying the participation of their flocks in fighting Hitler's violent aggression? You quote Joshua! But please keep well in mind that Joshua was directing military aggression and participating in violent activity against other humans and God considered it justified.

There is also the danger of taking Jesus's words literally when they were meant to be metaphorical. An early Church father took his words about plucking out ones eye if it offends us and castrated himself because his sexual inclinations wee offending him. He later admitted he had been wrong but the Catholic Church never honored him with sainthood because of it.

Also, if Jesus's recommended that swords should be bought, what were they supposed to be for if not self defense-plowing?

BTW
Please note that I at one time held the same viewpoint that you do and lost three jobs because of it. The ones doing the provoking maintained their jobs while I risked starvation simply because I wasn't supposed to act aggressively but had to always be very docile and never insinuate that I might very well floor the provokers. If I did it would have been a sin so I didn't and suffered horribly instead. Now I am of the opinion that the Lord understands that I need to keep my job in order to provide for myself and that if indeed I give the provoker the impression that I might floor him it is only because I need to earn a living and not depend on the Lord for some miracle which he might or might not provide..
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

SteveIndy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 27, 2007
421
178
75
Zionsville, Indiana
✟247,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
How were the chaplains and priests of the Allies during WWII justifying the participation of their flocks in fighting Hitler's violent aggression?

There was no justification.
 
Upvote 0

SteveIndy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 27, 2007
421
178
75
Zionsville, Indiana
✟247,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
There was no justification.
They were leaning on the heretical theory of Augustine's "Just War Theory." Augustine had compromised Christ for the comfort of not being persecuted by the Constantine government. His theory has found fertile ground in every Christian's heart ever since, but it was not so in the first 300 years of the Church.
 
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,536
2,724
USA
Visit site
✟134,858.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
There was no justification.
I understand that and it is one of the arguments that Jehovah's Witnesses put forth for claiming that they are right in not participating in armed conflicts of the nations. On the other hand, when I discussed he issue with a Catholic seminary student he kept asking me about w3ho was going to stop Hitler if everyone adopted that pacifist attitude. Just how far would he have gone? Of course JWs say that God would take care of it in his due time an opinion with which I agreed back then..

Now I am not so sure that is the righteous thing to do and tend to view it in the same way I view a woman getting raped and a Christian walking by and saying that he renders no help because God would take care of it.

BTW I think there was plenty of moral justification to attempt to stop Hitler by any means possible. In fact, it was a moral duty to stop him.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,536
2,724
USA
Visit site
✟134,858.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
They were leaning on the heretical theory of Augustine's "Just War Theory." Augustine had compromised Christ for the comfort of not being persecuted by the Constantine government. His theory has found fertile ground in every Christian's heart ever since, but it was not so in the first 300 years of the Church.
The idea of a just war is found in the Bible itself wen God specifically instructs Israel to violently attack the Canaanites. It is also found throughout the Bible when it speaks of God himself waging war against humans and angels who oppose him. In revelation Jesus himself is described as waging a just war.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,536
2,724
USA
Visit site
✟134,858.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
And by revelation, Jesus and YHWH taught peace to all the disciples.
There is sin via negligence or being callous towards the suffering of our fellow man at the hands of a demonically influenced oppressor. That kind of indifference goes against what Jesus called mercy and loving one's neighbor as oneself. If I an being tortured by a maniac and you refuse to intervene because you are a Christian-there is no way that in this life or the next I will consider that a virtue. In fact, I would deem you an accomplice.

John 15:13
New International Version
Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
I am not allowed on this site to tell you who or what has deceived anyone on this site or off this site. That is awkward, but we all live in a society of rules that often make it awkward.
i.e. there are many many doctors doing what is right and true and healing people, but they are not legal methods, so they stay quiet.

Those who just seek to be righteous, Jesus says, necessarily are attacked by society.
 
Upvote 0

Radrook

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2016
11,536
2,724
USA
Visit site
✟134,858.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
What we must be very careful of is that in our efforts to be righteous we neglect certain responsibilities that we are supposed to attend to. As for deception? It is usually attributed to the Devil. So if someone disagrees with my viewpoint then I automatically assume that I am viewed as deceived by Satan into wanting to help the oppressed instead sanctimoniously ignoring them and saying that God will eventually attend to the injustice as they are being systematically worked and starved to death..
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
So if someone disagrees with my viewpoint then I automatically assume that I am viewed as deceived by Satan into wanting to help the oppressed instead sanctimoniously ignoring them and saying that God will eventually attend to the injustice as they are being systematically worked and starved to death..
Someone might be automatically deceived by other's viewpoints if they follow or trust other's viewpoints. That happens every day to multitudes.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SteveIndy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 27, 2007
421
178
75
Zionsville, Indiana
✟247,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I understand that and it is one of the arguments that Jehovah's Witnesses put forth for claiming that they are right in not participating in armed conflicts of the nations. On the other hand, when I discussed he issue with a Catholic seminary student he kept asking me about w3ho was going to stop Hitler if everyone adopted that pacifist attitude. Just how far would he have gone? Of course JWs say that God would take care of it in his due time an opinion with which I agreed back then..

Now I am not so sure that is the righteous thing to do and tend to view it in the same way I view a woman getting raped and a Christian walking by and saying that he renders no help because God would take care of it.

BTW I think there was plenty of moral justification to attempt to stop Hitler by any means possible. In fact, it was a moral duty to stop him.

Here again, the confusion comes in from a lack of understanding of Scripture and the purpose of the O.T. and the N.T. The O.T. cannot be used for justification of violence because it has been abrogated by the N.T. Jesus re-wrote His Last Will and Testament then He died forever sealing the document. In Matthew 5 Jesus states six times, "You have heard it said . . . but I say . . . ." With those words, He effectively abrogated the Old and instituted the New Testament. In John Jesus says, "The Law and the Prophets were until John(the Baptist)". and In Hebrews 8:7, it is stated that "If nothing had been wrong with the first there would have been no need for another." And, also in Hebrews 9:16-17 it is stated, "In the case of a will, it is necessary to establish the death of the one who made it, 17because a will does not take effect until the one who made it has died; it cannot be executed while he is still alive.…" Jesus changed His will then He died forever sealing His desires for His Church. The Old Testament, if used to justify your actions before the Judge of the Universe, will not be admitted and you will be thrown into outer darkness.

Now, regarding the defeat of Hitler and the position of Christians. God has instituted a worldly government for worldly people. Governments were designed to be administered by worldly people for worldly people, and not Christians. Nowhere in the New Testament are Christians commanded to get involved in the running of worldly affairs. This is a great mistake of the Church ever since Augustine linked arms with the Government in the 4th century. Ever since that time Christians, except for a small remnant, have colluded with the world to integrate Christian and civil rule. The Bible warns us this un-Holy mixture but Christians up to our own day have ignored Scripture. God allowed the world to handle the Hitler situation with Christian involvement but they could have done it without Christians defiling themselves and disobeying their Lord.

Christians who advocate for non-resistance of the evil person nowhere say that they should not intervene and help the person who is being violated in whatever regard. Many have done exactly that and have paid in like manner as Christ, with their lives. But, they do this without themselves doing harm. This is the correct manner in which the Church should conduct itself, and as the old saying goes, "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church," and still is.
 
Upvote 0

SteveIndy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sep 27, 2007
421
178
75
Zionsville, Indiana
✟247,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The idea of a just war is found in the Bible itself wen God specifically instructs Israel to violently attack the Canaanites. It is also found throughout the Bible when it speaks of God himself waging war against humans and angels who oppose him. In revelation Jesus himself is described as waging a just war.

See my previous comment. Jesus' second coming will be as the Lion of Judah; His first coming was as the sacrificial Lamb.
 
Upvote 0

real tree

Active Member
Feb 17, 2017
173
23
57
USA
✟2,203.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Their is a real easy answer.........
DID JESUS defend himself
sure he might have said go and buy one
but did he NOT tell peter................hours later.........PUT UP YOU SWORD
he who lives by it , will die by the sword.......
JESUS healed the man who peter had cut the ear off .......
then JESUS prayed for his enemies to be forgiven.
what did Stephen do.........................he rebuked them massively
as JESUS had rebuked sin and error too.
BUT did Stephen defend himself.............NO
and not only that.....he too LIKE our LORD prayed their forgivness..........
so my advice is............FOLLOW ONLY JESUS PATTERN
mans thinker is mans mind
FOLLOW CHRIST and walk as DID HE.
really such a simple walk, that MAN , his mind has complicated.
Flee carnal wisdom..................JUST FOLLOW THE EXAMPLE OF CHRIST in the gospels
and the example of the true men who followed HIM.
its real simple. keep reading the bible...........those scrips DO make us wise
unto salvation through faith in Christ...............
Jesus didn't defend himself because he had to die in order for prophecy to be fulfilled.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
he had to die in order for prophecy to be fulfilled.
WONDERFUL ! ..... oh, wait, not just for prophecy to be fulfilled - although that is perfectly sufficient why , it is enough for anything that it fulfill prophecy,

yet there is A GREATER REASON !
 
Upvote 0