Is self-defense a sin?

[Aaron112]

What was used since Jesus walked the earth, Jesus' Word, is always truth, always as the Creator means , and not man.

 

[Divide]

Is that a better option than trusting the Creator and Jesus ?

Others who had their homes broken into simply asked the breaker-in if they were hungry, and fed them. (yes, even if they were robbed or hurt by them). A much better example of truth, of Jesus Life and Testimony .)

Job 1:21
He said, “Naked (without possessions) I came [into this world] from my mother’s womb, And naked I will return there. The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; Blessed be the name of the Lord.”

James 1:2-8
Consider it nothing but joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you fall into various trials. Be assured that the testing of your faith [through experience] produces endurance [leading to spiritual maturity, and inner peace]. And let endurance have its perfect result and do a thorough work, so that you may be perfect and completely developed [in your faith], lacking in nothing. ...

Bible Hub:
"....and accepted with joy the spoiling of your possessions. In the spirit of Matthew 5:12 (Acts 5:41; 2Corinthians 12:10), they accepted persecution not with "patience and long suffering" only, but "with joy" (Colossians 1:11).

Hebrews 10:34 - A Call to Persevere

You sympathized with those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of your property, knowing that you yourselves had a better and permanent possession.

biblehub.com

Who said I don't trust the Creator and Lord? He is my Lord too.

Having weaponry still leavea a whole lot of room for faith and being led by the Spirit. No weapon is a talisman. I havent lost yet. I resisted a home invasion on the porch and they never got in!

I understand the sentiment of be as haemless as doves, but when someone isviolently gaining entry, then it's reasonable to assume that they will continue to be violent once they are inside. Coclusion? Colt 45. I don't have time to pray right now he's almost in.

No I did not invite them in for tea & crumpets. I have no conviction for resisting them.

To me, by the grace of God I won. To him, it was the Colt 45. He was coming in I didn't have time to explain that to him so I spoke in a language that he could easily understand.

 

[Divide]

What was used since Jesus walked the earth, Jesus' Word, is always truth, always as the Creator means , and not man.

God used to send His people to war all the time in the old testament. Told them to wear swords while they build a wall around Jerusalem. That's not a pacifist God. Everything is training for us here on earth.

Never surrendar to man.

 

[Divide]

I am pretty sure the good Lord was with Jack and used him to save an unknown amount of people's lives.

Jack Wilson, Texas Church Shooting Hero: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

Jack Wilson revealed that he shot and killed the gunman at the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas. He is being declared a hero.

heavy.com

wow, I hadnt heard about that one. Between security teams and the congregations people like me who carry in church we can say that churches are Not gun free zones. I do love you, I'm just wearing my pistol, right now, lol.

 

[Divide]

Agreed!

View attachment 335858

Nice pistol! Commander size. I like those. I was weaned on that gun!

 

[Divide]

Thanks - yep Lightweight Commander with an Officer frame, IMO perfect for CCW ..... in .45ACP

An Official Journal Of The NRA | Tested: Dan Wesson Valkyrie Commander Pistol

In 1950, Colt introduced the Commander, an M1911-style pistol with a reduced-length (4.25") barrel, an aluminum frame and 9 mm Luger chambering. Originally it was designed to fill a military request for a lighter, more compact pistol.

www.americanrifleman.org

That is perfect for CCW!

I shot an Officers model a couple times. I didn't like it. The recoil was a lot different as I was used to. The barrels too short on an Officers. But it is the shorter grip frame that makes the Officers model nice because it's the grip that hard to conceal. (I carry IWB) . Plus an officers will still take normal longer mags.

 

[YorkieGal]

I don't know the answer to this question but I came across this today:

Matthew 5:38-42 - “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you."

But, I will always resist evil and if someone tries to strike me or even acts like they are going to strike me, I will not allow it even if it is a sin. I feel like I will repent later or be grateful that I got out of a situation but I will never just allow it and offer another cheek. I don't see how sacrifice to danger is any different than suicide which would also be a sin, apparently?

This is why I can't overthink the Bible too much. It's sometimes very overwhelming.

 

[Suggestion Box]

In response to the OP (@kairo), I am equally uncertain. Reading the subsequent posts has made me no less so.

If self-defense is correct:

• If it literally meant only defending one's own person, then I would only be correct in responding to an attacker of me, and not anyone else. This view is obviously flawed; we all use the term self-defense to talk about defending others who cannot defend themselves all the time. The usage of the word is clearly not limited to only my own person.
• What if I'm at a school, and a shooter arrives? Do I wait until he attacks me personally, or do I defend the helpless children? Obviously, defending helpless children would be considered self-defense. Anyone who believes in personal self-defense would almost certainly also believe in defending helpless others as well, as part of the same category.
• What if the helpless others are not in my family... would that at all change the rightness or wrongness of defending helpless others? To this point one could argue that each of us has his own jurisdiction: you save your family, I'll save mine. But then, we are left with millions of defenseless others who have no one to protect them (perhaps their family is the attacking party, rather than the defender), and we find our jurisdictions quickly expanding to those outside of our immediate families.
• What if the helpless others are not nearby? To this point one could argue that all our concealed carry permit owners would simply go on about their day, never seeking trouble, only responding to it if it should cross their path. But again, what about all the helpless others who are attacked merely because there are no defenders nearby... does that excuse us? Rather it would encourage every would-be defender to so arrange his schedule to avoid anybody who might be attacked in the first place. We would then be allowing the concentration camps to thrive. Again, we find our jurisdictions quickly expanding outside of our own geographical area.
• What if an invading nation attacks. Does our nation act as a people, or merely as individuals? Obviously, the soldiers do not merely defend their own persons, they also defend people hundreds of miles away, people they don't know, people they will never meet. The nation, even in the case of a defensive war, is counted to be defending its "self". Again, we use the word "self" to describe a group, not just individuals. The thing that makes this right is the fact of having an authority figure, who is appointed by God, directing the counterattack.
• What if a government attacks its own people, killing, say, 60 million of them over a span of 5 decades? Does this entitle its people, under the proper authority, to defend its "self" in some way? This "self" would not be the victims defending themselves, it would be others within the same nation, others who don't know the victims, and who have never experienced what the victims are experiencing, and who are not witnesses to the attack, and who are not personally being attacked, and who are intentionally leaving safety and seeking out a quarrel with those who would kill the innocent and so pervert justice. This would also be self-defense, though it may not seem like it.
• What if the victims were really small? No change, I expect.

So then, every American who believes unborn children are human and who also believes in violence for the sake of self-defense, should be petitioning the proper authorities for a forcible and violent response to the ongoing destruction of human life. This is no less than civil war - again, only under the proper authorities and not as a rebellion of any sort. We as individuals have the legal authority to petition our leaders for war. Why are we not doing that? I ask myself this every day.

The answer is that it appears very clear to me from scripture that this is not what Jesus would have us do.

• All is to be accomplished in the end, in God's time.
• He would rather see sinners repent than die, and he is patient in his wrath.
• The evil ones will suffer in hell for all eternity so that no punishment we can possibly inflict will be sufficient for justice to occur.
• Jesus told us to love our enemies.
• God tolerated the wrongful death of many babies in the case of Pharoh.
• God tolerated the wrongful death of many babies in the case of Herod.
• Jesus had the authority to lead a war during his time on earth and did no such thing.
• Jesus commanded us to love one another as he loves us, and his love is to die in our place rather than kill us.
• Jesus commanded us to take up our cross and follow him, which is doing as he did, which is not defending ourselves or others violently.
• Running is permitted. Perhaps even non-lethal fighting. Killing seems not to be correct.

So where does that leave me for deciding if self-defense is ever right? I suppose it may be possible in some cases, but if I were to take self-defense to its obvious logical conclusion, I would find myself clamoring for war, and somehow I don't think that would quite be a correct thing for the body of Jesus Christ to be doing.

 

[Diamond7]

If self-defense is correct:

Even the Army teaches you do not have to hurt people to defend yourself.

 

[-=H=-]

I was discussing the morality of self-defense with another Christian. They believed that violence of any kind, even self defense, is a sin. They used the teachings of Jesus to support their claims. Indeed, Jesus taught us to be non-violent and to turn the other cheek, he never once mentioned self-defense, at least not that I’m aware of. I told him there are many examples of God leading his people into war and verses stating the right to self-defense, but they said they were all verses from the Old Testament and therefore invalid.

I have always been a pragmatic pacifist, believing that conflicts should be attempted to be solved peacefully, with violence in the form of self-defense being the very last resort if peace absolutely can’t be achieved. I thought self-defense was condoned by God, but now I’m not sure.

So is it true? Is violence a sin no matter the cause or circumstance? Does God want us to be martyrs? Does he want us to let our families be killed instead of protect them if such a situation was ever to occur? I can’t imagine why God would want this from us. But if not, then why is it never mentioned in the New Testament? Please, any insight is appreciated, thank you.

Look at what God says about violence in the days of Noah. The earth was filled with violence and hence the flood. God hates all violence, whether it is the good guys committing violence or the bad guys committing violence.

You are correct on everything you shared.

I’m so sickened by the NRA brainwashing of America, especially those who claim Christ but don’t follow his teachings.

“Oh I’m a good Christian, I’m pro life and against abortion.” Whilst packing a gun and ready to kill anyone who tries to steal their material possessions and twisting scripture to justify their murderous hearts.

There are a lot of pharisees and Sadducees in the church today. Militant evangelicals who think Americanism is Christianity. Then those stuck on the message of sin and repentance where the New Testament talks about leaving behind the elemental teachings of sin and repentance and moving onto maturity in Christ.

 

[Robban]

Even the Army teaches you do not have to hurt people to defend yourself.

Coming at it from another angle, not self defence or violence.

Psalms 141:5
speaks of being rebuked by a righteous person can feel like a slap on the cheek, be thankful and turn the other cheek for more.

 

[Diamond7]

Coming at it from another angle, not self defence or violence.

Basically people hurt themselves. You just get out of their way. I love the video about the guy who takes the gun away from people. Before they even know what is happening. You can not tell people what you are going to do. It has to be a surprise so they are not prepared to defend themselves. Our unconscious nervous system has three responses: Fight, Flee or Faint. In a school shooting for example. The people who survive fall to the ground and they do not move. When someone pulls a gun on you they wait for your response. My typical response is to ask them questions about their gun. Usually they love their gun and they love to talk about it and before long you become their best friend. They will even hand you the gun so you can look at it to see how nice of a weapon it is. I sold knives for over 20 years. You have to always be alert because there are some crazy people that can not be trusted with a sharp instrument. I have a lot of stories I could tell.

 

[Open Heart]

I was discussing the morality of self-defense with another Christian. They believed that violence of any kind, even self defense, is a sin. They used the teachings of Jesus to support their claims. Indeed, Jesus taught us to be non-violent and to turn the other cheek, he never once mentioned self-defense, at least not that I’m aware of. I told him there are many examples of God leading his people into war and verses stating the right to self-defense, but they said they were all verses from the Old Testament and therefore invalid.

I have always been a pragmatic pacifist, believing that conflicts should be attempted to be solved peacefully, with violence in the form of self-defense being the very last resort if peace absolutely can’t be achieved. I thought self-defense was condoned by God, but now I’m not sure.

So is it true? Is violence a sin no matter the cause or circumstance? Does God want us to be martyrs? Does he want us to let our families be killed instead of protect them if such a situation was ever to occur? I can’t imagine why God would want this from us. But if not, then why is it never mentioned in the New Testament? Please, any insight is appreciated, thank you.

Leviticus 19:16 Do not stand idly by while your brother blood is shed.

Basically, if you do not defend (either yourself or another innocent), you are morally complicit in their sin.

In my book, Pacifism is an evil doctrine, because it disables good so that it cannot fight evil.