Christians? Using self-defense and Guns?

[FreeGrace]

Has anyone yet considered that in self defense, even using a gun, that your goal should be to stop the act of violence the other person is committing rather than your goal being to kill the other person? Even with a gun, if it is the last resort, you still don't have to have the mindset that you are out to kill someone, just that you have to stop them and this is the last option available to you other than just letting them get away with what they are doing and probably kill you or someone else. Yes, shooting them may kill them, but many times it doesn't. When you're full of adrenaline you really aren't going to place that bullet right between their eyes like they do in the movies. Just ask anyone who has been in a real life situation where they have actually had to shoot someone! Even if you've had training and practice you'll probably be lucky to hit them anywhere at all! So if your mindset is right, killing the person isn't your goal. Stopping the crime is your goal, and if that results in their death, that's just a sad reality but it didn't have to be your intention. How is it a sin to do what you can to stop someone from committing a violent crime against you or against someone else?

Excellent point, Obadiah! It is never a sin to stop a crime. I believe the crime (sin) is exactly what Scripture says it is: to know to do good, but don't.

James 4:17 - Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

To not protect one's loved ones is akin to being "worse than an unbeliever".

1 Tim 5:8 - But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel (unbeliever).

 

[Gary]

You didn't answer my question: "Would it be wrong to NOT use it to protect your own loved ones?"

It would depend on the situation. I personally don't believe it's wrong not to use a gun in the defense of life or property.

Everybody has their convictions.
.

 

[LovethroughDove]

Excellent point, Obadiah! It is never a sin to stop a crime. I believe the crime (sin) is exactly what Scripture says it is: to know to do good, but don't.

James 4:17 - Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

Knoweth him? and not do what he did.

 

[FreeGrace]

It would depend on the situation. I personally don't believe it's wrong not to use a gun in the defense of life or property.

Everybody has their convictions.
.

You're equivocating here. Is it wrong to NOT defend the life of your loved ones?

 

[FreeGrace]

Knoweth him? and not do what he did.

Huh?

This was my post:
"Excellent point, Obadiah! It is never a sin to stop a crime. I believe the crime (sin) is exactly what Scripture says it is: to know to do good, but don't.

James 4:17 - Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."

Your statement doesn't fit my post. James was saying that those who know what is good but don't do it are sinning.

It is not sin to defend your loved ones. It's normal. So the pacifist who idly stands by while family is getting mugged, assaulted, etc when they could have defended them is guilty of sin.

1 Tim 5:8 - But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

To "provide for his own" would obviously include defending them from harm.

 

[reba]

Has anyone yet considered that in self defense, even using a gun, that your goal should be to stop the act of violence the other person is committing rather than your goal being to kill the other person? Even with a gun, if it is the last resort, you still don't have to have the mindset that you are out to kill someone, just that you have to stop them and this is the last option available to you other than just letting them get away with what they are doing and probably kill you or someone else. Yes, shooting them may kill them, but many times it doesn't. When you're full of adrenaline you really aren't going to place that bullet right between their eyes like they do in the movies. Just ask anyone who has been in a real life situation where they have actually had to shoot someone! Even if you've had training and practice you'll probably be lucky to hit them anywhere at all! So if your mindset is right, killing the person isn't your goal. Stopping the crime is your goal, and if that results in their death, that's just a sad reality but it didn't have to be your intention. How is it a sin to do what you can to stop someone from committing a violent crime against you or against someone else?

Personally i am happy John did not kill anyone i am more happy we were not raped and murdered... We were 'hit' when the "shotgun' guys were targeting south Sacramento... they kicked there way into homes for the purpose of robbery rape and murder ...
Had John shot the one.. who was in the house with his loaded shotgun.. two more were in the outside door way... john had his unloaded old hunting rifle under the guys chin.. the old guy about a month later trying to defend his wife may not have died...

 

[Gary]

You're equivocating here. Is it wrong to NOT defend the life of your loved ones?

Not really. If you had been following along here, you would know the answer to your question.
.

 

[jasonc]

some don't want to live with killing someone over property, gary is a vet FreeGrace

 

[FreeGrace]

some don't want to live with killing someone over property, gary is a vet FreeGrace

As previously noted, this isn't about killing, it's about self defense; stopping a crime. It's the pacifists who like to dramatize the issue by bringing up killing, as if that's the point of self defense.

 

[jasonc]

As previously noted, this isn't about killing, it's about self defense; stopping a crime. It's the pacifists who like to dramatize the issue by bringing up killing, as if that's the point of self defense.

im also familiar with the legal term of shooting to stop the attack. its spelled K-I-L-L. word game. aim to kill, if they stop prior to you discharging the weapon then its fine. if you hit them and they cease to attack after being hit, its fine. if you do hit the vital organs and its their time to die then its fine by me too. aim for the chest as its the biggest target.

if you cant do that then don't buy or use a gun.

 

[FreeGrace]

im also familiar with the legal term of shooting to stop the attack. its spelled K-I-L-L. word game. aim to kill, if they stop prior to you discharging the weapon then its fine. if you hit them and they cease to attack after being hit, its fine. if you do hit the vital organs and its their time to die then its fine by me too. aim for the chest as its the biggest target.

The point is to stop the attacker. If they die from that, it's on them.

if you cant do that then don't buy or use a gun.

I certainly have no problem with stopping a crime in progress.

 

[jasonc]

The point is to stop the attacker. If they die from that, it's on them.


I certainly have no problem with stopping a crime in progress.

some again don't see the need to take a life for property.

 

[Obadiah]

some again don't see the need to take a life for property.

That's been mentioned a couple of times, and I'm not so sure I'd be willing to shoot someone simply over the taking of property either, whether the shot killed them or not. For me it would depend on if it might be some rare case where the taking of the property would endanger a life. But as for home invasion burglaries, car jackings, and such things as that there have been enough incidents where the residents were seriously injured or killed that I don't see a problem with using the threat of a gun or other deadly force for intimidation to get control of the situation, or the actual shooting of the suspect, since those kind of things represent the potential of a deadly situation for the victim. To me it also doesn't matter if the victim is me, or someone I am with, or even a stranger in need of help. We are not limited to only help those that are family or close friends, but we are to do good for and help strangers as well within what the law allows.

That's just my feeling on what I would do. Everyone is different and if someone is a pacifist to the point that they won't even defend themselves when needed and if they have the ability, that's up to them. Maybe for some it's better to die then to live with the guilt of feeling they have wrongly (for them) killed someone else. Maybe some believe that their faith is strong enough to save them in all situations without their needing to do anything themselves. But my personal feeling for me is that God intends for me to use the tools and skills he has given me first (one of which happens to be how to properly and effectively use a gun for defense, including when not to use it), while trusting in Him to guide me in how I do that, and then to take over where my skills leave off.

But shooting someone is a last resort. I used to live in an area where there was a better than normal chance I would have to do that some day. But I also had the option of leaving that area, which is what I did. Where I live now I can still legally carry a gun and use it, but there isn't much of a chance of needing to do that.

 

[Butch5]

Paleeeeeez give me a break

I could say the same thing. When this topic comes up we're always given some nightmare scenario that most people will never see. Then people try to go to the old covenant which was for the nation of Israel to try to make their case. One can't make a case from the new covenant.

 

[Butch5]

I don't want to get in the middle of this but a thought occurred to me. I wonder if the reason Jesus told the person to sheath his sword is important to this question?

Matthew 26: NKJV
51 And suddenly, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear.
52 But Jesus said to him, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.
53 Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels?
54 How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?”

Mark 14: NKJV
46 Then they laid their hands on Him and took Him.
47 And one of those who stood by drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear.
48 Then Jesus answered and said to them, “Have you come out, as against a robber, with swords and clubs to take Me?
49 I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize Me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled.”

John 18: NKJV
10 Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.
11 So Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into the sheath. Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?”

That's possible. But, there was a group of temple guards who were armed. The disciples had two knives or swords, Even if Peter didn't sheath his sword it wasn't likely that he would have made much of a difference. I doubt that two knives or swords would have been sufficient to stop the armed temple guards had violence continued. I suspect that there would have been dead disciples and Jesus would still have been arrested. Of course the assumes that there is not divine intervention.

 

[Butch5]

Butch5 said: ↑
Bill, If you're not interested in investing the time to read a few pages that I wrote on this, why would you expect me to devote the time it takes to write these posts that will likely simply be rejected. It takes quite a bit of time to put together the information necessary to make the case. I've spent hours gathering information and writing posts only to have others say, that's just your opinion, or something similar and never address the information. I've already compiled the information from both the Bible and the Early church and written the paper. If you're not interested in reading that why would I expect you to be willing to read it here?
And Bill says;
My argument was that the early church wouldn't use violence and I've already shown that from their writings. Since this was a unanimous teaching in the early church one has to wonder where they got this idea.
Click to expand...
This is a public forum where, you and I know Baby Christians and Little People will read this subject and I, at least, know that, because the Computer and Texting have ruined the reading skills of the Worlds Population, they will not read a couple of pages of text without becoming bored.

You appear to be aware that you are guilty of Teaching and as such, you will, thus, be judged, just as, will, I. I have made it clear that your position is not scriptural and you have refused to defend it and now you are telling me that you are to lazy to copy and paste?

If you believe this nonsense, defend it or every baby Christian that stumbles over this trash will know that you could not. Defend and we will discuss.

And don't accuse me of stupidity because you refuse to make your case in short, Computer Literate, posts. I am not attacking you, I want you to converse and I want you to use the Word of God to make the case, not, after thought, creeds. The creeds were on my e-Sword Program for a long time because they are excellent study for the history of the Church, they are not, however, the Word of God.

I am quite aware that others follow these threads. They can also click a link, which for some reason you don't seem to want to do. As I said, it is to long to copy and paste. I can't paste 39 pages on this board. I don't know where you think you've made it clear that my position is not Scriptural since all you've given is your opinion.What I keep seeing is logical fallacies in attempting to oppose my position. Also I did not accuse you of being stupid or anything else.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Has anyone yet considered that in self defense, even using a gun, that your goal should be to stop the act of violence the other person is committing rather than your goal being to kill the other person? Even with a gun, if it is the last resort, you still don't have to have the mindset that you are out to kill someone, just that you have to stop them and this is the last option available to you other than just letting them get away with what they are doing and probably kill you or someone else. Yes, shooting them may kill them, but many times it doesn't. When you're full of adrenaline you really aren't going to place that bullet right between their eyes like they do in the movies. Just ask anyone who has been in a real life situation where they have actually had to shoot someone! Even if you've had training and practice you'll probably be lucky to hit them anywhere at all! So if your mindset is right, killing the person isn't your goal. Stopping the crime is your goal, and if that results in their death, that's just a sad reality but it didn't have to be your intention. How is it a sin to do what you can to stop someone from committing a violent crime against you or against someone else?

Amen, and every one and I do mean every one misses that point. Yes, I am guilty of killing a few men, three of them were intentional and they haunt me in my dreams. The rest of them, I wanted them to either stop trying to shoot me down or to get out of my Base Camp and leave my men and my poor ignorant Officers alive.

Did it change me, you bet it did. I have a soft spot my daughter and wife love and I hate. I'm old enough now that macho doesn't matter so I can tell this. I saw Love Story after Vietnam and from the first time I saw it, the stinking end makes me cry every time... IT AIN'T MANLY TO DO THAT. I have a love for life and love that is not normal for a man that could kill three men, shooting them in the back, as they relieved themselves in the river.

Be very careful, killing men messes you up.

 

[Butch5]

Of course not. But what does this have to do with self defense??

Nothing, it goes to your method of reasoning.

Why not? Seems you're looking through pacifist lens. And He told His disciples to sell a garment to buy a sword. Why do you ignore that?

I'm not ignoring it. As I said, the word means a small sword or a big knife. He didn't tell them to use it for dense and when Peter did Jesus rebuked him.

No, the point is that Jesus acknowledged that an armed man CAN defend his possessions.

There's nothing in the text condoning it. Jesus is simply acknowledging that it exists. If He had said the prostitute had defended her house would you argue that prostitution was OK?

Actually, the word is "machira", which was THE most effective fighting weapon at that time. That is the type of sword that the Roman soldiers carried. It was double edged for superior handling and because it WAS shorter and lighter than the typical swords of the time, it was MORE deadly than the larger ones.
So your point is not taken.

Everything I see says it was a large knife like a dagger or a small sword. What "could" be done with it doesn't determine what Jesus intended them to do with it. One can kill with a baseball bat too, but if one said take a bat that doesn't mean that intend it for that purpose. Just because something can be used for a purpose doesn't mean that that is it's intended purpose. Jesus was sending them out to the nations, they would have need to prepare food, cut rope etc. A knife would be necessary for the them to get along.

Are you actually trying to show that Jesus was contradictory?? He TOLD them to sell a garment to buy a sword. Duh.

The reason He told Peter to put it away was that his timing was wrong.

I must have missed that in text. I thought Jesus said, those who live by the sword shall perish by the sword.

Totally out of context.

Out of context? It's right there in the passage. I think it's more like, it refutes your use of the passage.

Yep, just as I thought. A pacifist only thinks of swords for other than defense. But that is your right.

Do you suppose that Abraham used a sword when he went to offer Isaac?

KJV Genesis 22:10 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. (Gen 22:10 KJV)

It's the same word, the translators just chose to translate it differently.

No, it doesn't. It wasn't time for self defense. Peter was trying to thwart God's plan.

He was trying to thwart God's plan? How exactly do you know that? Standing there facing armed men isn't time for self defense? If not when is. Come on man!

What you can't wriggle your way out of is the FACT that Jesus told His disciples to sell a garment to buy a highly effective fighting weapon.[/QUOTE]

 

[th1b.taylor]

I am quite aware that others follow these threads. They can also click a link, which for some reason you don't seem to want to do. As I said, it is to long to copy and paste. I can't paste 39 pages on this board. I don't know where you think you've made it clear that my position is not Scriptural since all you've given is your opinion.What I keep seeing is logical fallacies in attempting to oppose my position. Also I did not accuse you of being stupid or anything else.

And you and I both know that they are not going to read 39 pages, they are either anywhere from 8 years up and in the case of the 25 year old baby Christian, they are Computer ruined. I admit I will read an 89 page manual on a technique I need to manipulate a DVD Image but if you, really, want me or anyone else to read that document, in it's entirety, to prove your case... remember, I am 70 next month and as such I have dealt with a lot of the World's misfits and I am not interested with any Jim Jones or Waco Wacko theology.

I have asked you for the scriptural references and you are crawfishing like you just witnessed your big brother get tossed into the boiling water. Stop running and make your case, please!

 

[Butch5]

And you and I both know that they are not going to read 39 pages, they are either anywhere from 8 years up and in the case of the 25 year old baby Christian, they are Computer ruined. I admit I will read an 89 page manual on a technique I need to manipulate a DVD Image but if you, really, want me or anyone else to read that document, in it's entirety, to prove your case... remember, I am 70 next month and as such I have dealt with a lot of the World's misfits and I am not interested with any Jim Jones or Waco Wacko theology.

I have asked you for the scriptural references and you are crawfishing like you just witnessed your big brother get tossed into the boiling water. Stop running and make your case, please!

Firstly, I stated that the early church wouldn't use violence, I've proven that point with multiple quotes. Then you asked for a Biblical case, which is not what I stated. Then I told you where you could read that Biblical case and you've refused to do so. So far I've seen ad hominems, poisoning the well and other fallacies. Yet, you want me to spend several hours compiling the information by cutting and pasting enough of it together to make a case and at the same time not posting to much because people can't read to much. Why would I do that when I'm pretty certain you'll reject anything I post no matter what it says.

I've given the link and I'll give it again, if anyone is truly interested in this subject they can read it if not my posting isn't going to make a difference anyway. Now, if you decide to read it then we can discuss it, if not there is no need to continue this back and forth.

Should Christians Use Violence?