Do Christians Have A Right Or Duty To Self-Defense?

[crin63]

Should a Christian carry and/or use a firearm for defense of himself, his family, his church or even innocent bystanders that are in trouble?

I'm talking about life threatening situations and not just theft of property. If theft is an issue that should be considered by all means include it.

This question is posed mostly to pro-gun Christians and not as a gun-control debate or capital punishment. Obviously all others are welcome.


My opinion is that a Christian has the right to carry and defend as necessary even to the point of taking a life (in defense), not for vengeance. If the threat is physical. I'm not going to shoot someone for taking my stuff. It's just stuff but break into my home and threaten my family and that will be a different situation.

Now if it's persecution wherein its deny Christ or die thats a whole different set of circumstances. I hope to have and plan to have the courage to die without compromise.

[Hagbard Celine]

Uh, okay. Thanks for sharing.

[JohnDoe]

Should a Christian carry and/or use a firearm for defense of himself, his family, his church or even innocent bystanders that are in trouble?

I'm talking about life threatening situations and not just theft of property. If theft is an issue that should be considered by all means include it.

This question is posed mostly to pro-gun Christians and not as a gun-control debate or capital punishment. Obviously all others are welcome.


My opinion is that a Christian has the right to carry and defend as necessary even to the point of taking a life (in defense), not for vengeance. If the threat is physical. I'm not going to shoot someone for taking my stuff. It's just stuff but break into my home and threaten my family and that will be a different situation.

Now if it's persecution wherein its deny Christ or die thats a whole different set of circumstances. I hope to have and plan to have the courage to die without compromise.

I think we have a God given duty to protect ourselves and others from harm. This should be done without malice or vengence though....and i believe you should try not to kill the other person....even they, are made in the image of God.....

jd

[crin63]

Uh, okay. Thanks for sharing.

I'm sorry, did I narrow the field to much for you? :dunno:

I was just trying to keep it from turning into another gun control debate.

[Gaffer]

Anyone that doesn't defend themselves in dangerous situations is committing suicide, a sin in most religions.

[Abbey Marie]

I think we can extrapolate that it is ok to defend you and yours. When Jesus said, "Render unto Caeser what is Caeser's", etc. I believe he meant far more than just money. It refers to all duties to the gov't. Since fighting for Rome was pretty common in those days, it can be considered an indirect way of accepting killing in certain times.

Or, looked at another way, in Ecclesiastes, Solomon says: To everything, there is a season. A time to be born, a time to die, a time to kill, a time to heal.

[Hobbit]

The Bible seems to be very open to Christians fighting in wars, defending themselves, or, if part of the justice system, meting out sentences. However, it also preaches mercy, sympathy, and forgiveness. Therefore, in my opinion, the Bible fully sanctions self-defense and corporal punishment, but one must do so hesitantly and with justice in mind, rather than anger or vengeance. Violence should never be used lightly.

[diuretic]

Turn the other cheek but while you're at it, go for your shootin' iron!

Of course Christians should be allowed self-defence. It's not just a human right, it's a basic instinct and no religion should trump that.

[glockmail]

He only gave me two cheeks. Slap one and I'll offer you the second. Try slapping the other one before you've got my foot up your ass.

[Hagbard Celine]

The Bible seems to be very open to Christians fighting in wars, defending themselves, or, if part of the justice system, meting out sentences. However, it also preaches mercy, sympathy, and forgiveness. Therefore, in my opinion, the Bible fully sanctions self-defense and corporal punishment, but one must do so hesitantly and with justice in mind, rather than anger or vengeance. Violence should never be used lightly.

Are you sure it depicts "Christians" engaging in wars or does it depict Jews engaging in wars? The Old Testament is largely supposed to be an "historical" text--transcribed from the oral traditions of the 12 tribes of Israel--not necessarily a playbook by which we are supposed to live our lives, but more of an account of what happened. As far as Christians go, I was under the impression that Jesus always said things like "he who is without sin cast the first stone" and "he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword" when instructing on the matters of violence against your fellow man. :dunno:
I'm not baiting--my question is, how do you rationalize the two competing messages together?

[Hobbit]

Are you sure it depicts "Christians" engaging in wars or does it depict Jews engaging in wars? The Old Testament is largely supposed to be an "historical" text--transcribed from the oral traditions of the 12 tribes of Israel--not necessarily a playbook by which we are supposed to live our lives, but more of an account of what happened. As far as Christians go, I was under the impression that Jesus always said things like "he who is without sin cast the first stone" and "he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword" when instructing on the matters of violence against your fellow man. :dunno:
I'm not baiting--my question is, how do you rationalize the two competing messages together?

Both of those verses, when see in context, seem to be messages against seeking retribution or living for violence, not against all violence of any kind. However, many times in the New Testament, Christians are instructed to obey the laws and authority that has been placed over them, which included compulsory service in the Roman legions. I think the laws of self-defense and justice also apply on a larger scale, and volunteering to help one's country defend itself from invaders or dispense justice to those who have shown themselves to be a threat is also allowed, though not required. I also think that if you are already in the armed services, it is your duty to follow any orders given unless they directly contradict Christ's teachings (keeping in mind that you already know the order could come to kill people at the time you sign up). If you are drafted, then it is your duty to serve your country, though if you believe the service for which you are being drafted is against God's laws, you should sign up as a conscientious objector, if such a thing is available. Only when left with no other choice should you defy authority and skip out on military service.

I would also like to point out one thing about the adulteress they wanted to stone that is worth pointing out. According to Jewish law, if two people were found committing adultery, both were to be taken out and stoned. The man wasn't there to be stoned, leading to a whole mess of questions.

It's also worth pointing out the message at the Sermon on the Mount that justice should be handed out hesitantly, with love, and only when necessary. The men were quick to judge, showed malice towards the woman, and didn't seem to care that she was repentant. Our modern justice system has taken many leaps that reflect the compassion the Bible taught to our forefathers. Trials are often long and favor the defendant (being slow to judge), sentences vary, often depending on the defendant's level of remorse and the likelihood that he will commit the crime again (judgment only when necessary), and many prisons are migrating from pure punishment to a goal of rehabilitation (judgment with love).

[crin63]

Only when left with no other choice should you defy authority and skip out on military service.

I would also like to point out one thing about the adulteress they wanted to stone that is worth pointing out. According to Jewish law, if two people were found committing adultery, both were to be taken out and stoned. The man wasn't there to be stoned, leading to a whole mess of questions.


Are your choice of words bad or are you talking about fleeing to Canada rather than serve in the military? I believe a Christian would stay and face the consequences of his actions.

You are absolutely correct about the woman taken in adultery. They let the man go. It is widely believed that when Jesus stooped down and began to write in the dirt, he was writing down the secret sins of the scribes and Pharisees that were in his presence. Here is the scriptures that shows the obvious context in which Jesus said, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

Joh 8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
Joh 8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
Joh 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
Joh 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
Joh 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Joh 8:8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
Joh 8:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
Joh 8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
Joh 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

[Yurt]

Are your choice of words bad or are you talking about fleeing to Canada rather than serve in the military? I believe a Christian would stay and face the consequences of his actions.

You are absolutely correct about the woman taken in adultery. They let the man go. It is widely believed that when Jesus stooped down and began to write in the dirt, he was writing down the secret sins of the scribes and Pharisees that were in his presence. Here is the scriptures that shows the obvious context in which Jesus said, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

Joh 8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
Joh 8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
Joh 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
Joh 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
Joh 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Joh 8:8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
Joh 8:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
Joh 8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
Joh 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

as has been pointed out by avi and abbey, many, including myself, often forget that most important part

[crin63]

as has been pointed out by avi and abbey, many, including myself, often forget that most important part

Thats why I copied all the way down to that scripture. Thank you for pointing it out.

[Yurt]

Are you sure it depicts "Christians" engaging in wars or does it depict Jews engaging in wars? The Old Testament is largely supposed to be an "historical" text--transcribed from the oral traditions of the 12 tribes of Israel--not necessarily a playbook by which we are supposed to live our lives, but more of an account of what happened. As far as Christians go, I was under the impression that Jesus always said things like "he who is without sin cast the first stone" and "he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword" when instructing on the matters of violence against your fellow man. :dunno:
I'm not baiting--my question is, how do you rationalize the two competing messages together?

I have often wondered about this. I read hobbit's reply, it was good, however, it still does not completely resolve the issue for me. what is interesting to me is how in the OT, one of the main promises, other than the greatest one of a messiah, was "land" for the israelites. a place on earth where jews could openly practice their faith without the undue influence of idolaters and be a more pure example to the world of what it is and what becomes when one follows the one true God.

Christ, on the hand, seems to speak only of the heavenly kingdom and our role in preparing for that kingdom instead of preparing for any earthly kingdom. "Give unto Ceasar..." Revelation, it seems to me, focuses our attention on preparing for the heavenly kingdom and being persecuted by earthly powers. With that said, I do not believe Christ wanted christians to merely be whipping posts for evil people. turning the other cheek, living by the sword....when Christ said turn the other cheek, it appears to speak mainly in terms of a spiritual hit. if your wife was being raped and you had a sword/gun and could stop that evil, that is not "living by the sword."

my two cents

[Hobbit]

Are your choice of words bad or are you talking about fleeing to Canada rather than serve in the military? I believe a Christian would stay and face the consequences of his actions.

Depends. It's a complex issue. Staying to face the consequences of your actions would probably be the better choice, but there are many examples in the New Testament of the apostles fleeing 'justice' because they knew there was more to be accomplished by escaping than by staying to face punishment.

[Yurt]

Depends. It's a complex issue. Staying to face the consequences of your actions would probably be the better choice, but there are many examples in the New Testament of the apostles fleeing 'justice' because they knew there was more to be accomplished by escaping than by staying to face punishment.

also in the OT as well i believe, Elijah fled... right?

[crin63]

Depends. It's a complex issue. Staying to face the consequences of your actions would probably be the better choice, but there are many examples in the New Testament of the apostles fleeing 'justice' because they knew there was more to be accomplished by escaping than by staying to face punishment.

I really think those were different. They were fleeing for their lives and from extreme persecution. Not the American justice system.

[Yurt]

I really think those were different. They were fleeing for their lives and from extreme persecution. Not the American justice system.

might just be one and the same, now or even tomorrow... ever been to state prison? i have represented CA state prisoners, prison is literally a bitch

[bullypulpit]

Should a Christian carry and/or use a firearm for defense of himself, his family, his church or even innocent bystanders that are in trouble?

I'm talking about life threatening situations and not just theft of property. If theft is an issue that should be considered by all means include it.

This question is posed mostly to pro-gun Christians and not as a gun-control debate or capital punishment. Obviously all others are welcome.


My opinion is that a Christian has the right to carry and defend as necessary even to the point of taking a life (in defense), not for vengeance. If the threat is physical. I'm not going to shoot someone for taking my stuff. It's just stuff but break into my home and threaten my family and that will be a different situation.

Now if it's persecution wherein its deny Christ or die thats a whole different set of circumstances. I hope to have and plan to have the courage to die without compromise.

An armed society is a polite society. Now, how long have you been suffering from these feelings of persecution?

[crin63]

An armed society is a polite society. Now, how long have you been suffering from these feelings of persecution?

I love my guns! I have one or more of them with me frequently.

No persecution here. I was just addressing the issue before it came up.

[crin63]

might just be one and the same, now or even tomorrow... ever been to state prison? i have represented CA state prisoners, prison is literally a bitch

Been in San Bernardino County once for 24 hours. Not a pleasant place to be. I paid all my tickets after that though.

I hated the part where the felons were whistling at me and saying here kitty, kitty. I was a little nervous over that one, ok a whole bunch nervous.

I know its no where I wanna be.

[Hobbit]

I really think those were different. They were fleeing for their lives and from extreme persecution. Not the American justice system.

The original question did not state or imply that these Christians lived within the United States of America, so I was answering in a more general sense. If your country has a 'draft or die' clause and goes on a war of rape and genocide, I think Christians should flee that country, even fight on the other side.

[Hagbard Celine]

also in the OT as well i believe, Elijah fled... right?

Yep, and Noah flood :eek:

[bullypulpit]

I really think those were different. They were fleeing for their lives and from extreme persecution. Not the American justice system.

So Christians are being persecuted by the American justice system? Wow...! When did this start? Can I feed on to the lions? Of, course the Lions haven't had a good season since '92.

Sheesh! <img src=http://macg.net/emoticons/crazypsychotic.gif>

[PostmodernProphet]

So Christians are being persecuted by the American justice system? Wow...! When did this start? Can I feed on to the lions? Of, course the Lions haven't had a good season since '92.

Sheesh! <img src=http://macg.net/emoticons/crazypsychotic.gif>

???....he said persecution was different, not the same......you misunderstood his post.....

[glockmail]

Been in San Bernardino County once for 24 hours. Not a pleasant place to be. I paid all my tickets after that though.

I hated the part where the felons were whistling at me and saying here kitty, kitty. I was a little nervous over that one, ok a whole bunch nervous.

I know its no where I wanna be. Did you have to "give it up"? :poke:

[crin63]

Did you have to "give it up"? :poke:

NO! The felons stayed in their area. :scared:

[crin63]

So Christians are being persecuted by the American justice system? Wow...! When did this start? Can I feed on to the lions? Of, course the Lions haven't had a good season since '92.

Sheesh! <img src=http://macg.net/emoticons/crazypsychotic.gif>

Thats not at all what I was saying. Get a grip man! :coffee:

There is no persecution here in the U.S., that was my point. It's not like Vietnam, Cambodia or Muslim countries.

[My Winter Storm]

Should a Christian carry and/or use a firearm for defense of himself, his family, his church or even innocent bystanders that are in trouble?

IMO, everyone has the right to a weapon to defend themselves. Guns, however, are for the home, and the home only.

In public, I see nothing wrong with carrying a small knife and a can of mace.

[crin63]

IMO, everyone has the right to a weapon to defend themselves. Guns, however, are for the home, and the home only.

In public, I see nothing wrong with carrying a small knife and a can of mace.

How about a big knife and a bad attitude? lol I really don't have a bad attitude.

I grew up in a hick environment and I've been carrying a large pocket knife as long as I can remember. It's a tool, it's a weapon, it's conversation starter.

I would carry a gun on me all the time if it were legal. I don't just to avoid trouble with the law. Although in California it's only a misdemeanor for the first offense. I just don't need any legal hassles.

[actsnoblemartin]

see: if you have a gun.

I believe you prevent crime: like rape for example

or a mugging

if i were a woman, id carry a gun all the time


How about a big knife and a bad attitude? lol I really don't have a bad attitude.

I grew up in a hick environment and I've been carrying a large pocket knife as long as I can remember. It's a tool, it's a weapon, it's conversation starter.

I would carry a gun on me all the time if it were legal. I don't just to avoid trouble with the law. Although in California it's only a misdemeanor for the first offense. I just don't need any legal hassles.