biblical self defense

And because your son did that, I bet the bully at least thinks twice before even trying that again with someone else. He not only protected hismelf, he indirectly protected others by drawing a line on the bullies two front teeth, and knocking them out. I guess if Helen were giving advice, she would have told him to stand there and take the knife?

Joseph Botwinick

 

We are also told to cut off our hand if it offends us and/or to gouge out the eye if it is a source of sin. I haven’t seen many Christians with one or both eyes gouged out (especially young men who are prone to "eye" the young ladies).


Hank, that is NOT what Jesus' words are saying. The Jews understood what He was talking about, and I wish more people today did, too. Your hand CANNOT CAUSE you to sin. It does not have a mind of its own. No part of your body can CAUSE you to sin. Your brain controls.

So what was Jesus saying? He was saying that is anything you see causes you to sin, then remove that from your sight. If anything you 'understand' to be OK is nevertheless causing you to sin, get rid of it. If anything you are doing results in sin, no matter how pure your original intentions, walk away. Sight has always been a symbol for understanding ("Do you see?") and the hand for action ("I wouldn't touch what they are doing with a ten foot pole!"). Interestingly, these symbols seem to be universal, across cultures and times. Jesus would have known that.

************

Joseph, back off. Whether or not the kid was right, the action was done. Did it encourage the bully to become more of a bully and a faster one? Or did it stop him permanently? After working with kids for almost 30 years, and raising six of my own, I seriously doubt having his teeth knocked out stopped him from bullying. However I'm glad the young man who was the intended victim is alright.

I asked you for Biblical backup for your position and got only challenges from you. I am not interested in those. I am interested in what God has to say about all this. Since you cannot produce anything from His Word, your arguments really mean nothing, and are based only on your own judgment rather than His.

 

If there is Biblical justification, as you contend (AKA: Commandment to love), then defending yourself is Biblically justified in that it discourages bullies from doing the same thing again. They will at least think twice about it. Further, if someone breaks in my house with the intent to harm me, and I kill them, that also eliminates that threat that they will do it to someone else.

So, tell me Helen,

Is it Biblical to defend others who are being bullied? If so, then it is also Biblical to defend yourself, because when you defend yourself, you also defend others by discouraging further attacks. Now stop the personal attacks and answer my questions.

Thanks,

Joseph Botwinick

 

If someone was berating me because of my faith in Christ, I would ignore him unless it got to the point of being physically harmful to me. Words from idiots are just so much foul air, but physical abuse might turn me into a "not so nice"
old lady. God gave me enough sense to get inside when a tornado is coming so I'm sure not going to stand around and let someone hurt me if I can get away from them. I can't run so the only thing left is a well placed kick. Yes, God does take care of us during trying times. Sometimes he handles the situation himself and other times He gives us the good sense to take care of things ourselves.

 

In light of the coming Independence Day celebrations, here is an interesting article regarding the Founding Fathers justification for independence. Included in the article is the following quote:

However, the taking of life is not always the taking of innocent life. God allows man justifiably to take human life on three occasions.

The first occasion is for the cause of civil justice (e.g., Deuteronomy 19:11-13, Numbers 35:16-27, 2 Samuel 4:11, etc.). The shedding of blood in such cases is not the shedding of innocent blood. The second justifiable cause is general military conflict (e.g., Numbers 32:27, 2 Chronicles 32:8, 1 Samuel 4:1). The third cause is in defense of one’s life, family, or property (e.g., Nehemiah 4:13-14 & 20-21, Zechariah 9:8, 2 Samuel 10:12). In these three situations, the taking of life is not viewed by God as the shedding of innocent blood.


I'm not sure how to link articles so hopefully this will work for the full article -
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=40

This is specifically talking about the taking of another life, but I think general defense could be inferred as well.

 

Tentmaker,

I think I mostly agree with you. The only difference, (and admittedly, this is probably being technical) I would have with what you say, is that I would say that when a person enlist in the military, he takes an oath to protect the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Therefore, I would argue that they chose as who his enemies are. His chosen enemies are those who are the enemies of the United States, foreign and domestic, as is determined by the American government, most specifically the president of the United States.

Also, a quick question: Are you saying that if someone attacked you in your home, that you would defend yourself by using your gun?

Joseph Botwinick

A note from myself: It would appear that Tentmaker deleted the message to which I was responding to, and that makes my message look really wierd without the context of his message. So please allow me to summarize what I was responding to:

Tentmaker:

1. asserts that the difference with the military is that they don't choose who their enemies are.

and

2. talked about his personal testiminy of when he used to carry a gun in his car to shoot dangerous animals like snakes in the line of work he was in. He says that God convicted him that he shouldn't do that by saying that God was could take better care of him than the gun could. So he now keeps it at home, and says if anyone were to break in his home, he still knows how to fire the gun.

 

OK let’s look at the passage:

Matthew 18:8-9
Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

Perhaps you are correct in allegorizing this passage from it’s obvious literal meaning, but if that is the case, where does the "allegory" leave off? Does the "everlasting fire" mean something different than eternal fire/hell fire?
Or perhaps when the Scriptures says that He made the blind to see it means that he actually gave them understanding rather than heal their literal eyes.

So, why not allegorize the phrase "turn the other cheek"?
In your own words "So what was Jesus saying"?
Perhaps it means be a little more tolerant than returning stroke for stroke. Try negotiating.
Then if it doesn’t work, go back to the Lex Tallionis. Perhaps make a whip and drive your opponent away.

Could be.

Actually they became good friends and my son's friendship mellowed him out (or so I believe).


HankD

 

See? The positive life changing effects of self defense...

Joseph Botwinick

 

The bible does say and give directives for the care of our physical bodies.
Jesus was mocked and harmed because of His beliefs. In none of those instances did he fight back.
And...He was considered a martyr, one who died because of his beliefs.
People who die because they refuse to fight back against someone who wishes to harm them so that they do not speak out against them and tell them of their crimes (ie theft, rape, etc.) are not considered martyrs, nor is there any biblical justification for not protecting yourself. Looking back at the laws they say such things as "an eye for an eye".
Woman who did not cry out against their rapists didn't really have a case to complain about.
So I believe it is wrong to react to religious persecution with violence or counter violence, but other than that it seems to me that we can and should defend ourselves. We need to do our best to stay healthy and unharmed and able to fulfill the commandment to "go". If you can flee, flee. If you can't then you are not in the wrong stay alive and fulfill your obligations on this earth.
Gina

 

Yes Joseph I see it.

The reason is that we as men being from Mars are programmed to be defenders of family (I forget where that Scripture is).

There is no way to do that than to be adept at the manly art of self defense because the moment you defend your family members you yourself will come under a retaliatory attack and will desparately need these skills.

Women on the other hand are from Venus.
My wife will walk out of the room when I watch a boxing match but remember with tears in hers eyes when I stood between her and harm's way from another.

HankD

 

Joseph, what about the bully. What about

You have heard that it was said 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Matthew 5:43-48

And then there are Paul's words in Romans 12:

Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourseles. Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. Be joyful in hope, PATIENT IN AFFLICTION, faithful in prayer. Share with God's people who are in need. Practice hospitality.

BLESS THOSE WHO PERESECUTE YOU; BLESS AND DO NOT CURSE. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.

DO NOT REPAY ANYONE EVIL FOR EVIL. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. DO NOT TAKE REVENGE, MY FRIENDS, BUT LEAVE ROOM FOR GOD'S WRATH, FOR IT IS WRITTEN: "IT IS MINE TO AVENGE; I WILL REPAY," says the Lord. On the contrary:

"IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM;
IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM SOMETHING TO DRINK.
IN DOING THIS, YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD."

DO NOT BE OVERCOME BY EVIL, BUT OVERCOME EVIL WITH GOOD.

Folks, God's way are NOT our ways. We need to always remember that. And we are to allow Christ to live through us via His Holy Spirit.

What about the bully? What caused him to become a bully? Unless that cause is fixed, no 'self-defense' in the world is going to change him. Only Christ can do that, and if he does not see Christ in you, where will he see Him?

 

This thread is NOT about the military. It is NOT about defending your home and children. It is NOT about the foolishness of not trying to avoid being hurt! It is not about any of those things!

It is about the reaction of someone when they are hurt or insulted without justification and, presumably, without warning.

Hank, the allegorical use of hand and eye were well-known. If you wish to take the rest as allegorical, that is up to you, but we can see from the rest of the writings in the Bible that the Jewish people didn't!

 

It seems to me that Hank's son showed quite a bit of love toward him by knocking his teeth out. Let me explain. By that action, this bully changed his course in life. They became friends and he calmed down. Imagine if he had gone as he was, raging throughout life, bullying others. Eventually, he would have met up with someone else who might have done something a lot worse than knock his teeth out. I try to tell kids that all of the time who are bullies themselves. They think they are invinsible. They think there are no limits or consequences to their actions. It is not until someone gives them a firsthand demonstration of that lesson that they generally figure it out. Imagine of that kid never met anyone who was willing to stop them and they turn to a life of crime and kill someone. Now, they are facing the death penalty or life in prison. To me, what Hank's son did was a lot more loving and merciful than allowing him to go through life thinking he is invincible and that there are no consequences for his actions.

As to what caused him to be a bully, there are many variables that could have caused this. But, the bottom line is, they need to know that if they continue down the same course in life, there will be consequences. Take Saddam Hussein for example. I read in his biography written by Efraim Karsh and Inari Rautsi that when he was a child that his father used to beat him mercilessly. With lead pipes and bats. He became a bully largely because he was raised by a bully who never experienced any consequences for his uncontrolled rage. Saddam learned the lesson well. Pick on the weaker of those around you and there are no consequences. As a matter of fact, it was a matter of survival in his mind. Now, somebody has put a stop to his rage and he will soon be facing the consequences for his rage when he is put on trial by the Iraqi people. If only someone would have stopped him a lot earlier, showed him there are consequences, perhaps they might not have been so severe.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Yes.

 

I think it's morally wrong for an individual property owner to kill a person to protect property. However, the law's prime funtrion is to protect individual liberties, not legislate individual morals. I generally don't think the scenario you're describing should be illegal. If a person violates another person's property, then the responsibility of the property owner making a mistake in judgement that results in death should fall to the violator. However, there should be exceptions. For example, if you catch someone breaking into your house, and you point a gun at them, and they flee, you shouldn't be allowed to chase them down and kill them.

 

I agree with John.

So does the law.

Joseph Botwinick

 

(John bows low, in humble respect)