Wednesday, March 6, 2013

The Biblical View of Self-Defense

Self-defense is a human right which transcends political, religious, and personal views.

I'm preaching to the choir when I say that the Second Amendment does not grant us this right, but acknowledges this right.

As a Christian, however, I have heard arguments against self-defense by other Christians who bring up Jesus's command to "Turn the other cheek" and misquote one of the Ten Commandments as "Thou Shall Not Kill" instead of "Thou Shall Not Murder." Two different words with two different meanings.

If you are a Christian or know other Christians who don't believe in self-defense, or are just curious to see what the Bible says about it, I highly recommend reading

The essay is broken up into 7 sections:
  • The Biblical Obligation to Preserve Life
  • The Biblical View of Bloodshed
  • Old Testament Passages on Lethal Force and Self-defense 
  • New Testament Passages on Lethal Force and Self-defense
  • Possession of Weapons and Skills with Weapons a Good and Useful Thing
  • Warnings
  • Perspective

This is one the most detailed and well written essays on self-defense from a Biblical perspective that I have read to date.

Bad things are coming.

I don't have to tell you where this nation is heading.

Prepare your soul for battle.

Both physically and spiritually.

Time is short.


  1. I submit that the right to self-defense is not God given but is a natural right. Because if the statists can show (to their own satisfaction) that God does not exist, then neither does the right of self-defense.

    1. Read the first sentence again.

      "Self-defense is a human right which transcends political, religious, and personal views."

    2. I wasn't arguing, merely pointing out why it is a silly waste of time to make a religious argument for self defense.

  2. Anon: "I submit that the right to self-defense is not God given but is a natural right. Because if the statists can show (to their own satisfaction) that God does not exist, then neither does the right of self-defense."

    I submit that you have not extended your logic/reason (logos) to it's fullest capacity. Since God is the creator of nature, wouldn't that sufficiently reinforce that a "natural right" is a God given right? Since God is the supreme "un-movable, mover", in existence prior to everything else. We can be sure that all action in our surrounding environment or nature comes from Him. Therefore, everything that has been revealed by Him as a human right (true right protecting the dignity of each individual), must be God given. To argue against that is thusly un-Christian as it denies that God is Omni-Present and Omni-Powerful. Read Saint Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica for more on this and Just-War-Theory.

    1. Actually, you haven't thought it out. First, god doesn't exist so he cannot grant anything. Naturally, you'll deny this so, whatever. Second, suppose there is a christian dictatorship established. Don't say it can't happen, go study history. In this dictatorship, it would logically follow that a non-believer could not claim those rights that come from god ... since he doesn't believe. Yet I still have the right to self defense.

    2. Just because one doesn't believe in God doesn't mean that person wasn't created by Him. Your ability (Free Will) to choose such a position is in itself proof of God as the creator of the human soul. For a dog or any non-human does not have the ability to choose this belief or to reason with such thoughts. With out such ability to choose through reason (rightly or wrongly informed), we would be no better off than dogs always reacting to instinctual programming. ...and yes there is such a thing as objective Truth, no matter what popular secularism says today. Objective Truth would say that anyone looking to end your life prematurely in an unnatural way would be trying to abort what is already in progress. Therefore you have the right to protect what is in progress so long as it is moral and ethical. (We are talking about an innocent life don't go off to other arguments.) Since this is obviously true and God is all Truth then this must be from God. Whether you believe or not does not make something factual....even though you already said you don't believe.
      Secondly, to your dictatorship point. There is only one dictatorship that has been established with Jesus Christ as our High Priest. I have studied History...conversely if you had done so, you would realize that all of God's Truth's apply to all people, not just proclaimed Christians. There is only one True Religion of the World...Christianity. All others are false and man made, so therefore only one has been revealed Truth. No other religion has a founder that has claimed to be Divine or has been revealed to be Divine. Christianity has both.

  3. @ Anon 0938: I submit that there are no "just wars," only wars of necessity. The theory of "just wars" allows both sides to include factors into the equation that favor them and deny the opponent.

    In example, many Christian Americans consider the war on terror (war on a concept) which is executed on mainly people of Islamic followings to be "just war" in protecting our cherished way of life (NDAA, the (un)Patriot Act, police surveillance state, corrupt, fascist government,etc.) and our belief in and defense of God as some of the reasons behind our executing such a "just war."

    If you listen to the Islamic (fascists) who are at war with America their cause is "just" based on their beliefs and perceptions. They believe that their allah is the one true and just god (I intentionally chose not to capitalize either "allah or "god" in this context based on my beliefs), and the Americans are attacking and killing their families and people based on false beliefs and pure acts of illegal aggression aimed at destroying the Islamic faith -- they believe that their god, allah has commanded them to conquer the world in his name

    Which side is fighting a "just war?" The Americans, the Islamists or both? Doesn't it depend on who is doing the evaluating? So we essentially have two philosophies declaring they are executing a "just war" against the other. Declaring one's participation in a war as "just" is actually just cheap semantics available to anyone with a gun and cause.

    I spent the majority of my adult life as either a military or "civilian" operator in either hot declared war zones or hot undeclared war zones. War is not "just," it is a necessity for some and a luxury for most sociopolitical leaders who want to maintain or expand their domination. It is the purest expression of man's inhumanity to man for the warriors executing it and any civilians caught in the cross fire. It approaches being a "just war" if it is only fought begrudgingly and as a pure act of self defense.

    Unfortunately, millions of Americans are going to learn this distinction for themselves in the unavoidable hot civil war that is brewing here in our once great country. The progressive and neoconservative collectivists believe their actions as very best for society, and therefore, they will be able to claim their side as the side executing a "just war." The liberty loving patriots will claim their response to be "justified" in order to protect their natural, God given rights, human dignity and individual liberty and freedom -- that's the side and beliefs that I personally hold and will act accordingly.

    But people on both sides who only know of war through the movies, sanitized history, government propaganda and media will be in for a rude and brutal shock as to what war really is in real life -- man's ultimate inhumanity to man...may God have mercy on us all.

    Nous Defions

    1. Trinity: My point all along was that God does not expect us to be passive and sit by and let others steal and murder us/our families. Rather we have a responsibility to protect those under our care.

      You say there are no "Just Wars", but is a war of necessity to protect the innocent not considered "Just". It must also depend on who the primary aggressor is. Aren't most of us Americans just living our lives out here while we have been under constant attack from Progressive agendas? The gun is not the aggressor, but rather the person and agenda behind it.

      Let's first define Just War Doctrine:

      The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
      -the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain
      -all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective
      -there must be serious prospects of success
      -the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

      These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good. (I read this statement of "common good" as only referring to those making the decision for war...not having a connection to the co-opted "common good" of socialists).

      Now I would agree that we have moved beyond "Just Wars" in our modern era of Warfare. However, as Christians have been continuously attacked and persecuted by Muslims over the course of history, many of these wars have been Just. The Western/Eastern wings of the Church did not step up to defend Christendom until after over 30 individual attacks from Muslims at the start of the first Crusade. Muslims were clearly the aggressors during this point in history wiping out 90% of Christendom before a defensive assault was mounted.

      I agree with you...about what we are facing. And agree that we are in need of God's All Powerful Mercy.

    2. @ anon 1215. I understand your logic and especially in applying it to conflicts after the fact it appears relatively clear cut. However, once again the justification is in the eye of the beholder. Whoever makes the "judgment" as to whether one side or another or neither is pursuing a "just war" is subject to evaluation which includes any and all biases inherently being held by the judge. Basically, there exists no true objectivity to render the slaughter of masses as "just" or "unjust" as that is all relative to the beholder of such an opinion.

      The institutional defining of the theory is usually ascribed to St. Augustine toward the end of the Eastern Roman period. After sitting through many classes and discussions on this subject, which I won't bore you with as I assume you know it backwards and forwards better than I do, the thing that came through to me most clearly, apropos or not, is that it only works or can even be discussed by people who share cultures. Most professors I have heard deal with it always manage to leave out any discussion of Eastern warfare for instance because Orientals (and by this I mean "all other than Western") simply do not have the same sensibilities. This "does not compute" in nice pat discussions of "just war," but to them that's handled by an attitude of, "SO WHAT."

      The diametrically opposed "forces" or philosophies of the those creating the strife on our own society are essentially different cultures. While we obviously may all hold the designation of being Americans loosely in common, our cultural, philosophical, religious and socioeconomic differences are legion and do create an unbridgeable schism in cultural values and goals -- therein lies the problems that will not be gently resolved. Both sides still have it in their power to mitigate the schism by accepting the other side's position (regardless of how ridiculous). What one side considers "reasonable" is in reality totally unreasonable to the other. Once a hot civil war breaks out then both sides will claim the high moral ground of self or societal defense and there will be no turning back (which I believe will happen).

      It's not going to end or be resolved in a pretty for "just" or not, I'll leave that to God to determine.

    3. You are definitely correct in your assertion that we live in a time where diametrically opposed philosophies persist...and I agree that God will be the judge of what is "just". You are also correct in the Augustinian roots of Just War Doctrine, which was later expanded upon by Aquinas. I have read a good amount of their writings and they are breaths of fresh air compared to the "feeling" based reason that some drivel today.

      I prefer to live by the Gospel that teaches us Faith, Hope and Charity as a means of life and conversion through Jesus Christ rather than submission to allah through his profit and sword. I believe one is "just" and the other is slavery. Not saying that you don't...just stating that is where I am coming from.

    4. ...darn auto correct. I obviously meant..."to allah through his prophet and sword."

      Although, I guess as a non-muslim that could have been correct. I would be "required" to pay a "jizya" tax...which would be their claimed profit for allah. So, I guess I will die by the sword in that situation, as I won't ever be paying that tax.

  4. Time is very short. Various groups are actively declaring war as I write. Expect infrastructure attacks and prepare accordingly. Don't know how wide spresd it will get.