Christian views on defensive violence

[Christian Liberty]

OK, TC, I hope you don't mind, but your statement about self-defense in green's troll thread made me think of a topic I wanted to discuss here.

You said the following, which I agree with:

The Bible teaches that we have the right to defend ourselves, that we have the right to keep and bear arms.

And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one."

The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That's enough!" he replied.

With that being said, is it Biblically justified to kill anyone who tries to take away our right to bear arms? If Feinstein ever gets his way and Federal agents start going door to door confiscating weapons, what would be the moral, Biblical ramifications of using our weapons to protect our right to own weapons?

Just a note: I deliberately posted this in the religion subforum because I want to discuss the Biblical ramifications of this issue, and I'm curious what people's takes are. I don't mind if other people who aren't Christians want to cite their own ethical system or whatever and contribute, but I did deliberately place this in the religious subforum because I want to be able to discuss this issue from a moral and ethical POV rather than a political one, if that makes sense.

[Brett85]

I don't believe that would be justified, but I think that civil disobedience is justified. If the government passed a law that banned guns or tried to confiscate guns, we as Christians would have a duty to ignore the law and disobey it. I don't, however, believe that we should use violence unless someone directly threatens our lives.

[Christian Liberty]

I don't believe that would be justified, but I think that civil disobedience is justified. If the government passed a law that banned guns or tried to confiscate guns, we as Christians would have a duty to ignore the law and disobey it. I don't, however, believe that we should use violence unless someone directly threatens our lives.

So what if it gets to a point where they are literally forcing us to hand over our guns? (And possibly trying to kidnap us/lock us up for having them). I'm not talking about preemptively killing cops because there's a law against gun ownership and they might try to take our guns, I'm talking about once it gets to the point where they are actually going to do so. At that point is it really possible to follow what you claim is a duty to disobey the law without using your weapon?

Also: I know this isn't a Biblical argument, but a constitutional one (And I throw this out there because I'm curious how you and others here think the Biblical argument works with the constitutional argument) but the whole point of the 2nd amendment was to enable us to protect ourselves against tyrants. So, what exactly is the point of resisting a law like this if not for that purpose? I mean, the 2nd amendment wasn't given to us so we could shoot deer

[Brett85]

So what if it gets to a point where they are literally forcing us to hand over our guns? (And possibly trying to kidnap us/lock us up for having them). I'm not talking about preemptively killing cops because there's a law against gun ownership and they might try to take our guns, I'm talking about once it gets to the point where they are actually going to do so. At that point is it really possible to follow what you claim is a duty to disobey the law without using your weapon?

Also: I know this isn't a Biblical argument, but a constitutional one (And I throw this out there because I'm curious how you and others here think the Biblical argument works with the constitutional argument) but the whole point of the 2nd amendment was to enable us to protect ourselves against tyrants. So, what exactly is the point of resisting a law like this if not for that purpose? I mean, the 2nd amendment wasn't given to us so we could shoot deer

Yeah, that's a good point. It at least seems clear that if a government agent came into your home and actually fired at you first, you would have the right to defend yourself and use force.

[Christian Liberty]

Yeah, that's a good point. It at least seems clear that if a government agent came into your home and actually fired at you first, you would have the right to defend yourself and use force.

OK, say they didn't shoot, but they demanded that you either hand over your weapon (Which, if we know anything from history, means they probably will start killing people at some point, even if they haven't yet) or they'd lock you up?

Here's the interesting thing, to me, and I know your ideology of government is a little different than mine which may make a difference here, but if a common thug broke into your house with a gun, you wouldn't have to wait until he actually tried to kill you before defending yourself. That he broke in would be sufficient, doubly so if he was trying to take things or kidnap you. Is it really any different if its a government agent? Why or why not?

[Brett85]

OK, say they didn't shoot, but they demanded that you either hand over your weapon (Which, if we know anything from history, means they probably will start killing people at some point, even if they haven't yet) or they'd lock you up?

Here's the interesting thing, to me, and I know your ideology of government is a little different than mine which may make a difference here, but if a common thug broke into your house with a gun, you wouldn't have to wait until he actually tried to kill you before defending yourself. That he broke in would be sufficient, doubly so if he was trying to take things or kidnap you. Is it really any different if its a government agent? Why or why not?

It just seems like the Biblical thing to do would be to go to jail. Christians in the Bible went to jail for what they believed and died for what they believed, but they didn't use violence against those who were persecuting them. Of course I'm not saying that we shouldn't ever use violence to defend ourselves, but generally speaking I think that civil disobedience is better than violence. It's getting late so I may have to respond to the rest of your comment some other time.

[Ronin Truth]

Simplify!

WWJD?

WWJK? (Who Would Jesus Kill?)

[Christian Liberty]

It just seems like the Biblical thing to do would be to go to jail. Christians in the Bible went to jail for what they believed and died for what they believed, but they didn't use violence against those who were persecuting them. Of course I'm not saying that we shouldn't ever use violence to defend ourselves, but generally speaking I think that civil disobedience is better than violence. It's getting late so I may have to respond to the rest of your comment some other time.

You may be right, but just to add a little bit more for discussion here:

I'm not sure I see a direct parallel between dying for the gospel and suffering persecution to keep one's rights to self-defense (which is kind of impossible because if you allow them to arrest you ultimately they are taking your guns anyway.)

When someone tries to kill you for being a Christian, allowing them to do it can be a great evangelistic opportunity. By contrast, letting them lock you up for having a gun is just allowing them to kill more people, if that makes sense.

Simplify!

WWJD?

WWJK? (Who Would Jesus Kill?)

Jesus didn't kill anybody, even people who were tying to kill him, but I don't think you can draw an absolute Christian ethic of violence from this fact. Or, at least, I am not convinced that you can.

For one thing, Jesus literally came to the earth in order to die. So, right there that makes a pretty big difference.

On top of that, Jesus came to found the Christian church. If the 1st century Christian church had physically fought their oppressors for any reason, they would have been wiped out entirely. So, I think there's a pragmatic aspect to that too. And of course, when Jesus comes back in Revelation 19 he will kill people. He also did so in the Old Testament.

For what its worth, I'm not certain that ANY of the arguments I'm making in this thread are actually correct. I'm just trying to throw some ideas that I'm struggling with out there to see what everyone here thinks. Because... I definitely don't know the answers.

[Ronin Truth]

Jesus didn't kill anybody, even people who were tying to kill him, but I don't think you can draw an absolute Christian ethic of violence from this fact. Or, at least, I am not convinced that you can.

For one thing, Jesus literally came to the earth in order to die. So, right there that makes a pretty big difference.

On top of that, Jesus came to found the Christian church. If the 1st century Christian church had physically fought their oppressors for any reason, they would have been wiped out entirely. So, I think there's a pragmatic aspect to that too. And of course, when Jesus comes back in Revelation 19 he will kill people. He also did so in the Old Testament.

For what its worth, I'm not certain that ANY of the arguments I'm making in this thread are actually correct. I'm just trying to throw some ideas that I'm struggling with out there to see what everyone here thinks. Because... I definitely don't know the answers.

Well since Jesus wasn't a Christian, I guess that I have to seriously doubt that he would the absolute authoritative expert on Christian ethics. BTW, if not Jesus, who is?

[erowe1]

I don't believe that taking up arms in order to defend ourselves from the regime, including the defense of our right to bear arms, would be immoral. But I also don't think that it would be the right Christian course of action. Nor do I think that it would be likely to end up with positive results. Just look at what the American Revolution gave birth to.

[erowe1]

Well since Jesus wasn't a Christian, I guess that I have to seriously doubt that he would the absolute authoritative expert on Christian ethics. BTW, if not Jesus, who is?

When we speak of Jesus, we're not just speaking of the Nazarene rabbi walking around Galilee and Judea, but of the Heavenly Son of God. As such it is Jesus who is the absolute authoritative expert of Christian ethics through the teaching of his apostles whom he sent and the work of the Holy Spirit whom he sent in the hearts of those who believe in him.

[Ronin Truth]

When we spew of Jesus, we're not just speaking of the Nazarene rabbi walking around Galilee and Judea, but of the Heavenly Son of God. As such it is Jesus who is the absolute authoritative expert of Christian ethics through the teaching of his apostles whom he sent and the work of the Holy Spirit whom he sent in the hearts of those who believe in him.

Well I've seen and learned much of the history of the Christian church over the centuries. And to be honest with you, I've seen very little of Jesus and a whole lot of Satan in them.

[erowe1]

Well I've seen and learned much of the history of the Christian church over the centuries. And to be honest with you, I've seen very little of Jesus and a whole lot of Satan in them.

I can't speak with direct knowledge of what you think you've seen, but my guess is that you missed a lot.

[Christian Liberty]

I don't believe that taking up arms in order to defend ourselves from the regime, including the defense of our right to bear arms, would be immoral. But I also don't think that it would be the right Christian course of action. Nor do I think that it would be likely to end up with positive results. Just look at what the American Revolution gave birth to.

What distinction are you making between "not the right course of action" and "immoral"?

[Ronin Truth]

I can't speak with direct knowledge of what you think you've seen, but my guess is that you missed a lot.

I think you know what I've seen: Crusades, Albigesian crusade against the Cathars, Inquisitions, witch burning, torture, Church wars, heretics burning at the stake, philandering popes, priests and nuns, politics, corruption, hypocrisy, infanticide, murder, etc., etc., etc.

It's gonna take an awful lot of what I've missed to cancel out that set of centuries of demonic Christian church activities.

Where was Jesus?

[Christian Liberty]

I think you know what I've seen: Crusades, Albigesian crusade against the Cathars, Inquisitions, witch burning, torture, Church wars, heretics burning at the stake, philandering popes, priests and nuns, politics, corruption, hypocrisy, infanticide, murder, etc., etc., etc. It's gonna take an awful lot of what I've missed to cancel out that set of centuries of demonic Christian church activities.

Where was Jesus?

Most of that seems like the fruit of Catholicism, not Christianity. For that which is left, I'm frankly beginning to think of statism as a religion, but I'm not honestly sure how far to take that. I'm still wrestling with some stuff myself. At the very least, what you describe would be examples of Christians committing sin, or at the most, pretenders.

[erowe1]

What distinction are you making between "not the right course of action" and "immoral"?

That's a great question. It crossed my mind as I was writing my answer but didn't really think it through. After all, if anyone knows what is right and does not do it, to him it is sin.

But I also think there is such a thing as doing good beyond what is our duty, or giving up rights that we could claim, for the sake of a better good.

At the very least I think that not taking up arms against the regime to defend our right to bear arms would be in the latter category. I don't think it would be a sin. But I can see an argument that it would.

[Ronin Truth]

Most of that seems like the fruit of Catholicism, not Christianity. For that which is left, I'm frankly beginning to think of statism as a religion, but I'm not honestly sure how far to take that. I'm still wrestling with some stuff myself. At the very least, what you describe would be examples of Christians committing sin, or at the most, pretenders.

Most of it is Roman Catholic because they have the longest Christian church history. Protestantism is just another offshoot branch with it's own set of historic horrors. It's not just "examples of Christians commiting sin" it's official institutional church policy of the ruling clergy over centuries.

[Christian Liberty]

That's a great question. It crossed my mind as I was writing my answer but didn't really think it through. After all, if anyone knows what is right and does not do it, to him it is sin.

But I also think there is such a thing as doing good beyond what is our duty, or giving up rights that we could claim, for the sake of a better good.

At the very least I think that not taking up arms against the regime to defend our right to bear arms would be in the latter category. I don't think it would be a sin. But I can see an argument that it would.

I agree with you, and Acts 5:4 immediately comes to mind. Ananias and Saphira would not have done anything wrong by keeping their money or property... despite the fact that selling things to give to the church was clearly portrayed as the "better option." As I was wondering where you'd make such a distinction from scripture, I remembered that passage where such a distinction is clearly made. So, I'm not certain how that applies to this issue, but you're definitely correct at least about the basic concept that there can be a morally acceptable option and then a better option.

I'm not really sure what you mean about the American Revolution though. Yes, our government is so out of control it would make King George blush, but so is the UK's government. The only way I could see this argument working is if you could prove the Articles of Confederation (the constitution came later) was more oppressive than what King George made the Americans live under. I don't know enough history to know for sure, but my perception is that the AoC was much more liberating than the British government they rebelled against. This may be an issue we disagree on, but I'm open to seeing evidence for your side, because as far as I see it, the American Revolution was justified. It was fundamentally defensive, an act of secession, and King George refused to allow it. That seems as close to "defensive" as you can get, at least to me.

That said, I'd make a distinction between self-defense and revolt anyway. Larken Rose discusses it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYOKVTaflbM Its not specifically a Christian perspective (Larken is not a Christian, although to my understanding he's favorable toward Christians like us who actually worship God and don't worship Gov.), but I think its interesting because I think his logic is really solid and I'm curious how his logic intersects with the Christian worldview. Its an hour long, so I'm not sure if you'll have that kind of time, but if you do, I'm curious what your thoughts are on it.

And, to give a really extreme example to illustrate a point, if the Nazis are rounding up Jews at gunpoint, do you worry about what the results of revolution would be? Or do you just do unto your Jewish neighbors what you would have them do unto you and kill the Nazi thugs who are trying to murder them? I know that the American government isn't quite at that level yet, but I'm more trying to get down to a general moral theory on when violence is acceptable than I am specifically talking about the US.

I mean, the way I see it, the only way I could act in accordance with Luke 6:31 in the Nazi scenario would be to kill the Nazis if I could, and so do as much as I could to protect my Jewish neighbors. Because, that's what I'd want someone to do for me if I was going to be gassed by some tyrannical leader.

And if you accept that in that extreme scenario violence is justified, I think you MUST then say that resistance to gun confiscation is justified. Because, no leader is going to carry out mass extermination against an armed populace. The disarmament will come first.

And, I kind of see this as a different question than whether you should fight back against someone who tries to arrest you for preaching the gospel. In that case, letting them kill you makes you a martyr and gains sympathy for Christianity among the people. There's really no point in a futile resistance, at that point. But if enough people resist gun confiscation, there actually can be a point, if that makes sense.

[Christian Liberty]

Most of it is Roman Catholic because they have the longest Christian church history. Protestantism is just another offshoot branch with it's own set of historic horrors. It's not just "examples of Christians commiting sin" it's official institutional church policy of the ruling clergy over centuries.

I'm genuinely unsure about how much of the church is actually Christian these days. I know Gunny has suggested that he thinks 95+% of professing Christians in the US are actually fake Christians. Its something I've wanted to ask him about because I wonder if he might be on to something. As I mentioned in this thread, I'm beginning to think of "statism" as another religion, although I'm not completely sure how far I'd take that. But, if you want to say that most of the institutional churches are screwed up, I don't have a disagreement with you.

[erowe1]

I think you know what I've seen: Crusades, Albigesian crusade against the Cathars, Inquisitions, witch burning, torture, Church wars, heretics burning at the stake, philandering popes, priests and nuns, politics, corruption, hypocrisy, infanticide, murder, etc., etc., etc.

It's gonna take an awful lot of what I've missed to cancel out that set of centuries of demonic Christian church activities.

Where was Jesus?

If you think it's a game of canceling things out, then gambit declined.

But if you're honestly looking for Christ at work in the world through those who are on his side and not Satan's throughout history, then you'll see example after example. But you won't see any if all you're doing is looking for ways to paint professed believers in Jesus in the worst possible light.

[Christian Liberty]

If you think it's a game of canceling things out, then gambit declined.

But if you're honestly looking for Christ at work in the world through those who are on his side and not Satan's throughout history, then you'll see example after example. But you won't see any if all you're doing is looking for ways to paint professed believers in Jesus in the worst possible light.

The problem, the way I see it, is that an unbeliever's presupposition is that everyone who claims to be a Christian actually is one, whereas believers would assume that a good portion of the people who unbelievers have a problem with because they murdered or otherwise committed violence weren't actually on our side to begin with.

[erowe1]

As I was wondering where you'd make such a distinction from scripture, I remembered that passage where such a distinction is clearly made.

Also see Paul's discussion of the rights he had given up as an apostle and suggested others to as well, e.g. 1 Corinthians 7:6, 38; 9:4-23; 10:23-11:1.

[Ronin Truth]

I'm genuinely unsure about how much of the church is actually Christian these days. I know Gunny has suggested that he thinks 95+% of professing Christians in the US are actually fake Christians. Its something I've wanted to ask him about because I wonder if he might be on to something. As I mentioned in this thread, I'm beginning to think of "statism" as another religion, although I'm not completely sure how far I'd take that. But, if you want to say that most of the institutional churches are screwed up, I don't have a disagreement with you.

I'd be comfortable with the ~95+% worldwide, sadly. Perhaps there's a "churchism" equivalence for religion like "statism" is for government.

[Ronin Truth]

If you think it's a game of canceling things out, then gambit declined.

But if you're honestly looking for Christ at work in the world through those who are on his side and not Satan's throughout history, then you'll see example after example. But you won't see any if all you're doing is looking for ways to paint professed believers in Jesus in the worst possible light.

It's not a game for me. It was your concern with what I had missed, not mine. I'm under no obligation to look at any religion through rose colored glasses with blinders on. My issue in NOT with Christ in the world, but with the institutionalized organizations falsely claiming his blessing. From what I've seen, far too many of "the professed believers in Jesus" (so called) paint themselves in the worst possible light by choice and action, with absolutely no assistance from me nor with any apparent condemnation from their institutionalized "churchs".

"By their fruits ye shall know them."

[Christian Liberty]

I'd be comfortable with the ~95+% worldwide, sadly. Perhaps there's a "churchism" equivalence for religion like "statism" is for government.

Maybe, but I'm not sure. I think the odds of a given confessor being fake goes down a lot when the government is persecuting you.

I'm not saying there ISN'T a "churchism" equivalent to statism, but I'd say most of them are statists as well. There are probably a few exceptions who are NOT statists but still unduly revere their churches.