/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>675033

?

>>675033

If this has been posted before then can you send me screen caps or links to other threads where this question was answered?

I meaned I tried going outside 8ch but the answers are pretty cucked, so that is why I am asking

short answer: it's not

long answer: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

medium answer:

>Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

>If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.

I was also curious about this, is it only OT related to defend yourself or defend the weak?

>>675023

What this guys said >>675041

The law of Charity "Love thy neighbor as thyself" presupposes that you love yourself in the first place. Submitting to abuse also proves that you don't follow the first law of Charity which is to love God, since you have allowed evil to persist through sloth. When Christ said "resist not the wrongdoer" he was urging people not to multiply violence by violent retaliation against insults to honour, not to abstain from self-defence. Christ lived in a very honour-bound society but rejected the morality of honour. Honour societies even today find such things as honour killings acceptable, or even honour suicides such as the Japanese custom of seppukku.

>>675023

Sweetie, wherever you get your bigoted answer from doesn't matter because it's from one of the two jewish testaments and you're not one of God's chosen people so it doesn't apply to you.

Don’t be a pussy.

>>675041

thank you so much, these are honestly beautiful answers, and my anxiety has been relieved a litte, but my question is, is why so many, even in the orthodox church give such cucked answers to this question?

>>675110

ok

The bible would say no, a lot of Orthodox have this opinion though for some reason.

Exodus 22.2

If a thief be found breaking open a house or undermining it, and be wounded so as to die: he that slew him shall not be guilty of blood.

>I heard that self-defense is a sin

That was Satan speaking. Don't mind him and read the Bible.

>>675262

Wrong interpretation. Lack of the Holy Spirit's enlightenment, perhaps

>>675269

The Bible is full of heretical bigotry so I wouldn't trust it.

>>675620

Go back.

>>675036

>he thinks 8ch isn't cucked

Literally anyone can make a board and it will never be deleted while reddit removes subreddits that violate their TOS. 8ch is the most cucked site on the entire internet.

The best defense of your life is to seek eternal life

>>675023

A lot of people are wrong.

You turn the other cheek because if you slapped the person back that would start a fight you could have avoided, there's nothing wrong with self-defence when necessary

no

It depends of your Christianity flavor. If you believe more in the old testament/it's more important to you than the new testament, then yes, defense is allowed, and attack, and all .

But if you think that the new testament is more important and so is what Jesus said and did, then defense is wrong.

Remember when John cut the ear of someone in defense because they were imprisoning Jesus. Also, remember: love your neighbor and search no violence or retaliation and all that.

>>675023

self also extends to family and friends and your neighbor, it's not only permissible but it's a moral duty to help those being attacked, the use of force is necessary.

>>684299

>But if you think that the new testament is more important and so is what Jesus said and did, then defense is wrong.

Jesus attacked the money lenders with a whip…

And Jesus didn't change the moral law regarding defense of self, defense of neighbors, or punishing criminals. If you love someone you will protect them, that includes force against assailants. Gen 9:6 is always in effect.

>Remember when John cut the ear of someone in defense because they were imprisoning Jesus.

John didn't understand what was going on in regards to Jesus and the crucifixion…self-defense wasn't the issue. Even Jesus said he could summon legions of angels to fight off his attackers but that wasn't meant to be.

No

>t.asked his Priest

>>675023

It's not a sin, but I personally wouldn't do it.

Absolutely not

>>675282

Any books etc that discuss more of the historical culture aspect like in that pic? It was fascinating to read about the council of jerusalem's debate of mosaic law and the removal of circumcision as a requirement partly because of hellenic culture disgusted by the practice.

Christianity should make you a pacifist, YOU personally have no reason whatsoever to go to a war you took no part in starting, to fight people you've never met and would likely get along with in better circumstances, for a cause that is contrary to the plan of universal peace that was Christ's, which has never been the political agenda of any nation since Christ.

If I were oppressed like say Ghandi or Martin Luther king or the early church Christians, I mean really oppressed not like someone who's car space is taken at the last minuit and pride is hurt, who should forgive instantly, then violent self defence is futile as well as sinful, I must use my legal rights to protect myself whilst trying to convince others of my case through peaceful debate and negotiation, only then can I say to God I did all I could to bring your peace to earth

In terms of self defence against muggers ect I'm not sure, I don't see how it's Christian to let someone you love get hurt whilst you are a capable defender, but this also must not be taken lightly and the bare minimum of defence needed must be used

I would say not. The Apostles were armed with bladed weapons, for utilitarian purposes but of course also fend against highwaymen. Luke 22 shows that Jesus suggested they sell clothes to purchase such armaments, likely to prepare them for the near future as protection and also for utility purposes.

Of course, it's also important to note that excessive violence is always discourage as has been pointed out by others here, so I won't repeat them. Essentially, do what is necessary to protect life, but only what is necessary. I would suggest one avoid going all "Death Wish" with that in mind.

https://archive.org/download/catechismexplain00spiruoft/catechismexplain00spiruoft.pdf

3.It is, however, lawful to wound or even to kill our fellow-man, if he threatens to take our life by violence, or anything that is absolutely indispensable to our life, and we have no other means of defence. This is called the right of self-defence.

Self-defence is not wrong, because our object is not to take another man s life, but simply to preserve our own; and the moral worth of an action is determined by that which is, not by that which is not its object. We are permitted to defend, but by no means to avenge ourselves; hence if we can save ourselves by flight, we ought to do so. If it is enough to wound our adversary we must stop short there. Above all, a woman is justified in defending herself against any one who attempts to violate her chastity. We are also permitted to kill any one in order to save the life of a third party; this Moses did when he slew the Egyptian who was striking one of the He brews (Exod. ii. 12). It is only lawful to put to death one who un justly seizes our property, if he lays hands on what is absolutely necessary to our existence, for then it is our life that we are defending. It is not right to shoot a robber who carries off something of no great value; nor can we plead the right of self-defence if it is only our honor that is wrongfully attacked.