Hello, People!
BushMaid started an interesting topical idea about killing for self defense in the Exceptions thread. My question is, what are your opinions on killing for self-defense and do you have any verses that can condone or convict this action?

I did some research of my own (research meaning getting a rant from my dad for an hour....or so. ) and found three verses. There are probably more, but these are the three I found:





So...those were the main ones I found mentioning fighting or self defense...discuss.

Bethany Faith

Before this goes anywhere, and before I give a detailed comment, I just want to remind us to stick to how this applies to writing, not moral opinions about self-defense killing and all that outside the writing sphere. I'll be back with my opinion later...

(Maybe Bethy is proposing this question outside of writing, and this thread should be in GD... Just thought I'd say.)

If that's the intended wind... then I am ready to go for the quick mod tools and send it where it wishes to go...

Now for my writing based reply... Self defense killing has always been a traditional way to get straight into the minds and emotions of a character. Once he does a self-defense kill, he'll either go bloodthirsty (because he realizes he loves killing or that it's not so bad) or he'll go what I call the monastic route: withdraw from warfare and be a pacifist sort of person. Both of those are extremes and would be the wrong decision for the character.

On the moral point, characters should always be allowed to do a self-defense kill. Pretty much anyone would, and since your characters are supposed to be real they'd have to be very special to just sit and allow themselves to be hurt.

No, no, no, I meant killing in self-defense in writing...so...for your characters. If your character had to kill in self defense. I'm bad at starting theology threads.

Est 8:11 Wherein the king granted the Jews which were in every city to gather themselves together, and to stand for their life, to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish, all the power of the people and province that would assault them, both little ones and women, and to take the spoil of them for a prey.

Ecc 3:3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

I would be more than happy for one of my characters to use self defense. In fact, my characters do use self defense to the point of killing someone. In my opinion it is not unbiblical.

Now, this is a topic that I have looked a lot into. As many of you know, my Daddy feels very passionately that his little girl should be fully capable of defending her own self, if called upon, and those she is sworn to protect. Not everyone looks at this favorably, mostly because it is so “unfeminine” of me. So masculine. So outside my role as a woman. I’m not going to get into that debate, mostly because it is off topic, and secondly because I’ve dealt with it somewhere else… don’t ask me where, but it is here on the forum somewhere.

The reality is that the bible couldn’t be clearer on the duty of a believer to defend themselves.

Now, let me preface something. While we have been asked to stick to writing on this topic, I have to state that I struggle with the application of that. After all, I draw from my real life experiences for my writing. I can’t separate the two. So while I am going to focus on this subject as it related to how I write, I just wanted to insure everyone knew that I may use real life examples to get my point across.

So, I start out by saying that in real life, I have no problem pulling the trigger on/injuring someone in self defense. Now, before we can go further, we need to establish something very clearly. Self-defense needs to be clearly defined and spelled out. Self defense is the act of "protecting oneself from injury at the hand of others." It has nothing to do with vengeance or punishing criminals. Self-defense is strictly the act of preserving one's own health and life when it is threatened in any way by another person. So this is what I am referring to when I talk about using lethal force/weapons to protect myself and others, even if the weapons used could kill the attacker.

Now, the first thing to note is the fact that the bible is very clear about the duty and obligation of a believer to preserve life. In fact, not just our lives, but the lives of other people. 1 Corinthians 6:19 teaches that our bodies are not our own. Rather, our bodies belong to God. Our bodies are His temple, and are not to be abused or mistreated.

“ Or know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God? and ye are not your own: for ye were bought with a price: glorify God therefore in your body. (1Co 6:19-20)

We also have an obligation to preserve the body and life of other people.

Psalm 82:4 Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.

Consider also Proverbs 24:11, which indicate we have a duty to preserve the lives of those who are harming themselves:

Proverbs 24:11 Deliver those who are drawn toward death, And hold back those stumbling to the slaughter.

Now, here is something to look at as well. Think back to the KKK threatening our black brothers and sisters in Christ. They are surrounded by people who hate them and want to kill them. What were they supposed to do? Stand there and let the KKK do the unimaginably horrific atrocities they were known for? I think not. Let me turn your attention to Nehemiah 4:14. Now, this passage of scripture specifically says:

"...fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your houses."

In this story, the Jews are under threat of violence.

Another thing to look at/consider is the story of Esther. In the end of Esther, I’m sure you all are aware of the decree that king Ahasuerus sent out after Haman’s plot to annihilate God's people failed. If you don’t remember the account, let me enlighten you.

Esther 8:11-12 11 By these letters the king permitted the Jews who were in every city to gather together and protect their lives -- to destroy, kill, and annihilate all the forces of any people or province that would assault them, both little children and women, and to plunder their possessions...

Esther 9:1-5 ...the Jews themselves overpowered those who hated them. 2 The Jews gathered together in their cities throughout all the provinces of King Ahasuerus to lay hands on those who sought their harm. And no one could withstand them, because fear of them fell upon all people.... 5 Thus the Jews defeated all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, with slaughter and destruction,

In all of these verses, and scripture for that matter, I cannot find a single passage where the Bible tells me to allow someone to harm/desecrate me or those I love. I also don’t buy into the turning the other cheek (meaning stand helplessly by), but that is another topic, and it’s late. I'm falling asleep whilst typing.

I hope this was helpful and not too scatterbrained. Those are just my quick thought on the subject. I may come back with more, maybe not. Depends on what I think of what I wrote when I have a clear, well rested brain.

*is glad to see a new monster post from Airianna*

*corrects some things before going to bed * There, now the post should be legible. Sorry about some of those, Jonathan.

*is also glad to see a new big Airi post*

*is also very glad to have a long Airi post*

I've agreed with everything on here so far, except this bit (sorry, Brendan, haha). I cannot imagine how it could be argued that those passages could be referring to spiritual warfare. Of course, I haven't heard anyone try. I would be interested in seeing that point of view, though.

Another verse that I am actually surprised no one has quoted yet is Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Well Airi, now there is barely anything to discuss! You cleared it all!

*smiles sheepishly *

Sorry, Namor. I try not to shut down discussions.

Hehe that's ok; that was a good thing!

Maybe.

* nods * The thing is, though, that although the passage can include spiritual fighting, it would be doing so as an extension of physical fighting, from the context. Wouldn't it?

Not to mention God himself judged nations and killed righteously.




-God bless

* nods at Brendan *

That brings up something helpful. See... we all agree for the most part. So the conversation is... well pretty one sided. But:

Characters aren't always right.

Meaning, they can be pacifists even though we aren't. And for us to give them a realistic persona, they need a realistic worldview. So don't shy from giving arguments that you don't agree with: in fact I'm asking you to tell what you know about what extreme pacifists (the kind who don't believe in self-defense) believe.

Indeed! But it seems that the statement; my characters aren't always wrong would better fit most of my books! Most of the time when there is something good to be done most of them don't do it and when there is nothing good to be done they go and do something!

Or here's a question for you: what would be some reasons why your character wouldn't defend himself? Both good and bad reasons. Sometimes killing in self-defense is the wrong choice, as in the case of martyrs.

Actually, I interpret this verse (as well as the verse "those who live by the sword...") to refer to the consequence of the blood curse. In other words, this verse is a curse ordained by God, not permission to kill people.

That said, I am a firm supporter of killing people who deserve it. And of just wars. I just don't want to see a verse taken out of its context.

Yes, if someone had a gun to his wife's head I would see why he would kill him. Out of self defense. It is rather logical.

Matthew 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

The Bible actually doesn't say "those who live by the sword." In this instance, if you do a harmony of the Gospels, to see everything Jesus said right there, the context is extremely clear that he isn't talking about a general principle (unless that general principle is that God doesn't defend you with miracles if you aren't fighting in His will), but that specific case. They weren't supposed to fight right then because Jesus made it very clear that he wanted to be taken, and he didn't want them to die trying to save him.

Yup. Turning the other cheek is for when some one slaps you on the first one.



Genesis 9
3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
7 And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.

The phrasing is the phrasing of a command, like "Thou shalt not kill."
Here is a detailed repetition of the command:

Numbers 35
16 And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.
17 And if he smite him with throwing a stone, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.
18 Or if he smite him with an hand weapon of wood, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.
19 The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer: when he meeteth him, he shall slay him.
21 Or in enmity smite him with his hand, that he die: he that smote him shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer: the revenger of blood shall slay the murderer, when he meeteth him.
30 Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die.
31 Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death.

There are exceptions though, like king Saul, and king David. They were chosen by God, and so it was for God to punish them, and he did.


In the case of writing I think that how you present doctrines in your stories, no matter what doctrines they are, would be a separate thread. It seems that the threads in Theology naturally focus on what makes our Fantasy Christian Fantasy, which is one thing Holy Worlds was made for.

If I am out of line in this, I can take my medicine, but I would be useless on Theology. It sometimes seems that we are trying to discuss how various doctrines can be presented in Fantasy without discussing what the various doctrines are.

That bit about those who live by the sword shall die by the sword I forgot about. I need to stick that in my real life land law file.

What that means, as I've always seen it, is that you sit at home peaceful spinning and toiling you'll die at home peacefully. If you take up your sword and go out into the wide, wide world someone else is going to kill you, because you have a sword and an intent to kill. It's kind of a law. If you go to war, it's very likely you'll die in war. It's a land-law, not a civic law.

And didn't he say that somewhere else besides that particular scene?

Except it doesn't always work that way. David was God's man of war more than perhaps any other man in history, and yet he died peacefully at home of old age.

Nope, he didn't. That's the only passage that comes close to it. People often misquote it though.

Well, there are always exceptions. Always.

But now I'm getting off topic...

I can agree with your contextual argument in principle, but not literally. Yes, Jesus is referring to that specific instance. However, I think he's also saying that you reap what you sow in that specific instance: if the apostles had sown death with the sword, they would have reaped death with the sword.



Note: I am not arguing against capital punishment.

God says "I will require it" implying that it is his judgment, not man's. My defense for this assumption is that God does not stipulate who will hold men accountable for the shedding of animal blood, implying that God alone will hold men accountable.

So it's not a command, it's a curse. Besides, other verses (no time to investigate at the moment) imply strongly that one consequence of blood-guilt is a violent death.



The difference between the curse proclaimed to Noah, and the laws proclaimed to Moses, is that everything from Genesis 9 is pre-Covenant. All laws issued as part of the Covenant, like Numbers, are only Covenant law, not necessarily principles which applied before or after the Covenant.

The Covenant laws do not contradict God's character, but they are principles being applied to a very specific and unique circumstance. Principles apply differently, given different variables.

Again, I'm not arguing against self-defense or capital punishment. I advocate both.



Hm...I hadn't thought of that. Your point is valid, though.

Discussing the actual question of a doctrine (what does it mean, is it true, how does it apply) is necessary to discussing what that doctrine means for a fantasy world. So I think its important that our theological discussion include healthy conversations about what the Bible actually tells us.

I'm not sure if that means we need split threads though. I don't think I fully see your analysis there.

It is true that if you sow death you reap death, but you sow death by murder.

The apostles wanted to do the right thing: defend the the innocent. But it was God's will for Christ to be treated as guilty by those who were guilty, and to suffer God's wrath, though he was innocent; so Christ was warning his disciples that in this unique case the innocent should not be defended, and if they disobeyed they would suffer the consequences.

Think of what Christ said:

Matthew 26
53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

And compare it with what happened here:

2 Kings 1
9 Then the king sent unto him a captain of fifty with his fifty. And he went up to him: and, behold, he sat on the top of an hill. And he spake unto him, Thou man of God, the king hath said, Come down.
10 And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, If I be a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And there came down fire from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.
11 Again also he sent unto him another captain of fifty with his fifty. And he answered and said unto him, O man of God, thus hath the king said, Come down quickly.
12 And Elijah answered and said unto them, If I be a man of God, let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And the fire of God came down from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.




God's judgment is that it is the duty of man to avenge murder, since he said "At the hand of man I will require the life of man." This command is God's curse on the murderer, but he holds man accountable for carrying it out, as he said.



God will hold men accountable for shedding animal blood? I do not understand.




I do not see how this changes anything; God commanded Adam not to eat the fruit pre-Covenant, the Israelites slew the Canaanites for violating God's law, though it had only recently been told them, and baptism was commanded by Christ centuries after the Covenant.

Adultery for instance was a crime long before it was written, "Thou shalt not commit adultery."

Genesis 20
3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man's wife.
4 But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation?
5 Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said, He is my brother: in the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this.
6 And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.
7 Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that are thine.

Abimelech was a Philistine in Abraham's time.

I'm not arguing against self-defense. I fully understand and agree with your application of these verses. The fire of heaven struck down sinners who, by sinning, opened themselves to God's judgment and received it when Elijah defended himself.



I'm sorry, slight misspeak there. The verse states that God will hold both animals and men accountable for the shedding of blood. However, He only applies the clause that men will execute His justice in the case that a man was killed by a man. If we assume, rightly, from this verse that both animals and men are cursed (since animals receive no judgment, not possessing souls), and we take your assumption that God is ordaining capital punishment in this verse, then why wasn't capital punishment at the hands of men ordered against the animals as well?

But if we assume that, in context, this verse is not referring to capital punishment, but is rather an extension of the blood curse applied to murders when Cain killed Abel, we understand: animals have no souls, and have no moral guilt, and therefore cannot be subject to the blood-curse, while men, obviously, can.

I do agree that God commands capital punishment. But he did that elsewhere in the Bible. I believe that this context is referring to the blood-curse.



And God also ordained Capital Punishment pre-Covenant. All I'm saying is that you were applying a verse outside its context.



The law against adultery, as you have demonstrated, was pre-Covenant. However, you will find that the law condemning adulterers to stoning was not pre-covenant and was terminated when Christ established the New Law and the New Covenant. There is a difference between Covenant law and any proclamation issued external to the Covenant.

Again, I am not against self-defense or capital punishment. Maybe I'm getting caught up on un-important details, but I felt that certain verses were being used outside their actual meaning and significance.

David, though, was absolved from his blood-guilt through sacrifices. God's judgment is against those who are not forgiven their crime.

This is starting to sound vaguely familiar. * grins * Been missing Liberty's Light.

I'd like to remind us all, though, that we aren't debating here, just discussing. So before we get into infinitely nested quotes of contention, I'd like to back up a bit and try something a bit new (perhaps it's new anyway).

What if we worked out this topic of common controversy in a more literary format? What if we created consistent Point-of-view Personas that represent various sides to the conversation? We wouldn't be representing our own views, but possibly representing the opposite view or a view to the side of our own.

This would benefit our writing far more than discussion of the subject itself in its raw form, I believe. We will still glean an understanding of the issue, but in a context more palatable and vendible.

You mean a system similar to the Liberty's Light system?

Ooh, I miss LL as well.

More or less, just a bit more... fanciful. Like for example, we could create a fictional character named Professor Inglas Frazier, who happens to have had his brother killed in a war, and his own future as a teacher made unsuccessful because of the economy created by the war. We could create a full set of beliefs on pacifism for him (or any other of the various beliefs), using him as a sort of testing dummy.

I'd like to resurrect it eventually, though with a few changes, and on my own server of course.

I'd love to see a more detailed explanation of what you're talking about, Jay, as I'm not familiar with Liberty Light. It sounds fascinating, this concept does.

It is actually kind of an experiment: I've never really tried it before. But it is based off of lots of other kinds of ways I've handled (and seen handled) discussions on... topics. Haha.

So... I say just play around with it and see what we come up with, using this topic as a test run.

Would anyone mind if we did that?

Not me, as long as you give us clear directions on what we're doing.

That is a fascinating idea, Jay, and I know exactly what you are talking about. I don't mind this type of discussion in here, so long as this doesn't take over all the other theology threads. I think it would be cool to get up and running though, and at least try out. It does not hurt to try.

That sounds like an ingenious idea, Emeth! *likes this idea very much*

I love it, Emeth!

I haven't really said much here, but I've been reading, well, skimming. I think that's a great idea Emeth.

I have never heard of it before, would love to learn more!

I've been following this thread closely, and I would be interested to see how this idea works.

Well okay, let's start with Professor Inglas Frazier then.

Short bio of unimportant details so you can all visualize him:

A very small man with a nose and a hat which he wears on sunny days; he never goes out in the rain. He is constantly reading, and keeps his personal library organized to a painful degree. He will also often begin debates with librarians on the correct placement of the books in their keeping.

He prefers chronological to alphabetical order and lives in a garret in the university by choice because he hates loud noises above him (which is also why he stays outside of the griffin roostery).

He is extremely energetic, and has a habit of lifting his hat (which is flat and always turned just so) and pushing it up and towards his listeners as if he was a tall man getting in their face. He has close cropped, black hair, and an expansive beard.

He is an under-professor of biology in culture studies, and as such is an expert on the relations between national cultures and genetic pools. He lived as a farmer for the early years of his life, and so got into the university later than most, but unlike in normal stories, he was unable to make up the time as quickly as he would have liked. So he is always a few steps behind those of his age, which annoys him.

His voice is very calm and normal, which he also does not like, and so he tries to make it more pretentious by raising and lowering both volume and pitch at random intervals. Very annoying until you get used to it.

And like I said, his brother went to war and was killed. Also, because of the economics of the war, he was unable to save enough money before hand to pay for the extra tutoring, so he was not able to advance as fast. And in like manner, his own tutoring services weren't doing so well, so he had to resort to doing translations and cobbling (shoe making and mending).

As such, he has personal reasons for the filters through which he sees the topic of war and combat. He believes combat of all sorts is primitive, and beneath the genetic excellence of his kind.

That is his premise. My turn is done, who is next? You can develop his worldview more, or create an alternate character if you wish.

(Oh, this guy and his world is entirely off the top of my head, so no worries about contradicting anything by further development: all that is developed I just wrote.)

He only wears his nose on sunny days?

I'm resisting the urge to run this guy through a fractal.

* grins * I wondered if anyone would notice that little joke of mine.

Haha, I kind of did... in my head. You'll notice that I touched on almost every section of the Character Fractal.

Glad to know it was intentional and not just bad grammar on your part.

*nods* One thing I like about the fractal system is that it helps explore the "why." We know this character is pacifist - why? From your description, we know that Inglas is pacifist because war hampered his dreams of being a professor. He views war as primitive while social advancement is the mark of superior civilization. So... methinks that mentality would carry over to other areas of life, and... I lost my train of thought. It's there, but I lost it...

He would be a bit arrogant and sure that humans are (or whatever group) are superior?

Yes, both of you caught onto another clue I left in there (the library sorting arguments): he views social advancement as evidence of greater worth, and so if his views are more right, then he has a right to impose them on others by virtue of that rightness. Everyone else should simply accept the superiority of... well himself, and bow to the dictates of his systems.