Your Faith/Beliefs Re Justified Violence

[MsBirdie]

Ok so this is a point where I have deep trouble in terms of reconciling my Faith and what I feel is just.

Christ's teachings are one of pacifism. However, if one of my children were in danger and the only way to save them and me was through self defense that could kill the perpetrator, I do not think I could stand by and do nothing. I feel that the world has an obligation to stop genoicides that are/have been committed. As far as the death penalty goes, I feel that certain individuals should not be allowed to rejoin society. I do not believe in the death penalty, however is the death penalty what we are supposed to do in God's eyes? Are we supposed to "rid" our society of certain heinous criminals?

I am sure these answers will vary depending on your beliefs and am interested in hearing from all beliefs and faiths? Is certain violence justified? This is an area of deep turmoil for me so I appreciate any thoughts.

sorry for all the typos, hope they are know fixed

[cappuccinosmom]

I think a lot of people wrestle with this.

For me, I have to differentiate between what Christ calls me to as an individual, and the fact that secular governments have a Biblical right to rule and that includes just punishment, and we are to submit to government so far as it does not require us to violate God's rules for us as individuals. But individuals can also influence their secular governments at certain times in history. The Amish and conservative Mennonites, for instance, aren't pacifist activists in the sense of protesting wars or the death penalty. They did, however, influence our government by refusing to participate in anything to do with violence. Many of them paid a heavy price for it, too, but IMO their staunch non-resistance paved the way for other pacifists later on when the Vietnam war became an issue.

As an individual, I do not believe I can participate in violence or be the aggressor. I struggle with the concept of self-defense, but when it comes down to it, I'd probably beat someone over the head (or shoot 'em, if I had a gun) before allowing them to lay a finger on my children. I would rather live with that guilt than with the guilt of standing by and letting my family be harmed. I know dh feels the same way, only he's not at all hesitant about protecting himself or his family. In that case, it's not that violence would be a good thing, but that it would be choosing a slightly lesser evil.

Dh is ex-military (not US military though) and that was difficult for him as a young Christian man. He had no option to be a concienscious objector--it was serve or die. He was an excellent marksman, but desperately, desperately did not want to shoot anyone. In 4 years of civil war, he prayed and prayed about that, and was mercifully spared from being in a position that would have required him to shoot. He also happened to be an excellent accountant so was kept back doing inventory and payrolls most of the time. He absolutely honors and respects people who put their lives on the line for the protection of others, in the military, in the police force, and so on, but feels such an occupation is incompatible with his calling to be peaceable and loving as a Christian. Because of the way we believe, we could not encourage our children to pursue those occupations, though if they did, we wouldn't disown them or anything.

Kinda sounds like we're on the fence, doesn't it?

On the other side of it is the idea that God's law requires justice, and that a secular government employing the death penalty for murder is not against God's law. Or a government at war to protect it's citizens. Or policemen killing a person in the act of murdering others. Or even a sniper taking out someone who's about to set off a bomb, but hasn't yet. The people on that side of the debate view such acts of violence as honoring the lives of the victims, or protecting the lives of many by participating in war or defensive violence.

I think what it ultimately comes down to is that we live in a sinful, fallen world, and that there are times that some form of force is required in order to protect people or oppose violence born of evil. And that's sad.

[fruitfulmomma]

I'll have to look up the verse (on my way out the door) but Christ commanded the disciples to take swords.

Also, the Law as given in the OT permits the use of deadly force against intruders.

[fruitfulmomma]

Here you go...

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

- Luke 22:36

[Freud]

Originally Posted by fruitfulmomma

Here you go...

- Luke 22:36

But what is the context of that quote?

[Liquesce]

What in the Biblical account of the teachings of Jesus is being taken to forbid self-defense, the defense of one's children, the defense of victims in need, etc?

[cappuccinosmom]

What in the Biblical account of the teachings of Jesus is being taken to forbid self-defense, the defense of one's children, the defense of victims in need, etc?

If someone hits you on the right cheek, turn to him the other. Or if someone takes your coat, give him your tunic also.

Although, to me, in the context of the whole Bible, those are about living self-sacrificially, lovingly, and in a way that is "shocking" to the world's sensibilities of defending one's rights or fighting back. Not necessarily disapproval of defending others.

[genifer]

Here's how I feel about it. If it were me, alone, with no one to defend, I would strive to live by the turn the other cheek... I say that but I dont know if I can actually practice it if faced with situation tho, this is all speculation, and I pray I never have to face anything like that. As far as my children are concerned, I personally feel there is plenty in the bible that says we are to defend the powerless and thats exactly what I would do.

[holyhelianthus]

Originally Posted by genifer

Here's how I feel about it. If it were me, alone, with no one to defend, I would strive to live by the turn the other cheek... I say that but I dont know if I can actually practice it if faced with situation tho, this is all speculation, and I pray I never have to face anything like that. As far as my children are concerned, I personally feel there is plenty in the bible that says we are to defend the powerless and thats exactly what I would do.

I think there is a time and a place. I feel I have been commanded to both build up and protect my posterity. So if someone smacks me across the face I would strive to turn the other cheek but when it is the powerless it's a different matter.

ETA and also I should add that I feel we have been asked to help those in need and to me that doesn't just mean food and shelter. I feel we I have an obligation to everyone to stand up for humanity whether that be to give food to someone in need of it or to forcefully pull an attacker off a woman in an alley.

[holyhelianthus]

Christ's teachings are one of pacifism. However, if one of my children were in danger and the only way to save them and me was through self defense that could kill the perpetrator, I do not think I could stand by and do nothing. I feel that the world has an obligation to stop genoicides that are/have been committed.

My husband pointed this out to me and I hadn't thought of it!

Pacifism isn't nessisarily about doing nothing in the face of danger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism

Pacifism is the opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes or gaining advantage. Pacifism covers a spectrum of views ranging from the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved; to calls for the abolition of the institutions of the military and war; to opposition to any organization of society through governmental force (anarchist or libertarian pacifism); to rejection of the use of physical violence to obtain political, economic or social goals; to the condemnation of force except in cases where it is absolutely necessary to advance the cause of peace; to opposition to violence under any circumstance, including defense of self and others.

then the article goes on to say-

Pacifists follow principles of nonviolence, believing that nonviolent action is morally superior and/or pragmatically most effective. Some pacifists, however, support physical violence for emergency defense of self or others.

The definition of "pacifism" from Websters

1: opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes ; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds2: an attitude or policy of nonresistance

So I guess one has to ask oneself what they feel is the pacifism of Christ (if that is where their beliefs lie). What I'm trying to say is pacifism in general does not mean violence never ever.

[MsBirdie]

thanks to everyone for their responses. I guess I have to take it that turning the other cheek and defending the rights of the innocents are two different things. I hope I am never found in a situation where I would have to contemplate righteous defense. I was speaking to on e of my friends the other day and she suggested reading about Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a pacifist who ended up helping in an assasination plot against Hitler, feeling it was better to kill one in order to save millions. So, magstphil, I guess I am a liberal pacifist.


I loved reading everyone's responses. cappuccinosmom, very interesting situation your DH was put in. I am so glad to hear he never had to go against his morals while being in the militry.

[cappuccinosmom]

I think situation often makes a difference in people's decisions, too. Bonhoeffer is a good example.

In Christian history, when individuals are subjected to violence *only* because of their faith, they tend to accept it without much or any resistance (yes, I know there are some exceptions). And when they do that it also tends to grow the Church around them explosively, even though that's rather counterintuitive. These same people might have no problem using violence to protect others, or even being part of a national military in some capacity.

[holyhelianthus]

I don't want to steer this too political (please let me know, Admin, and I will delete this post) but MsBirdie did you hear about the recent study done that says most American Christians are fine with torture as in what was done recently? While I was reading about it I thought of this thread and "justified violence" and how easily it can be justified now. I don't know if I can link it here but if you are interested PM me (though it is a very depressing read). It was a recent PEW study.

[tricia80]

Christ does not condone violence... Many Christians and their families were slaughtered because they refused to fight back.. The Martyrs Mirror is an excellent book/audiotape to listen to...

Violence begats violence... nothing truly comes out of it that is any good.. It is very scary when you can justify killing ppl...

[holyhelianthus]

God justifies the killing of people repeatedly in the Bible for the greater good, doesn't He? Though we are not God we are His children and have the brains and spirit to be able to discern when to fight back. God gave us the innate drive to defend ourselves and posterity for a reason, IMO.

[kmeyrick]

Very simply put, violence is called for when protecting oneself and others. I think the veterans of WWII, for example, were doing the morally correct thing, even if it wasn't an easy thing. I'm not going to get into specific situations like Dresden and Hiroshima, but rather in general the aggressors (Germany and Japan) had to be stopped. I really felt the sin lay more in not acting than it did in fighting.

I do not believe in the death penalty. I do not believe in war for religious conversions, land, resources, imperialism, etc. I do believe in shutting down dangerous, destructive aggressors swiftly. I don't always believe that exhausting diplomacy at the cost of lives or precious time is a wise strategy either. Hitler would have done far less damage than he did had governments not pussyfooted with diplomacy first, for example.

[mammal_mama]

I agree that it's not Christian to stand by and allow anyone to be victimized. I can see a purpose for violence, if it's required to protect people from harm.

At the same time, I don't believe in punishment/retaliation. Yet I'm not sure how to answer the problem of people who have no conscience, who will repeatedly harm or kill others if allowed back into society. So I guess I wouldn't totally do away with imprisonment for people who are a total threat to our safety.

But other than that, I truly don't believe in punishment, so rather than imprisoning people who are not deemed a danger, I'd prefer that they receive help and counseling, and that they make restitution for their crimes, to extent that this is possible.