Self Defense, Biblical versus murder

Cenababy: I wanted to do this blog regarding a conversation I heard in the Religion room. Is Self defense ok or is it murder? Let's see:

As with many questions in our lives, self-defense has to do with wisdom, understanding, and tact. For instance, in Luke 22, Jesus does tell His disciples to get a sword. Jesus knew that now was the time when Jesus would be threatened (and later killed) and His followers would be threatened as well. Jesus was giving approval of the fact that one has the right to self-defense. Now, just a few verses later, we see Jesus being arrested, and Peter takes a sword and cuts off someone’s ear. Jesus rebukes Peter for that act. Why? Peter was trying to stop something that Jesus had been telling His disciples was in fact going to happen. In other words, Peter was acting unwisely in the situation. He was trying to stop something that was not supposed to be stopped. We must be wise as to when to fight and when not to.

"If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed. A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft” (Exodus 22:2-3). Obviously, here we see that when a thief breaks into someone’s house at night and that person defends his home and slays the thief, God does not hold that death over the defender’s head. However, God does not wish for anyone to take the law into his or her own hands. This is why it is said that if a thief is struck down during the daylight the defender is guilty of bloodshed. (after daylight meaning, after the fact, seeking out , murder)

Self defense seems to be right then, right there, while murder is premeditated. So for the nay sayers, self defense is allowed by God, but premeditation is not.

Cenababy: Bama exactly why I did this blog.

Zanjan: Cena, this isn't a blog. A blog is a monologue one posts on their own wall. This is a Forum Topic - it's interactive.

Zanjan: Jesus didn't tell His followers to get a sword. He said HE brings them a sword. Note, this is singular, not plural. Surely you know the pen is mightier than the sword - the spiritual sword is the "sword of truth".

Notice Peter cut off the EAR - not some other member. What is the ear used for? Peter used the truth like a weapon, not like an educator. Jesus made it clear one shouldn't overwhelm and bludgeon people with the Word of God. It's meant to neatly cut through the crap, dividing the evil from the good for those who are willing to hear.. God's Word is its own testimony; it speaks for itself.

Peter can also be seen as representing the condition of the church. Why else would Jesus name him The Rock? (Names had real meanings in tribal societies).

You cited something from long ancient times about thievery. We don't kill people because they steal and slavery has since been abolished. Thus, one should read that as a simile - that is, a description of a spiritual dynamic.

"we see that when a thief breaks into someone’s house at night and that person defends his home and slays the thief, God does not hold that death over the defender’s head."

Really? So, when Christ returns, like a thief in the night, it's ok for you to kill Him??

Then what's all this talk about abandoning your possessions to follow Him?

Cenababy: Zan yes, i don't get into semantics, I don't have to. oops not blog, forum lol
secondly i said what i said, i guess you felt you needed to explain to me? it is pretty clear how I feel about self defense versus murder ^^^^see above. and YES, this post is due to those verses. if you kill after daylight, it is murder, and I'm sure you know what that means and why!

Zanjan: "i guess you felt you needed to explain to me?"

No, I felt there was a need to correct your post's errors in public. Your own understanding is no concern of mine so, it's nothing personal.


We all understand the difference between self defense and murder. The civil law is so precise that, if you booby trap your house to protect your goods and a thief breaks in, but your trap kills him - that's definitely murder because it's premeditated.

Manslaughter, on the other hand, is an accident. Where is the accident you're speaking of? In the garden of Gethsemane, who attacked whom?

Jesus was winning people over to His Cause so, when the Jewish clergy killed Christ, was that an accident?? If it's ok to kill a thief sometimes, I think the only way that could be sanctioned is during war.......war is over theft of territory. Is God territory?

What you were attempting to do is use religious teachings to explain civil law. Well, it's NOT the same thing. If you're going to use self defense in spiritual terms then talk about the religious implications, not about material things.

HydroMan: In Exodus 22:2-3, it says, If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed. This is an example of self-defense. The passage is implying that it is ok to defend yourself when threatened. But you cannot go out the next day to hunt down the person who robbed you and kill them, as this is premeditated. So if the thief escapes, you cannot kill them because it is not self-defense – it is murder. The person must be given a fair trial and not killed (Numbers 35: 22-24).

Zanjan: Hydro, it appears you're quoting Cena, not a passage:

"but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed."

So let me get this straight: "If a thief is caught breaking in.......BEFORE SUNRISE ...."and is struck a fatal blow", the defender ISN'T guilty of bloodshed.

Nope, doesn't compute. The action is identical and the outcome is identical, regardless of the clock (which wasn't yet invented). Apparently, there was enough ambient light to locate and strike the offender. Something is terribly wrong here.

What happens if the attack is out in the parking lot?? Nope, the given situation only applies to an interior; like a building, a file cabinet or computer, this is clearly a restricted space. Generally, that requires permission to enter.

Without any witnesses, how can a fair trial happen? Cameras and forensic science hadn't been invented yet either. In the given scenario, the thief is dead; he didn't get away with any stuff. Dead men don't talk so how can you prove time of death and that he was a thief?

Let's not create scenarios that aren't in the text or go filling in the blanks with our imaginations, ok?

In the example, there's no mention of defending one's "self". The 'defender' intended to prevent something from being taken away from the interior space.

Let's remember that text from a spiritual book is about spiritual realities; AND, you need to quote the text accurately BEFORE you comment on it - the citation is the orientation. If you don't get this right yet act on it, you could be in deep trouble with everybody, including God.

Zanjan: Hydro: " In Exodus 22:2-3, it says,.... "

The actual text of Exodus 22: 1-4

"If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.
If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.
If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.
If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double."

Zanjan: "The person must be given a fair trial and not killed (Numbers 35: 22-24). "

That's lifting out of context. Also, both you and Cena used quote marks when what you typed wasn't a quote.

The context is Numbers 35: 19 - 24

"The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer: when he meeteth him, he shall slay him.
But if he thrust him of hatred, or hurl at him by laying of wait, that he die;
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.
But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or have cast upon him any thing without laying of wait,
Or with any stone, wherewith a man may die, seeing him not, and cast it upon him, that he die, and was not his enemy, neither sought his harm:
Then the congregation shall judge between the slayer and the revenger of blood according to these judgments:"

Has nothing to do with "self" defense.

Zanjan: I wonder why Christians quote the OT so much - you'd almost think they were Jewish. What if Christians had no prequel?

Romans 12:19 (NT)

"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. "

God has never approved of vigilantism. As in the previous citations, when somebody has the task of being the official executioner, he must carry out his duty with a high degree of professionalism - no bias. This doesn't mean that the executioner has no conscience - indeed, there's an ethical standard so he has a right to object if he feels something contravenes that.

Mathew 24:43 (NT)

"But know this, that if the master of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into."

Thessalonians 5:2 (NT)

"For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. "

In regard to thieves, none of the above citations mention "self" defense or murder.

Crash: LOL the part about this whole thing that I find HILARIOUS , is ya'll are using YOUR own "morality" and personal interpretations to ascribe to the nature of the BS nonsense you're reading. "The bible says THIS." "So it must mean THIS!" According to my own personal interpretation of what i just read!! LOL ...soo fucking funny!! The bible is NOT objective....proof of that is in this thread. Ya'll can't even agree on what a single passage "Means!" LOL That is why you idiot Christians ignore the OBVIOUS atrocities in this book....and cherry pick the "Good parts." Because you just can't bring your deluded minds to admit that the God of the Christian bible is an evil sadistic asshat. The bible is trash. The Good parts you so enjoy are just BASIC FUCKING COMMON SENSE ABOUT HOW TO TREAT PEOPLE. It is in NO way an original idea! You don't need the bible for morals.....and I truly hope thats NOT were you draw your morals from. Simply because most of the bible is morally horrible. I'm sorry ...little off topic...however I just don't understand how otherwise intelligent ppl could believe in ...and worship a god...that condones and commands Murder, Rape, Slavery, Genocide, Infanticide, the Consuming of Babies, and the Suppression of women. If you TRULY think THAT THING is a "Loving God" i sincerely feel sorrow for you.

Zanjan: I think common sense flew out the window two generations ago. If one doesn't need the Bible for morals, how come so many laws of the country are based on them? Like you'd know what to do if you'd never heard of the 10 commandments or golden rule, eh.

Zanjan: Everyone has their own brand of morals - that is, the kind they actually practice, not philosophize about. They set their own standard, a different one for each person. Without a compelling, unifying force, all you've got is a bunch of amoral bottom feeders. God raises the bar and sets the standard for a civilization, which is always advancing.

God has never condoned the items you listed, Crash. Neither has He condoned a bad attitude.

We know what happens when God leaves people to their own devices. We don't have to guess because we have history books - the Bible is one of those. Yes, it's ancient; so, if one can't grasp the basics of social reform in the Bronze and Iron Ages, they're hopeless in today's world.

Cenababy: Typical athiest blathering above! If I were not on my phone I could respond to this silliness and you would see a few things. Why bother? As for my forum work, if you think Christians are mere morons, why bother being here!

Zanjan: Crash, "And OF COURSE we would , do, and could have morals if the bible didn't exist"

Give some examples.


"you obviously have not even read the bible ."

How can this be obvious when that's totally false? Since you can't guess how many times I've read it, cover to cover, wanna guess the number of times I've read Hindu scriptures and the Zenda Vesta? I don't think you'd win any jellybean contests.

You're right that the Golden Rule wasn't original to the Bible - then again, I never said it was. Neither was the Flood story.
Egypt had a very long history of worshiping God - stuff gets passed around and the teachings of every religion have influenced the people of every religion. The Hindu scriptures are the first record of the Golden Rule; they had it before Egypt did. Bears repeating though, don't you think?

Please cite passages when you make claims, otherwise, nobody will know what you're talking about and you can't defend your statements. When in Rome, do as the Romans, right?

Zanjan: I only take parts of the Bible as the Word of God - the rest is historical accounts, explanations and experiences of believers. Can you tell the difference? Why dispute that which occurred thousands of years before you were born? Do you have some other reliable accounts?

It would be more helpful if you just addressed one question at a time - rapid fire of accusations and subjects are seen as subterfuge - the method of choice by fanatical Muslim clerics.

Seems to me, it would be helpful for you to take a lesson on the place of slavery in ancient times. You seem to think they had institutions for the losers. Why ignore God's command to treat them well and be kind to them? Do you support POW camps or do you think losers should be exterminated?

You know, Canada set fire to the Whitehouse once; taught them a lesson, wouldn't you agree?

Crash: Example of moral ethics detached from biblical teachings / "morals." Would be all of the millions of ppl that think the bible is garbage....and yet aren't out actively raping, murdering, or enslaving people. The millions of Atheists that aren't in jail right now because they are good people because morals are somewhat innate in nature. Or the individuals or groups that haven't even read or know nothing of the bible...yes they exist...and aren't offing each other in record numbers.

Yes you never said the Golden Rule was originally christian however you presented your argument in a way that perhaps would lead one to think that.

What passages would you like me to cite? I assume you are talking about the biblical passages that back up my claims that your "loving god" endorsed and commanded rape , slavery , and murder?

How about Numbers 31:7-18. Theres a little trifecta for you. See how you interpret that.

Also I love how you try to defend biblical slavery as condoned by your god. In what context do you think owning another person is moral or right? Seems like the only justification you need is "Because my god says so."

Also ..the POW camp analogy was a really bad one. Trying to conflate prisoners of war....with slavery is ridiculous. Surely you have a more credible argument.

Zanjan: The word "Epicurean" applies to sensual pleasures, usually cuisine. If you intend it otherwise, please indicate that. A paradox is a euphemism for "I don't understand something". I entertain no such paradox as you described.

God sends both evil and good as He sees fit to whomever He wishes. The modern word we have for that is "Justice". Divine justice is flawless. God said "I will repay" - that goes for everybody, no matter what they do.

Therefore, the smart man should pay attention to the lesson and think twice before committing a crime or hurting someone. That's what is meant by 'fear of God'. Men play at justice like children play with dolls - you wouldn't give them a real baby to take care of, would you?

Crash: The Epicurean Paradox is a well known paradox in academia and philosophy. I'm supremely confident you know that. To deconstruct both of those words in some pseudo-intellectual attempt at deflecting the original question is facile.

As for answering it.....yeah you didn't. Nice try though. Big words do not an intelligent person make. Neither does intellectually dishonest debate. Good talk though.

Zanjan: Crash, never assume anybody reading this forum knows anything.

Is "assume" a big word?

Personally, I never rely on ancient philosophy; they didn't know much until the 20th century. However, the date is unnecessary - one can tell the depth of intellect just by the questions asked.

You asked a question, I answered it fairly, without requiring you to accept the answer. This was only because you said you'd love to hear it - I'm not feeling those promised warm fuzzies yet. So, what is your answer? God doesnt exist? Fast one but no cigar.