The Bible does not condemn self defense

The Bible does not condemn self defense. Those passages about turning the other cheek, that's if somebody slaps you. Specifically if somebody smites your right cheek, give them your left. However, if somebody tries something else such as if they try to punch you or mug, rape, murder you there is nothing in the Bible that says you can't use any and every means to put them down.

Now, there is no folder directly dedicated to religious or Bible studies but I thought this particular folder on spirituality comes closest. Also, not everybody believes the Bible so if you don't believe the Bible than this thread wouldn't apply to you. Read and answer it if you would but don't say I didn't warn you that you will be wasting your time.

 

Well, my 'Bible' (as you call it) doesn't say anything at all about turning the other cheek.

You can't decide who can and who can't post on this, that is censorship. People can answer if they want, without wasting their time, whether they believe in what you call the Bible or not.

 

Are we supporting this with any sort of scripture?

 

I shouldn't think so, we are only supposed to post up if we agree with him so don't need any citations at all.

 

Fair enough.

See I would challenge that the Bible that says you can't use any and every means to put them down.

I assumed it was against that kind of thing.

 

It would depend on which translation you read, I can guarantee though they will all be different from the original.

 

Fair enough.

Photon guy. Which bible are we using?

 

In the Jewish tradition, self defense is a moral obligation. The Torah allows people to defend their property from a thief even if this will cause the conflict to escalate into a physical battle. If there is reason to assume that the thief will use lethal force to seize the property, the owner may use physical force, and even kill the thief if necessary to protect himself (Exodus 22:1, Sanhedrin 72a). There are two rationales for allowing self defense. The first is practical; without the ability to use lethal force to stop the actions of aggressors, anarchy would reign (Chinnuch 600). The second rationale challenges the moral assumptions of nonviolence. It asserts that it is impossible to equate the lives of the aggressor and the victim; we have as a rule "that God's quest is the interests of the hunted" (Ecclesiastes 3:15). The life of the aggressor and the victim are not of equal value; if only one will survive, it is our obligation to make certain that it is the innocent person, the victim, who will survive (Cf. Rashi to Exodus 22:1).

This is essentially the Jewish point of view; if you don't help the victim, you are an ally of the aggressor. If a person refuses to defend himself, he allows evil to triumph.

 

I've not heard that phrase before, nice one.

PH, I think all the threads are going to very boring and hoards of people are going to head to the hills if all that is posted is 'yes I agree', we find out about things by questioning, listening to different views and debating. By stating what you did in the OP you are actually lecturing to us, telling us you are right and that if we think you are wrong you have to not answer.

 

So you think that the Bible is silly? You think Christianity is silly?

 

Well the original Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew but as far as an English Bible, I personally prefer the King James Bible.

That's your opinion.

I will get to that. I've got other stuff to deal with right now.

 

Quite right. If other people want to waste their time that's their choice not mine.

 

The Christian Bible. Specifically the King James Bible.

And if you want to believe that, so be it.

 

Are you actually interpreting this literally? Like "slaps are OK, but if you tries to give us a noogie, game on man?"

There is probably a little context here, why do you thing he said "right cheek?"

 

The Bible should be taken literally unless it says so otherwise, if you believe the Christian Bible.

That has to do with being slapped with the back of the hand since everything back in those days was done with the right hand and therefore to slap the right cheek would be a backhand which was one of the lowest forms of insults.

 

. So the lesson is not literal, about slaps, it is about insults....

 

Well in those days a slap was an insult, particularly if it was a backhand.