Self defense

[ICarlson99]

Okay, I'll start a new thread on this - at what point is it acceptable or unacceptable to defend one's self or someone else? 2 specific examples come to mind - an attack on a child, or the rape of a woman. If you extrapolate "turn the other cheek" one could argue that we should never defend ourselves. I don't agree, but where should the line be drawn?

I'll just copy 'n' paste my last post from the other thread.....

Middletree, on a more general note, while I agree with you that if someone wants to hit you, you're not to strike back, however I don't think it means:

1 - you can't demand justice under the law (societal law, i.e. government - now it can certainly be debated what appropriate justice is)

2 - you're to do nothing if someone wants to KILL you (being hit on the cheek is one thing, but I don't think it can be extrapolated to doing nothing if someone wants to beat you to death - but I could be wrong there - Stephen's stoning comes to mind, although I believe he was convicted of a crime "worthy" of death at the time as opposed to being a random "innocent" victim)

3 - you're to do nothing if someone intends to commit a crime against an otherwise helpless individual

But I greatly respect your logic and reasoning, even when I disagree with you, so I'd be interested in your take on these.

[kh294God]

Okay, I'll start a new thread on this - at what point is it acceptable or unacceptable to defend one's self or someone else?
i guess it depends on what you by acceptable or unacceptable...do you mean acceptable or unacceptable by man's law or by God's law? Man''s law is if you feel the threat being cause to you or someone else will cause great bodily harm or death then you have the hit to defend yourself by any means necessary....in my opinion if the threat to you doesn't cause great bodily harm or death....then walk away...I have....yeah i was called names....but hey sticks and stones may break my bones.....

[kh294God]

Any other time, when it's a nervous punk with a knife trying to get your wallet, you relieve him of the weapon and leave him sore, end of story.
As for turning the other cheek, that is something I have a hard time wrapping my mind around. When I'm physically provoked, everything in me wants to lash out and give the offender the same thing he just gave me. That's one of my struggles I suppose; but simultaneously I know that you have to choose your battles carefully.

that is the law anyway (well in most states that I know of)

it's not an easy thing to do and I am not saying that i have done it everytime but i am saying it ISN'T easy to do...you just have to pray for that inner peace to dwell in you....i pray for it everyday because i have an anger issue....not as bad as when i was younger....but it's there just the same.

[Col. Mustard]

i think that if the person deserves it, they deserve a nice WACK!!!
lol! sry, i just did that to stephen today, and MAN DID IT FEEL GOOD! serves him right for grabin me where he grabbed me (won't go into detail) last friday night. hahaha is all i can say to him. :D

[ObiShawn]

Right or wrong, I won't let anyone assult my kids or my wife. As a husband/father, you have a responsibility to protect those under you. And if you don't feel that protective urge in your gut at the mere thought of harm coming to those you love, then I believe there is something wrong with you.

[larryl]

Right or wrong, I won't let anyone assult my kids or my wife. As a husband/father, you have a responsibility to protect those under you. And if you don't feel that protective urge in your gut at the mere thought of harm coming to those you love, then I believe there is something wrong with you.

amen

[Jason]

My college ministry director said, "If someone attacks me, I won't fight back. But I'll protect my wife and son by any means available."

[larryl]

i am sorry.... no i am not.....

break in my house, threaten my daughter, you are unlikely to leave unharmed.....that's a fact of life. i will protect my home .

[Tribal]

I've walked away from a few fights in my life, but threaten my family & it's on like Domokun!!!!

[ICarlson99]

i guess it depends on what you by acceptable or unacceptable...do you mean acceptable or unacceptable by man's law or by God's law? Man''s law is if you feel the threat being cause to you or someone else will cause great bodily harm or death then you have the hit to defend yourself by any means necessary....in my opinion if the threat to you doesn't cause great bodily harm or death....then walk away...I have....yeah i was called names....but hey sticks and stones may break my bones.....

I was looking for what's "right" under God's law. There was discussion in another thread about guns, which led to this topic.

But how do you "know" if the threat will or won't cause bodily harm?

And if lethal force is "never" acceptable - MalletKatGomer - how do you know what lethal force is before you use it? There was the case last week where a grandmother confronted an intruder in the middle of the night and shot him. Now, he didn't end up dead, but if he had died would that have made it unacceptable? For someone of her age and physical ability, she didn't have the ability to develop reasonable self-defense skills other than buying a gun.

I'm not trying to provoke anything, but here's where I'm having trouble forming a sound, logical and scriptural position:

1 - I strongly believe in defending my wife and children by ANY means, but if I also have a responsibility to provide for them, do I not have a responsibility to make sure I'm alive and healthy enough to protect and provide for them?

2 - I can't wrap my brain around the idea that it's okay for Person A to defend Person B and for Person B to defend Person A (i.e. laying down one's life for a friend), but then it's NOT okay for Person A to defend Person A or Person B to defend Person B.

3 - Let's say I see someone 6'8" raping a woman. If somehow I know that this guy is not going to kill the woman, what am I scripturally supposed to do? My instinct would be, if I had a gun, I'm going to use it (I don't have a gun, though). And if my physical body was useless against someone that much bigger than me, should I do nothing?

I'm not trying to twist scripture to fit my personal view, but is it possible that we're misunderstanding the concept of "turning the other cheek"? In conjunction with "if someone wants to take your cloak, give him your tunic as well" (don't know how good my memory is there) - it seems like He's talking about reasonably small transgressions (a smack to the face, or an easily replaceable article of clothing). Could it be that this reference does NOT apply to more serious issues?

[middletree]

You raise good questions, and I don't pretend to have an answer. I wish it were clear-cut. I am bothered by those who claim that it is, because it isn't. It's extremely complex, and the fact that people can bring up verses to seemingly support various viewpoints illustrates that.

BTW, what's with your hypotheticals? What does it matter if someone's a grandmother or not? I have a friend who is 36 and she's a grandmother. Lots of grandmas are in their early 40's and very energetic and physically sound.

[ICarlson99]

You raise good questions, and I don't pretend to have an answer. I wish it were clear-cut. I am bothered by those who claim that it is, because it isn't. It's extremely complex, and the fact that people can bring up verses to seemingly support various viewpoints illustrates that.

BTW, what's with your hypotheticals? What does it matter if someone's a grandmother or not? I have a friend who is 36 and she's a grandmother. Lots of grandmas are in their early 40's and very energetic and physically sound.

I only used "grandmas" because I was thinking of that story last week, which, involved a grandma. And not a grandma in her early 40s. I was trying to convey someone who's not a child but may not have the physical ability to take a self-defense training course and be effective. I'll try to be more PC in my future hypotheticals :p

[ICarlson99]

This is where we get into the sticky issue of what's "legal" and what's "right" (in God's eyes). And I'm not trying to nit pick here, I'm just trying to understand what's justified in God's eyes.

I could also see an argument saying the grandmother should have "turned the other cheek" or allowed the crook to "take her (proverbial) tunic". I don't agree with that argument, but I guess that quandry is why I brought up the question.....

I agree with what the grandma did, and I'd certainly not hesitate to do it myself. But I wonder if that's the right thing in God's eyes. And why is it only okay to protect my wife (or child) and not myself?

A great scripture that larryl posted in the other thread seems quite relevant to me here - from Luke 22:

34Jesus answered, "I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me."

35Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
"Nothing," they answered.

36He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'[b]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."

38The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"That is enough," he replied.

Now, if we're not to protect ourselves, or rely only on God for protection, why would Jesus himself ORDER the disciples to arm themselves? Only in the case they came across someone attacking a helpless person on the way? That just doesn't seem to make sense to me, which is why I come back to wondering if "turning the other cheek" has been misunderstood. It seems like He's saying that, previously, Jesus was sufficient for protection and sustenance, but now that He was leaving them, they DID have to supply their own sustenance and physical protection. It was actually an order from Him.

[middletree]

Now, if we're not to protect ourselves, or rely only on God for protection, why would Jesus himself ORDER the disciples to arm themselves?


Lots has been writen and discussed about this passage. Perhaps Jesus was warning the disciples that they were headed for some serious persecution (in fact, 10 were martyred, and that leaves Judas, who killed himself, and John, who was boiled in oil and allowed to live so he could write Revelation). Perhaps Jesus was referring to the Word as a sword, which would be consistent with other Scripture.

But my question back to you is, why didn't Jesus ever fight back? I'm not just talking about the day they took Him to the Cross. Even before that, He simply fled for His safety on occasion. And why did Jesus get onto Peter for cutting off that guy's ear? Why did Jesus pray for His persecutors? Would any of the people here who talk about slaying an intruder into their home actually stop and pray for that guy right then and there?

[middletree]

previously, Jesus was sufficient for protection and sustenance, but now that He was leaving them, they DID have to supply their own sustenance and physical protection. It was actually an order from Him.

This seems to conflict with statements that Jesus will never leave us or forsake us, and that He sent the Holy Spirit. Also conflicts with His statements that we are in for a rough time, that that's part of being a believer.

[ICarlson99]

Lots has been writen and discussed about this passage. Perhaps Jesus was warning the disciples that they were headed for some serious persecution (in fact, 10 were martyred, and that leaves Judas, who killed himself, and John, who was boiled in oil and allowed to live so he could write Revelation). Perhaps Jesus was referring to the Word as a sword, which would be consistent with other Scripture.

But my question back to you is, why didn't Jesus ever fight back? I'm not just talking about the day they took Him to the Cross. Even before that, He simply fled for His safety on occasion. And why did Jesus get onto Peter for cutting off that guy's ear? Why did Jesus pray for His persecutors? Would any of the people here who talk about slaying an intruder into their home actually stop and pray for that guy right then and there?

I would say He stopped Peter because what was going to be done by the Romans had to be done - that was the purpose of Him coming. In that instance, what Peter was doing was trying to prevent God's work. I don't think He rebuked Peter from a position of "violence being wrong", but rather that what Peter was doing was in an attempt to stop Jesus from being taken.

Now, you could argue that everything bad is part of God's plan therefore who are we to interrupt it. But I don't buy that.

[Healing Oil]

I would say He stopped Peter because what was going to be done by the Romans had to be done - that was the purpose of Him coming. In that instance, what Peter was doing was trying to prevent God's work. I don't think He rebuked Peter from a position of "violence being wrong", but rather that what Peter was doing was in an attempt to stop Jesus from being taken.

Good point, I agree.

[ICarlson99]

This seems to conflict with statements that Jesus will never leave us or forsake us, and that He sent the Holy Spirit. Also conflicts with His statements that we are in for a rough time, that that's part of being a believer.

He left them in body, but not in spirit. Should we not still sustain our bodies? So why would he tell them to arm themselves? And even if they knew there were in for rough times, so what? They should arm themselves because it's going to be difficult, but they should never actually do anything about protecting themselves? That doesn't make sense to me.

I think it's a stretch to say it was referring to the Word - they wouldn't need to "sell their cloak and buy one" if it was a metaphor. That, in fact, suggests that self-defense (an actual sword) is more important than clothing (the cloak).

If we can escape harm, that's one thing. Jesus had abilities that none of us has, therefore I don't know that we can simply say we should do what Jesus DID, but rather that we should do what God WANTS us to do - which are 2 separate things.

I acknowledge I could be wrong, but I have a hard time believing that if I saw my wife being raped, God would want me to stop and simply pray for the person - then what? Call the police and wait? How is that being a good provider and protector? That's just too deterministic for me.

[Healing Oil]

What about Samson? He killed plenty of men by the very power of God allowing him to do so.

[1inamillion]

i say if someone really provokes you for those who have taken karate (like me) my instuctor is ALWAYS telling me never to use it on some1 out of anger(i have alot of that...and i'm a black belt) but if some1's throwing punches just to block them thats where i have a problem if they contuine to do it i'm goin end up with a VERY hurt very (prolly) sorry person on the ground crying and i don't want that i think you can defend yourself like me i'm only 13 if some1 trys to rape me do you just want me to stand threre???? no i'm goin beat the snot out of him regardless of what you think is or isn't right ok?

[middletree]

What about Samson? He killed plenty of men by the very power of God allowing him to do so.
That's Old Testament, one of the many things that makes this thing so complicated. David killed a lot of people. I mean a lot. In self-defense. But God allowed it. But then when God told David that he would not be allowed to build the Temple, it was specifically because of all the people David had killed.

All responses have brought up good points, but I'd say that none of the verses cited above have been cut and dried. A case can be made for various positions, and I cannot say that anyone so far is definitely right or wrong.

[Pouye]

Good thread, everyone... lots of good points.

I know a godly man who was a missionary for many years. He had five children (2 boys, 3 girls) and his oldest son (Bob) became one of my best friends and mentors. His second son (Dan), who was an outstanding guy, began to loose his mind when he was 17 years old. Nobody knows why, but it just began to happen.

As Dan became mentally ill, he began to become violent and dangerous. They did everything they could think of doing, and being a Christian (Charismatic) family, they prayed for him and put him into God's hands. They didn't know if it was purely physical or spiritual or both, so they tried covering all of their bases with lots of fasting and prayer.

Dan continued to get worse. He would wander around the house at night and drop to the floor to do push-ups over and over. He had good muscle tone, and at 5'10 and 185 pounds, he wasn't small. He would yell at his parents and threatened them if they tried to stop him from doing something he wanted to do. Finally, one horrible night, he attacked his father.

His father was overwhelmed in the attack, but he certainly tried to defend himself for his own sake and the sake of his wife and other children. As the attack intensified, his ribs were broken, and it looked as though his son was going to take his life. At that moment, one of the siblings ran next door to get Bob, Dan's older brother. Bob was wiry and strong. At 5'11'' and 135 pounds, he wasn't as robust as Dan, but he had always been more athletic and quicker.

Bob entered the house to a nightmare. His father was curled into a ball, yelling at Dan to stop. The rest of the siblings were screaming, trying to pull their crazed brother off of their father. Bob lept on Dan like a lion, pulling him off of his dad and the fight of the century began. Dan didn't fight fair. He used his teeth and every means to try to defeat Bob. Bob was amazed at the almost inhuman strength that was flowing from his younger brother. Bob, just like his father, began to fight for his own life.

Bob suddenly realized that he had to put Dan out of commission before he was killed by him. He knew Dan could turn on his mother and his sisters after he was out of the way, and Bob was not going to let that happen. His father was on the floor, completely helpless. The sisters had called 911 for help, but help was not getting there quick enough.

Dan caught Bob with a surprise blow to the nose. Blood burst everywhere and Bob couldn't see. When he tried to retreat, his brother pounced on him screaming, grabbing for his throat. Bob cried out to Jesus and he felt released to do whatever was necessary to protect himself and his family. He spun around and somehow managed to get on top of Dan, wrapping his legs around his midsection. One of Dan's arms was pinned in Bob's leglock, which left only one of Dan's arms free to defend himself. This allowed Bob to begin throwing punch after punch at Dan's face as hard as he could punch. The blows landed in a fury, and Bob did not stop. His knuckles bloodied and the skin tore open, but he did not stop until Dan was beat so badly that he was rendered unconscious.

The police arrived soon after.

Conclusion: Sometimes you just have to fight like hell to protect yourself and the ones you love.

Rock

[YodaMan]

I guess it comes down to: what is sin? Is it a sin to murder? Yes.
Is it a sin to let someone kill you because you don't want to commit a sin and actually fight back? If one didn't fight back, isn't that a sign that they don't value their own life, which is a gift from God? So, isn't that a sin?

Is there a right answer to this question? Maybe, maybe not.

We live in a fallen world, where we can do nothing good apart from God.

Is it a sin to stand aside and watch someone else commit a more serious sin? Yes. At judgement day, I'd rather explain to God why I beat up someone to protect my fiance' instead of why I did nothing, and in doing so let her come to harm.

[Trillamum]

Like Middletree, I don't think there are any cut and dried answers, but, for me personally; if I can walk away, I will. I'll let people do just about anything to me and just walk away from it. Now, if I'm trapped and can't do that, then I'm going to hurt them until I can escape. But, mess with one of my friends or family, and you will be sorry. When you do that, Trill automatically goes into overprotective mode, if you hurt them, she will take you down.
My only qualm about the whole self/family defense thing is that once I start, I'm not certain I'd stop, and that scares me.

[ICarlson99]

Like Middletree, I don't think there are any cut and dried answers, but, for me personally; if I can walk away, I will. I'll let people do just about anything to me and just walk away from it. Now, if I'm trapped and can't do that, then I'm going to hurt them until I can escape. But, mess with one of my friends or family, and you will be sorry. When you do that, Trill automatically goes into overprotective mode, if you hurt them, she will take you down.
My only qualm about the whole self/family defense thing is that once I start, I'm not certain I'd stop, and that scares me.

I mostly agree with you, but there's something that bugs me - and I'm not trying to quibble, just trying to understand and come to a well-founded position. Why is it okay to be protective of your family, but not protective of yourself? Are you saying you would protect your friends/family only if they can't "escape"? Does it only apply to friends/family or strangers as well? If the justification is "laying down your life for a friend", what about non-friends? It just seems like we keep coming to the same point where we'd walk away if it involved us (and was possible to walk away), but would do whatever we could to protect someone else. And maybe that's the correct thing, I don't know. Just seems strange if the right answer is everyone can protect others, but not themselves (I know that's not what you were saying, but I noticed you qualified your defense of yourself, but not your defense of friends/family).

Personally, I know my inclination is if I'm attacked I'd try to discern my ability to escape, but if it even looked like someone was going to attack my wife or kids I'd deliberately NOT escape so that they could. But like you (and others) have said, I wouldn't hesitate to use as much force as possible (as opposed to "as much force as necessary") simply because sometimes you can't know what's required for "minimum" damage on an attacker.

But, ultimately, I want to know if my inclination is justified or just fleshy.

[Pouye]

I mostly agree with you, but there's something that bugs me - and I'm not trying to quibble, just trying to understand and come to a well-founded position. Why is it okay to be protective of your family, but not protective of yourself? Are you saying you would protect your friends/family only if they can't "escape"? Does it only apply to friends/family or strangers as well? If the justification is "laying down your life for a friend", what about non-friends? It just seems like we keep coming to the same point where we'd walk away if it involved us (and was possible to walk away), but would do whatever we could to protect someone else. And maybe that's the correct thing, I don't know. Just seems strange if the right answer is everyone can protect others, but not themselves (I know that's not what you were saying, but I noticed you qualified your defense of yourself, but not your defense of friends/family).

Personally, I know my inclination is if I'm attacked I'd try to discern my ability to escape, but if it even looked like someone was going to attack my wife or kids I'd deliberately NOT escape so that they could. But like you (and others) have said, I wouldn't hesitate to use as much force as possible (as opposed to "as much force as necessary") simply because sometimes you can't know what's required for "minimum" damage on an attacker.

But, ultimately, I want to know if my inclination is justified or just fleshy.

It seems like you are fishing for an impossible solution... like how to win a chess match every time. I think it always depends on the situation. Some people don't like that answer, thinking that they have to a solution that fits all occasions or situations; they need an underlying principle that can be followed no matter what happens. I don't think such an "answer" exists, because not all of the factors are within our control.

For instance, when we are attacked by a stranger, we might not know their intent or motivation:

The attacker could be insane. This puts the attacker on the level of an animal (like a bear or lion) if you would like to try to reason with him/her. The attacker would not have the natural restraints of a sane person, and could not be reasoned with.

The attacker could be a psychopath bent on killing you (like a serial killer).

The attacker could be motivated to kill (in his/her perverted mind) for a higher good or cause (like a homicide bomber).

Just some thoughts,

Rock

[kh294God]

i think it depends on what you believe and how you was raised....me I believe that you are suppose to turn the other cheek...but I also believe that the strong is suppose to protect and defend the weak...I will basically walk away from a fight...but when it comes to my wife and son..."ain't" nobody gonna lay a hand on them....at the same time if i see an older person...or woman getting rape....they are weaker and I am stronger....i am gonna to do what I can to defend them (you don't necessary need a gun)....but in the same token...i don't want to endanger myself in way I can't defend my family...I guess a lot of it depends on the situation...we all can say what we would do...but to be honest you never really can tell until you are put in the situation to act.

[ICarlson99]

It seems like you are fishing for an impossible solution... like how to win a chess match every time. I think it always depends on the situation. Some people don't like that answer, thinking that they have to a solution that fits all occasions or situations; they need an underlying principle that can be followed no matter what happens. I don't think such an "answer" exists, because not all of the factors are within our control.

For instance, when we are attacked by a stranger, we might not know their intent or motivation:

The attacker could be insane. This puts the attacker on the level of an animal (like a bear or lion) if you would like to try to reason with him/her. The attacker would not have the natural restraints of a sane person, and could not be reasoned with.

The attacker could be a psychopath bent on killing you (like a serial killer).

The attacker could be motivated to kill (in his/her perverted mind) for a higher good or cause (like a homicide bomber).

Just some thoughts,

Rock

Hardly anything is black and white, but we should at least be able to say where the gray begins and ends.

I guess I'm really looking for an "absolute" answer in the sense of a decision tree (so to speak). Originally I was just looking at "is it okay to defend yourself EVER"? I'm convinced now that it is - the question is, when does it no longer become okay, or when do the methods make it wrong?

I realize you have to make decisions based on imperfect "data" (reactions) - my sense is that innocent life is sacred, and we have an obligation to protect both innocence and life (innocence being violence against children and rape or sexual assualt against anyone). But there's still something nagging - should Stephen have fought back? Should he specifically NOT have fought back because it was God's will that he be martyred?

I know we have to do the best we can - but I think we're obliged to understand what's okay and what's not okay before the situation presents itself.

[Pouye]

Hardly anything is black and white, but we should at least be able to say where the gray begins and ends.

I guess I'm really looking for an "absolute" answer in the sense of a decision tree (so to speak). Originally I was just looking at "is it okay to defend yourself EVER"? I'm convinced now that it is - the question is, when does it no longer become okay, or when do the methods make it wrong?

I realize you have to make decisions based on imperfect "data" (reactions) - my sense is that innocent life is sacred, and we have an obligation to protect both innocence and life (innocence being violence against children and rape or sexual assualt against anyone). But there's still something nagging - should Stephen have fought back? Should he specifically NOT have fought back because it was God's will that he be martyred?

I know we have to do the best we can - but I think we're obliged to understand what's okay and what's not okay before the situation presents itself.

You mention Stephen. I have always (in my mind) seperated the idea of persecution for my faith and being attacked by a stranger who is not concerned about what I believe or why. Stephen was standing up as a witness for Christ (evident by his famous discourse to those who killed him), and to fight for his life would have invalidated his testimony. They took Stephen by force (dragged him), but it doesn't look as if he resisted them.

"You have heard that the law of Moses says, ‘If an eye is injured, injure the eye of the person who did it. If a tooth gets knocked out, knock out the tooth of the person who did it.’ But I say, don't resist an evil person! If you are slapped on the right cheek, turn the other, too. If you are ordered to court and your shirt is taken from you, give your coat, too. If a soldier demands that you carry his gear for a mile, carry it two miles. Give to those who ask, and don't turn away from those who want to borrow."
Matt. 5:38-42

Jesus taught that we should not seek revenge, but rather to show love - even (and especially) when we are mistreated. The intent in doing this is to not only show kindness and love like God does (for when we were His enemies, Christ died for us), but to perhaps win the person over to Christ through our kindness. It is God's kindness that leads us to repentance. If someone was to kidnap me or treat me harshly specifically because of my faith in Christ (and the person was sane), I would not resist. If the government came with guns and rounded up my family because we were doing things that Christians are mandated to do, but those things had become illegal, I would not resist.

If you have ever seen the movie, or read the book Les Miserables, there is a scene where a priest gets ripped off by Jean Valjean, even after taking care of him. He doesn't seek justice, nor revenge... but gives him mercy -- including a little extra money beyond what he had stolen (which is actually grace). This is what God has done for us... for we were the reason that His Son was crucified, yet He gave us more than we deserved, even eternal life with Him and an inheritance with His Son:

"That is why he is the one who mediates the new covenant between God and people, so that all who are invited can receive the eternal inheritance God has promised them. For Christ died to set them free from the penalty of the sins they had committed under that first covenant."
Hebrews 9:15

For me, it comes down to being led by the Spirit in every circumstance (and oh how I wish I would always be obedient!). Sometimes the right thing to do to a kid who steals from you is to press charges so that they feel the weight of what they did and don't do it again. Sometimes the right thing to do is, when you catch them, to give them even more than they took and tell them the Jesus loves them. I guess it depends on how in tune with are with God's plan. I happen to believe that God can lead me and guide me right this moment, because the Holy Spirit lives in me. As each moment comes, His wisdom can help me to know how to react to the next situation when it comes. I simply hope that I am walking in obedience to His Spirit when the situation comes.

Rock

[ICarlson99]

Well said (as usual).

[Trillamum]

I mostly agree with you, but there's something that bugs me - and I'm not trying to quibble, just trying to understand and come to a well-founded position. Why is it okay to be protective of your family, but not protective of yourself? Are you saying you would protect your friends/family only if they can't "escape"? Does it only apply to friends/family or strangers as well? If the justification is "laying down your life for a friend", what about non-friends? It just seems like we keep coming to the same point where we'd walk away if it involved us (and was possible to walk away), but would do whatever we could to protect someone else. And maybe that's the correct thing, I don't know. Just seems strange if the right answer is everyone can protect others, but not themselves (I know that's not what you were saying, but I noticed you qualified your defense of yourself, but not your defense of friends/family).

Personally, I know my inclination is if I'm attacked I'd try to discern my ability to escape, but if it even looked like someone was going to attack my wife or kids I'd deliberately NOT escape so that they could. But like you (and others) have said, I wouldn't hesitate to use as much force as possible (as opposed to "as much force as necessary") simply because sometimes you can't know what's required for "minimum" damage on an attacker.

But, ultimately, I want to know if my inclination is justified or just fleshy.

Well, I think that you can protect yourself, but you shouldn't be looking for a fight I guess. Like, you shouldn't take someone slapping you upside the head as an excuse to beat the snot out of them. Possibly I should qualify my defense of others, it's one of my weaknesses, I'm over protective. Even just verbally, if I perceive you as being mean or rude to the wrong person, I will go after you...now, I won't make it a physical confrontation unless you start it, but, I will be insulting and harsh, and probably demand that you apologize to them. I don't think that it's not ok to protect yourself, unless God leads you not to in a specific situation, I just think that it should be the last resort as opposed to something we leap to do. And I agree with you, I would deliberatly NOT escape to let others get away, but I don't think that's the same thing as escaping when you could without any detriment to others.