Skip to comments.Arming Oneself versus Turning the Other Cheek
Posted on 07/19/2009 7:40:46 AM PDT by pnh102
A lot of anti-Christian types like to throw the whole "turn the other cheek" teaching at us to protest any Christian who believes that arming and defending oneself is a righteous act. Personally, I take the view that Jesus wanted us to arm and defend ourselves as he spoke in Luke 22:35-38. I guess my question is, how do we defend the principle of turning the other cheek when we are confronted with very real threats to our well-being?
Sure, turn the other cheek when someone wrongs you or insults you, but if they break into my house to assault, rob, rape, shoot, stab, kill me....
I do not plan to dial 911
Intelligence Continues to Elude Democrats!!!!
I own guns because cops do not live in my house or on my street. I carry a gun because I cannot lift a cop. They are too heavy for me to carry. If I could afford secret service and armed body guards, I would do that instead!
Intelligence Continues to Elude Democrats!!!!
First thing, is to stop even listening to people when they use your own morality against you. At that point, they don’t care about you, they are out to destroy you, and there is no need to play their game.
Luke 11:21 - Believers are not to be wise - not stupid.
I mean we ARE to be wise.
“The pen is mightier than the sword”?
Must be liberal propaganda.
I’ll take the sword over a pen any day of the week.
But a gun is ever better.
Remember the famous scene in “Raiders of the Lost Ark”?
In a life or death situation one does not have the option to turn the other cheek. How can you turn the other cheek when you are dead?
"He instructed them to turn the other cheek, and to suffer wrong for Righteousness sake."
I used to have problems with that verse, but this helped me out.
MT: 5: Ver. 39. Not to resist evil; i.e. not to resist or revenge thyself of him that hath done evil to thee. --- Turn him the other cheek. Let him have also thy cloak. These are to be understood as admonitions to Christians, to forgive every one, and to bear patiently all manner of private injuries. But we must not from hence conclude it unlawful for any one to have recourse to the laws, when a man is injured, and cannot have justice by any other means. (Witham) --- What is here commanded, is a Christian patience under injuries and affronts, and to be willing even to suffer still more, rather than to indulge the desire of revenge; but what is further added does not strictly oblige according to the letter, for neither did Christ, nor St. Paul, turn the other cheek. (St. John xviii. and Acts xxiii.) (Challoner) --- Hence also the Anabaptists infer, that it is not lawful to go to law even for our just rights; and Luther, that Christians ought not to resist the Turks. (Bristow)
Also regarding soldiering:
Lk 3:14 "And the soldiers also asked him, saying: And what shall we do? And he said to them: Do violence to no man; neither calumniate any man; and be content with your pay.
Lk 3: Ver. 14. The Baptist knew that such as engage in war, are not murderers, but ministers of the law; not avengers of injuries, but defenders of the public weal. Had he thought otherwise, he would have said: "cast away your arms, abandon the service, never strike, maim, or destroy any one:" these are not the things which are blameable in the military, but their cruelty, their revenge, their implacable dispositions, and lust of power. (St. Augustine, lib. 22. cont. Faust.)
Well, that was improvisation as it turns out. There was supposed to be a sword fight and Americans being in Tunisia where they apparently drank the water, and a certain actor needed a port-a-potty more than the movie needed a sword fight. That scene turned out better for it, IMO.
I believe in turning the other cheek. I have turned the other cheek. I have also violently defended myself — Because I am responsible for my brother and my family.
So, when the threat is real and in the face significant evil it is sometimes necessary for Christians to take up their arms to protect those around them that are weaker or not as capable of preserving peace in the face of great danger.
The sin in that instance is doing nothing in face of evil - Because I ain’t Jesus, I will defend his children! IMHO...
I believe the Bible makes abundantly clear the distinction between righteous war, self-defense and outright murder.
Ethically the subject of self-defense regards the right of a private person to employ force against any one who unjustly attacks his life or person, his property or good name. While differing among themselves on some of the more subtle and less practical points comprised in this topic, our moralists may be said to be unanimous on the main principles and their application regarding the right of self-defense. The teaching may be summarized as follows:
Everyone has the right to defend his life against the attacks of an unjust aggressor. For this end he may employ whatever force is necessary and even take the life of an unjust assailant. As bodily integrity is included in the good of life, it may be defended in the same way as life itself. It must be observed however that no more injury may be inflicted on the assailant than is necessary to defeat his purpose. If, for example, he can be driven off by a call for help or by inflicting a slight wound on him, he may not lawfully be slain. Again the unjust attack must be actually begun, at least morally speaking, not merely planned or intended for some future time or occasion. generally speaking one is not bound to preserve one's own life at the expense of the assailant's; one may, out of charity, forego one's right in the matter. Sometimes, however, one may be bound to defend one's own life to the utmost on account of one's duty of state or other obligations. The life of another person may be defended on the same conditions by us as our own. For since each person has the right to defend his life unjustly attacked, what he can lawfully do through his own efforts he may also do through the agency of others. Sometimes, too, charity, natural affection, or official duty imposed the obligation of defending others. A father ought, for example, to defend the lives of his children; a husband, his wife; and all ought to defend the life of one whose death would be a serious loss to the community. Soldiers, policemen, and private guards hired for that purpose are bound in justice to safeguard the lives of those entrusted to them.
It is lawful to defend one's material goods even at the expense of the agressor's life; for neither justice nor charity require that one should sacrifice possessions, even though they be of less value than human life in order to preserve the life of a man who wantonly exposes it in order to do an injustice. Here, however, we must recall the principle that in extreme necessity every man has a right to appropriate whatever is necessary to preserve his life. The starving man who snatches a meal is not an unjust agressor; consequently it is not lawful to use force against him. Again, the property which may be defended at the expense of the agressor's life must be of considerable value; for charity forbids that in order to protect ourselves from a trivial loss we should deprive a neighbor of his life. Thefts or robberies, however, of small values are to be considered not in their individual, but in their cummulative, aspect. A thief may be slain in the act of carrying away stolen property provided that it cannot be recovered from him by any other means; if, for example, he can be made to abandon his spoil through fright, then it would not be lawful to shoot him. If he has carried the goods away to safety he cannot then be killed in order to recover them; but the owner may endeavor to take them from him, and if the thief resists with violence he may be killed in self-defense.
Since it is lawful to take life in the legitimate defense of one's material goods, it is evidently also lawful to do so in defense of chastity which is a good of a much higher order. With regard to honor or reputation, it is not lawful to kill one to prevent an insult or an attack upon our reputation which we beleive he intends, or threatens. Nor may we take a life to avenge an insult already offered. The proceeding would not be defense of our honor or reputation, but revenge. Besides, in the general estimation honor and reputation may be sufficiently protected without taking the life of the offender.
Source: Catholic Encyclopedia
Jesus’ admonition was certainly not a call to passive submission to those who wish to harm you. He was clearly stating that you must forgive your enemies, not give in to them.
As Christians, it is our duty to fight evil in the physical world as well as the spiritual one.
Sound advise, apply it liberally.
You can’t “turn the other cheek” when you’re dead!
Libs turn the other cheek until they get mugged or their house in broken into and the cops take about an hour to get there. Then they see the light and arm up. The libs can lecture me all they want about turning the other cheek, but I refuse to be a victim to a violent person who isn’t even afraid to kill a cop. Sorry, no sale here. Plus we have in our midst, violent illegal mexicans that our ozero govt is welcoming here. Damn near got in a wreck with one of them RIGHT in front of a bunch of Houston cops. He crossed 4 lanes and nearly ran us off the road to get in our lane. No license plate, no registration or inspection. The cops just looked at him. Boy it’s wonderful living in a sactuary city. Thanks libs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.