2007-01-30 00:57:13 · 15 answers · asked by k.... 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
We are obligated to use the minimal force necessary, with the minimal amount of harm done to the attacker necessary to stop the attack.
Thus, if someone is unarmed and punches you, you are justified in using the minimal force necessary to ward him off, and to call the police and press charges. You are not justified in throwing him to the ground and kicking him repeatedly to the point of brain damage or spleen rupture,,, nor are you justified in shooting him.
That is why our army is supposed to be much more careful now about 'collateral damage' and about going over the line as we have in Abu Graeb prison in Iraq, and why charges are put against the soldiers who killed a whole family while raping the daughter.
So, yes,, we are allowed to defend ourselves,, but we have to limit ourselve to what is necessary for defense and not go over the line into unjust offense.
2007-01-30 01:07:34 · answer #1 · answered by mary_n_the_lamb 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Could you defend yourself without resorting to killing - could you disable without killing?
To just ask is killing for self defence ok - is a bit simple. To say yes would leave an opening for the idea to be abused and rationalize killing for so-called self defence when not necessary.
Sin only means to miss the mark. It is missing the mark to kill at all - but we must eat so we kill plants and animals. Although this should not make it easier to kill - there is a respect for life.
Some people develop so far that they try to live the idea of ahimsa - which means not-harming. It is not simply not acting in a harmful way, but not having the desire to harm at all. Mahatma Gandhi took this principle so far that he said he would rather die than take a human life. So he would not defend himself if he was attacked. He would say you should not kill for self defence - and he did.
Most are not ready to live in such a way.
As for me...I would not kill to save my own life.
This is not suicide...for I am not taking my own life. I am having my life taken from me and I choose not to take another's life to save it. Saving your own life at all costs is not correct.
~ Eric Putkonen
2007-01-30 01:20:17 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think it is a sin for self defence, just war or when the state does it for punishment.
2007-01-30 01:05:28 · answer #3 · answered by G3 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its a sin to Kill anyone...if a situation puts you in that well just use your common senses
2007-01-30 01:03:11 · answer #4 · answered by babo1dm 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Killing is wrong no matter what the circumstance, to take life without real cause is a sin either way you look at it!!
2007-01-30 03:48:26 · answer #5 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Of course, the definition of self defense gets a bit muddled depending on who is doing the defining.
2007-01-30 01:00:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
yeah it's half sin because you ended one's life but because some reason. but you don't have to be kill you can just only hurt them instead kill. in my religion i don't even kill animals
2007-01-30 03:27:07 · answer #7 · answered by GonE 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not if our lives are in immediate grave danger and there are no non-lethal means available of saving our lives or those of others.
2007-01-30 01:18:48 · answer #8 · answered by PaulCyp 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The failure to defend yourself is committing suicide. Only in situations where it is impossible to survive would it be appropriate to allow yourself to be killed.
2007-01-30 01:03:19 · answer #9 · answered by Boilerfan 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Certainly not. Why do you think police carry weapons?
I Cr 13;8a
2007-01-30 01:01:22 · answer #10 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋