If someone slaps you on the right cheek.. they did it with their left hand.

The hand they use to wpe their as with, to this day.

Its an insult. Not a threat to your life.

joestue said:

If someone slaps you on the right cheek.. they did it with their left hand.

The hand they use to wpe their as with, to this day.

Its an insult. Not a threat to your life.

Click to expand...

what if they shoot you can you shoot them back?

zeth4500 said:

i mean, selfdefense, against basic assault- and against deadly assault
i believe one verse explains its a mans duty to give his family what it needs, and protection is part of that
but also that if someone strikes us we turn the other cheek and let them repeat it again so they can prove to god that theyre bad characters

Click to expand...

As apologist we defend that which defends us.

The living abiding word .Put on and keep on that armor .

Every religion has a hard drive as a defense made of their own oral traditons. Like the Catholics CCC. making the claim a person can serve two Devine good teaching master. The word of God (sola scriptura ) and the oral traditons of dying mankind

.It can be found in every what some call "sacred oral tradition" like that of the JWs and their oral tradition of its leader or the Mormons and their book of Mormon. which they hold above all things writen in the law and prophets (sola scriptura)

The Catholic Bible CCC (80-82) speaks of scripture and tradition in this way: “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture…are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.

The same applies to all written creeds as personals summaries or private interpretations

zeth4500 said:

i mean, selfdefense, against basic assault- and against deadly assault

Click to expand...

From a biblical perspective, self-defense can be considered righteous when it aligns with the principles of preserving life and resisting evil without seeking vengeance. Scripture upholds the sanctity of life, and individuals are not condemned for taking reasonable action to protect themselves or others from harm. In Exodus 22:2, for instance, the law does not hold a person guilty for defending against a thief breaking in at night, suggesting that defense in life-threatening situations is permissible. When it comes to basic assault, responding with restraint and wisdom is encouraged, as Jesus teaches in Matthew 5:39 to "turn the other cheek," which calls for a heart inclined toward peace and mercy. However, this teaching does not necessarily prohibit all forms of defense; rather, it discourages retaliation born from pride or revenge. In the case of deadly assault, defending oneself or others to preserve life can be seen as a just response, especially when motivated by love and a desire to uphold justice, not hatred. Ultimately, the heart behind the action matters—self-defense becomes righteous when it reflects a desire to protect life without crossing into hatred, vengeance, or excessive violence.

zeth4500 said:

i mean, selfdefense, against basic assault- and against deadly assault
i believe one verse explains its a mans duty to give his family what it needs, and protection is part of that
but also that if someone strikes us we turn the other cheek and let them repeat it again so they can prove to god that theyre bad characters

Click to expand...

There's common sense in this.
Word insults no matter how bad are simply that.
Threats are a different thing but with no action = empty words.
Defense of self, loved ones, and those that can NOT defend themselves.
Ex: Unborn babies. Elderly. Disabled.

Sadly, it's to the point where stopping a threat will include the death of others.
The odds of non-violent takedowns are low.

Garee said:

The living abiding word .Put on and keep on that armor .

Click to expand...

so were only allowed to put on infinitely thick armor, hence why the pope always drives around encapsuled in bulletproof glass?

bdavidc said:

ltimately, the heart behind the action matters

Click to expand...

i would say yes logically, our body is our temple and if we ourselves may not violate it- then we shouldnt let anyone else violate it- but can we find scripture beyond the times of moses to support this? the new testament?
i think best bet is still- being married having a duty to stay alive for your wife and family which naturally needs you

MedicBravo said:

Word insults no matter how bad are simply that.

Click to expand...

no need to defend against words, theyre just that- at worst theyre spells but you cant curse a christian, only a christian can curse himself.

MedicBravo said:

Threats are a different thing but with no action = empty words.

Click to expand...

well if someone points a gun at your head its just a slight squeeze away from death, it can even happen accidentally, thats crossing the line into needing immediate action imo

MedicBravo said:

Defense of self, loved ones,

Click to expand...

yes- but you as the man is the backbone of the family, the head of your wife- so by no means can you the man of the house be destroyed because that would cause the destruction of your loved ones as well, like a tree that falls, naturally brings down the branches as well.

zeth4500 said:

i would say yes logically, our body is our temple and if we ourselves may not violate it- then we shouldnt let anyone else violate it- but can we find scripture beyond the times of moses to support this? the new testament?
i think best bet is still- being married having a duty to stay alive for your wife and family which naturally needs you

Click to expand...

You're right to seek clarity from Scripture, especially from the New Testament, and it’s wise to think beyond just logic and into what God’s Word says about life, responsibility, and righteousness. While the New Testament doesn’t give us a direct command saying “defend yourself,” it absolutely affirms the value of human life and our responsibility to care for others—including ourselves and our families.

In Luke 22:36, Jesus told His disciples, “Let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.” This wasn't a call to violence, but an acknowledgment that danger exists and being prepared is not inherently unrighteous. When Peter later used a sword to strike in defense of Jesus, Christ told him to put it away—not because self-defense is always wrong, but because Jesus was willingly laying down His life to fulfill the Father's will. That was a unique situation tied to His mission to die for sinners.

Paul, too, appealed to Roman protection when he was in danger (Acts 22:25–29), showing he did not simply accept harm when it could be lawfully avoided. And 1 Timothy 5:8 tells us, “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” Providing doesn’t just mean food and shelter—it includes protection. If we love our families, we will seek to guard their lives as well as our own.

So, self-defense—when it’s rooted in love, not hatred or revenge—is consistent with Scripture. It’s not about returning evil for evil (Romans 12:17), but about valuing life as God does. The key is the heart: we are called to live peaceably with all, as much as it depends on us (Romans 12:18), but protecting life, especially those entrusted to us, can be a righteous expression of that love.

zeth4500 said:

so were only allowed to put on infinitely thick armor, hence why the pope always drives around encapsuled in bulletproof glass?

Click to expand...

The armor is sola scriptura The Pope is a false teacher.

The word says it all. It is "self" defense and not God defending you. You choose. And God will respect your choice and be "hands off" when you choose to defend yourself. That is basically what happened in Ukrainian. Basically it boils down to you having a Relationships with God in being His Child and Obedient to Him and asking Him in that moment what to do or you can not ask Him. We don't live according to "recipes" but we Live in the Presence of the Living God in a Love Relationship of Father and His Child/Son in the Name of Jesus.

So in the case of David and Goliath God told David to enter the Holy War. Just as He told Moses to enter the Holy War for his Child Israel to give them a place they could call their "own". And then on the other hand He did not take up arms when He Himself could have done it.

Mat. 26:
51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s, and smote off his ear.
52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

And these "angels of war" are all very Powerful. One is enough for a whole army of humans.

Isaiah 37: 36 Then the angel of the Lord went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses.

The sad reality of human casualties are basically the Truth that they don't have a Relationship with God and "self defense" is all that is left to them.

Johanabrahams said:

And these "angels of war" are all very Powerful. One is enough for a whole army of humans.

Click to expand...

The word Anglos is sent messenger (apostle human ) not the fake word angel not coined until the 10th century to give the illusion of multiple disembodied spirit gods in the likeness of men.

No such creation of angels .God is not served by the peanut galley.

He can use a Ass as a apostle to prohecy, Ass represents unbeliever.

Numbers 22:28 And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?