violence

[Nathan]

[quote name='rkwright' date='Dec 7 2005, 01:40 PM']what? I heard canada has more guns per person than the states...
[right][snapback]815519[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Not in Ontario, which is where most of Canada's citizens live (it's different in western provinces, like Alberta, where hunting is big). The only people toting guns around here are police officers and gang members.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Matty_boy' date='Dec 7 2005, 12:01 PM']Why wrestle the knife when we have the 2nd Amendment?
[right][snapback]815378[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

2nd amendment? What's that?? I live in Chicago.....

[philothea]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='Dec 7 2005, 05:51 PM']2nd amendment?  What's that??  I live in Chicago.....
[right][snapback]815862[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I think in Chicago that's your right to call 911 and wait for half an hour.

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Dec 7 2005, 05:42 AM']we had a discussion about violence and if it is every the right thing, and my school said no. never. so the example they gave is if you are with someone and someone starts acting violent possibly killing someone that we should just not act violent..
[right][snapback]814887[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I am very much against total pacifism. Pacifism kills. I would be happy to give a long write-up on why I think that, but I have to leave for work rather soon.

[MilesChristi]

Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66

Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

---CCC 2264-5

[zdog042]

Defense in any situation - possible.
Defense in persecution for Christianity - out of the question.

I go to the same school as Rev does, so I know what he is talking about. I too have heard that violence is never justified, and I tend to take the same stance personally. I don't think that it is a bad thing to be violent, but for myself I choose to be non-violent in all but the most extreme situations. But, I'm still working this out with our professors, my soon-to-be-wife, rev, etc.

However in times of persecution against myself for Christianity, I will not resist violentely. As much as it hurts to say this, I wouldn't defend my family. At least - I would try to not. Instinct would probably get in the way, but that's how it goes in lots of things anyway. I use the early Christian martyrs as my example. They didn't resist, were taken away even when pregnant and had children in jail and then gave them up without resistance. So, when it comes to violence against me because of my Christianity, I will not resist violently.

First post - :

[Socrates]

[quote name='zdog042' date='Dec 21 2005, 02:28 PM']Defense in any situation - possible.
Defense in persecution for Christianity - out of the question.

I go to the same school as Rev does, so I know what he is talking about. I too have heard that violence is never justified, and I tend to take the same stance personally. I don't think that it is a bad thing to be violent, but for myself I choose to be non-violent in all but the most extreme situations. But, I'm still working this out with our professors, my soon-to-be-wife, rev, etc.

However in times of persecution against myself for Christianity, I will not resist violentely. As much as it hurts to say this, I wouldn't defend my family. At least - I would try to not. Instinct would probably get in the way, but that's how it goes in lots of things anyway. I use the early Christian martyrs as my example. They didn't resist, were taken away even when pregnant and had children in jail and then gave them up without resistance. So, when it comes to violence against me because of my Christianity, I will not resist violently.

First post -  :
[right][snapback]833023[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
There is nothing that makes defending others or oneself when persecution of Christianity is involved prohibited anymore than defense of oneself or others for any other reason.

For example, if it is permissable to use violent defense to protect your family from someone who was attacking them because he was a robber or a simple maniac, why would this suddenly become wrong if the same attacker was attacking your family because they are Christian???

That position is nonsensical.

We are never to actively seek out martyrdom in a suicidal way, but rather to accept it when forced to choose between denying Christ and death.

Martyrdom is laying down one's [b]own life [/b]for Christ - it never involves needlessly allowing [b]others[/b] (such as one's family members) to die.

[TheoGrad07]

I believe self-defense is morally acceptible -- both personally and for states (i.e. war). That being said, I have reservations about the application of "legitimate self-defense" and the 2nd amendment today.

Although I found Micheal Moore seriously obnoxious when I watched "Bowling for Columbine," his documentary did make me wonder ...

But don't get me wrong -- I enjoy recreational shooting. I own a gun and have had tons of fun hiking up into the mountains and target shooting, then cooking dinner over an open fire.