Many state have laws that justify the use of force, up to and including the use of deadly force, to protect yourself from a direct threat of harm. Is a JW who is armed, they or their family is under that direct threat and there is no other recourse. Is the use of deadly force, as state law authorizes, acceptable? Would this person be sanctioned in some way by your organization for doing this? Even though the law says their action was justified?
2014-08-16T08:34:08Z
Let me clarify the Q. Under your teachings and beliefs, is the use of deadly force justified. Or are they not to defend themselves because it would be taking a life.
2014-08-16T08:52:48Z
So if you are a JW parent and someone was trying to kill your child. You wouldn't do something?
?2014-08-16T13:20:13Z
Favorite Answer
Let's take a close look at what Jesus taught his followers on the night before his death.
I love the book of Luke. Luke as a physician had an eye for detail. Some details he saw as important to write down the other three gospels did not record.
Many of the brothers and sisters take a firm stand against any type of violence, though the Israelites at time were a very violent nation, and that violence was backed by Jehovah. In a world full of unrighteousness a righteous person may find himself in a situation that prompts some defensive action.
How can I say this when so many use the scriptures to say violence is condemned, even defensive violence? Let's examine what Jesus was saying in Luke 22:35-37
"He also said to them: “When I sent YOU forth without purse and food pouch and sandals, YOU did not want for anything, did YOU?” They said: “No!” 36 Then he said to them: “But now let the one that has a purse take it up, likewise also a food pouch; and let the one having no sword sell his outer garment and buy one. 37 For I tell YOU that this which is written must be accomplished in me, namely, ‘And he was reckoned with lawless ones.’ For that which concerns me is having an accomplishment"
In verse 36 Jesus told the apostles it was necessary for them to have a sword. What were they suppose to use this sword for? Eating soup? Maybe they were to cut their tent stakes with it? Maybe it was for protecting themselves from wild animals? I don't think so, and neither did Jesus. There is better instruments for the three things I mentioned. Soup needs a spoon, an axe better for tent stakes and a long staff for wild animals.
Jesus said what the swords were for, in verse 37 he tells us it is for the "lawless ones". These swords were for protection.
The apostles were not suppose to go looking for trouble, but they were suppose to protect themselves when necessary.
Using a sword on someone does not always have to be fatal. but if the assailant continues to push and try to do harm sometimes fatalities can occur.
Please also look at Ambar's links they go further into this subject
When Peter tried to defend Jesus with a sword and cut off the slaves ear, what did Jesus do? He healed the mans ear and told Peter to put away his sword and that all who take up the sword will perish by the sword. Matthew 26:51-52 // John 18:10-11.
Now instead of sword, replace that word with gun, knife, or any other weapon and you get your answer. We can seriously wound an attacker, but not kill him. Blood is sacred to Jehovah.
Ge 9:6 He who sheds man’s blood shall have his blood shed for the man, because in his image God made man.
Jehovah God wanted us to use his name. Matthew 6:9, Jesus told us that we should pray: "Our Father in the heavens, let your NAME be SANCTIFIED." Also Isaiah 43:10 also brings out that Jehovah said, "You are my WITNESSES." God is a Title. Even with Arabs. A good dictionary will show you, “Allah” is a shortened form of the Arabic term meaning “the god", this is not a name. The title “God” is neither personal nor distinctive. In the Hebrew Scriptures the same word (ʼElo‧him′) is applied to Jehovah, the true God, and also to false gods. The Imperial Bible-Dictionary says: “It is everywhere a proper name, denoting the personal God and him only; whereas Elohim partakes more of the character of a common noun, denoting usually, indeed, but not necessarily nor uniformly, the Supreme. . . . The Hebrew may say the Elohim, the true God, in opposition to all false gods; but he never says the Jehovah, for Jehovah is the name of the true God only. He says again and again my God . . . ; but never my Jehovah, for when he says my God, he means Jehovah. He speaks of the God of Israel, but never of the Jehovah of Israel, for there is no other Jehovah. He speaks of the living God, but never of the living Jehovah, for he cannot conceive of Jehovah as other than living.” Hope This Helps
You definitely have a right to defend your life and the life of your family and friends. You just want to use discretion on how much if you can get away without killing them that's encouraged because life is precious and we don't want to be careless about life.
The state law may well say that use of violence is acceptable under certain conditions; however, that still does not mean that a person is required to use violence. If simply means that if they choose to use violence then they have a defence in law.