Wise up.

[Kidan]

but Sagan that is the thing.  I am following it properly.  I am responsible for the spiritual and physical wellbeing of my family.  I must do all in my power to protect them.  Likewise those who join the military and police force must do all in there power to protect all of us.

I am not making 'exclusions' to these things.  As I said, Christianity is not an exclusively pascifist religion.  We are to be pascifists when it comes to self, but when it comes to family/community/nation we are to fight to protect our loved ones and our neighbors.

Quote[/b] ]If you follow a path, you have to follow it properly, or not at all.

 I follow Christianity properly, and that includes having the ability to protect my family from harm by causing harm.  You said that you would do the same, but by doing so you would put aside your religion.  How do you tie that up with what I've quoted?  Does that mean you would not follow the path that you have chosen properly?  Then why follow it.  But let's take this even wider.  What about the neighbor down the street you don't particuarlly like, would you harm to protect him?  Would you cast aside your religion to protect someone you are not fond of, or would you assume it's just his karmic reward and walk on by.  I know what I would do, and I know that my religion instructs me that i should protect him, even if it means harming someone his attackers.

While violence would be my last choice, this nonsense that violence never solves anything is an utter falsehood (ooo... Starship Troopers!!!)

 

[Ultima Avatar]

Sagan, I have to tell you this: there are differences in death and killing and murder and wartime. If you wield a knife against me and I kill you in self-defense, tough luck. Sorry. I'll send roses to the funeral. But you shouldn't have screwed with me. If you mug me and kill me...well...I can't do too much after that except start my rigor mortis. You murdered. I killed. My grandfather died of natural causes. All three are instances of death, though natural death is the only "good" death. Killing in self-defense that I might live, however, is not? What if it was unavoidable? NO ESCAPE possible. I HAD to kill to escape.
There IS justification. God's children or no. We are also inhabitants of the world, and if one of God's children could care less about another of the children, and feels that he can kill whichever he pleases, and he is killed himself: weeeeeelll...irony? Yeah. It's always sad to God to have to send someone to hell for their stupidity like that, but touch luck. You shouldn't have thought to cross one of the Divine's. I'll probably bear scars from the dude's death, but you know, eventually I'll get over it. I did it to stay alive, and a sad case that it involved that he didn't make it out alive.

Now suppose China's in war and are being WASTED by the Japs, if for the first time ever. I take up the sword and fight for my country against the Japs. Or should I sit down and meditate in the midst of battle (perfect position for decapitation)? You WILL fight if you are called to fight. You don't have to, but I know of spiritual leaders that have killed before in the time of war. I know of people who have killed in self-defense. But are they wicked, cruel, unjust murderers?
Hardly. They fought for their life, and those that fought for war fought that their country would not fall.
Tell me, honestly: if America was taken over by the Cremeans (har har har!) and they outlawed ALL religion for some whimmish reason, and you (theoretically assuming you live in the "hallowed" halls of America), a Buddhist, are killed for refusing to give up your religion. Would you not wish to fight for the greater good in the interest of equalization? Would you not rather fight against the Cremeans at the front to allow your faith to continue to swell in ranks and to put people on the right path? Or would you rather sit down and die?

Actually, I would safely say, that yes, Jesus DID abandon his flesh family. Without a doubt. Matter of fact he says that unless we can do the same, we cannot give our hearts to him. Luke 12 I think. "Take up your cross, follow me." "Whoever doesn't hate his mother and brother and father, even himself, cannot follow me." That's not hate, like, I HATE YOU YOU BEEPING BEEP OF A BEEPER! That's hate like abandonment from the flesh to the kingdom of God. That's like: Dudes, I CANNOT serve my God and serve this world as well. Sorry guys. But my choice is this: I'm leaving. I will not stay bound to this world. I WILL serve my God. Goodbye. So long. Farewell."

Buddha made himself equal to all people. Meaning the rich and highly powerful? Meaning those who are "better than the scum of the earth?" Or the poor? So that we can stoop and reach Buddha's level? Or the medium? That we can walk and reach Buddha's level?
Christ has NOT set himself apart from us: in fact he has bridged the gap to God for us. We can reach God through him. We take him by the hand and we can join God at the end. ANd what does BUddha do for us? Temporary bliss? Enlightenment on this plane? A taste of nirvana? Why? Who needs it? Get a spiritual high? What for?
I'd MUCH rather get down on my knees, into the mud of this world, and feel the pain of it. My God did. Past, present and future pains. He felt them all. Now there is not a single man who can imagine what that would feel like, except for him. It's almost unreal to think about it. GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! The mugger just sliced my hand off! I just got shot through the skull with a bullet! Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyugh."
Needless to say, those two events are fairly painful. Now imagine EVERY STINKING PAIN of this world taken on one man's frail form.
Impossible. Right? For us.

So. You don't need to believe in the results of your faith, just so long as you believe the teachings. Can you mix other faiths, too, so long as you follow their teachings for your fellow man but not the end result?
How do I, a Christian, deal with pain? Well. I take it. There is no escape from pain. You can remove yourself from it, but it's there. Always. When you wake up into this real world, it's still there, so hasten as fast as possible to escape it once again and hide in a fantasy non-world free from pain.
As for me I'll take it. I'll witness it. I'll feel it. I'll live in it and overcome it until I come to a higher pain, and then I do the same to that one, more and more I overcome in Christ my God until I have died and can say to God: I overcame. I didn't flee. I fought. And with You, I was victorious.

As to Eon: Yeah. Either she's whacked or she doesn't know what Wiccanism is.
And what god do you know has been promoted through the stages? I do not know of any that has worked to attain godhood (except Hercules the demi-god).
And I suppose you could put both Buddha and Christ into that "King's son with the poor" category. But they both reacted differently to it. Is any better for it?

 

[timor]

Ultima makes a good point. Jesus' own family thought he was loony at first, but after the resurrection, his YOUNGER brother James

became quite the Christian..

 

[SAGAN]

Kidan, I would protect any innocent person, if I am fond of them or not. Thats the kind of person I am, I can't help myself, but to protect other people. Buddha nor Jesus could ever change that.

Quote[/b] ]Now suppose China's in war and are being WASTED by the Japs, if for the first time ever. I take up the sword and fight for my country against the Japs. Or should I sit down and meditate in the midst of battle (perfect position for decapitation)? You WILL fight if you are called to fight. You don't have to, but I know of spiritual leaders that have killed before in the time of war.

Tibetan's were slaughtered by the Chinese for doing just that. They are innocent, and passive. And promote no violence, they have no army. They were attacked, and never defended themselves. And still today, they are controlled and tortured by the Chinese. But not one of them, holds anger to their foes for what is done to them, Jesus never did. And neither do they.

Quote[/b] ]Buddha made himself equal to all people. Meaning the rich and highly powerful? Meaning those who are "better than the scum of the earth?" Or the poor? So that we can stoop and reach Buddha's level? Or the medium? That we can walk and reach Buddha's level?

Buddha said that EVERYONE was equil, there are no highly powerful, because their power, can be taken away in an instant, the rich, and the poor, are all equal. You are equal to me, and I am equal to you.
You should not be saying things like "stoop and reach Buddha's level" because it is known that Jesus studied other religeons, and it is also known that a lot of what Jesus tourght about sin, and loving thy mother and thy father, and having compassion for others. Came from Buddhism. Man put him above everyone else, All highly spiritual people, were and are humble. Jesus would too, have been humble. But it's man that has made him so large and untouchable. There are books that you can buy, that compare the two teachings of Buddha and Christ, and you can see, how teachings of Christ are the same as the teachings of Buddha, they are simply worded different.
Buddhism has been the heart of almost every religeon, because it was the first. Buddhism dosen't dispute other peoples religeon, and neither should you. I know a proper Christian would not put down someone that another person has faith in, in a totall different religeon, like you have.
Because it is against Christ's teachings, he would not want it.
Kidan is an example of a proper Christian, Kidan has not attacked me, questioned yes, but not attacked.

 

[SAGAN]

Quote[/b] ]ANd what does BUddha do for us? Temporary bliss? Enlightenment on this plane? A taste of nirvana? Why? Who needs it? Get a spiritual high? What for?

Please, your not researching what your even fighting about. Enlightenment is a perminent thing, not temporary, not a "spiritual high" it is total compasson and love for everyone. It is Heaven basically put, Heaven is not temporary, nor is Heavan a "spiritual high", Enlightenment is the same thing. You fight about wording, not the core belief. Please, research what your trying to fight about.

 

[Ultima Avatar]

WORDING? I fight about wording? Enlightenment, heaven, the same thing? Is THAT what you're saying?
My friend: enlightenment is not eternal. It is for this life ONLY. When the Buddhist dies after enlightenment what happens? He does not remain in it forever. He dies. For good.
Enlightenment is a pinnacle of pure and total high-ness. Think of it: you feel good for the world, feel at calm and equal with everything. No ill will towards anything. Perfection in your mind, but sadly, not the body. And the mind cannot live without the body. After the body's passing on, the mind is dead. And what is left, I ask you?
Heaven is a place. Enlightenment is a state. They are NOT the same.

 

[Ultima Avatar]

Attacked? My bad. It is my nature. Maybe Kidan's is one of the peaceful approach, but I am of the frontal attack, or the deceptive, sly one.

You speak for EVERY Tibetan? You know their hearts and their minds? You speak on the part of their emotions and feelings? A person is not a unit to be globbed together with everyone else. If a group of Tibetans feel no ill will, but Yori does, what then? They are not all together a unified body: they are different and personal. Yori may HATE the Chinese for what they do, but try to remain calm most of the time. Maybe privately he curses and questions the spirits as to how they can continue to exist. Maybe privately he leads a band of Tibetan rogues on raids on Chinese prison camps, in black leather tights. They can also fly.
Maybe. You may know what they SAY they do, but you do NOT know what they do.
FOr instance, a CHristian says he loves God and whatnot, and in that manner, loves his fellow man. A Christian SHOULD do such. But I don't. Not all the time. I should. I say I do. I say I am supposed to. But in reality I don't.
And that's the truth. Christians in general say that they do both. BUt they are not. IN fact, most Christians are know are worse than the "unbelievers" of this world. Why? Because most of them have this delusion that they can get away with it because Christ will forgive them, or that they are supposed to, as Christ would act just like them.
Which he wouldn't, but you know, with an unseen deity, it's easy to do whatever you want.
Until conviction, that is.
So for a brief lesson my friend that is the truth: I suspect you're not in China, and I also suspect that you're currently not in a prison camp, either, so I doubt that you know what every imprisoned Tibetan feels.

I might also point out to you that there is a movie that you can buy and a porno film as well that you can compare to Christ's life: The Last Temptation of Christ (with Willem Dafoe as Christ). But am I gonna use that as a basis? HAR! No!
Books can say whatever they please: Judaism and Christianity are not the same. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are NOT the same. But books say they are. Who do I trust now?
Though I must admit, Buddha's peaceful approach to life is much akin to some of Christ's teaching, though Christ actually took a side of the scale: Buddha stayed in the median.
So. You say that no religion existed before 640 BC? Buddhism started it all? Gee. I wonder what the Babylonians were following all that while? Most definitely NOT Buddhism. The pantheon of deities are different, the worship is different, the teachings are different, the rituals are different, the traditions are different.
And you tell me that New Agers follow Buddhism at the core? And of Mormonism, the same? Hmm. Nope. There's a clash of "religion" in the "religions" of the day. You could actually say that every religion today springs from gnosticism of the 1st-2nd centuries' roots. But that would be untrue.
Buddhism was not the first, nor shall it be the last.

 

[[7F]Griswald]

Quote[/b] ] Actually, I would safely say, that yes, Jesus DID abandon his flesh family. Without a doubt. Matter of fact he says that unless we can do the same, we cannot give our hearts to him. Luke 12 I think. "Take up your cross, follow me." "Whoever doesn't hate his mother and brother and father, even himself, cannot follow me." That's not hate, like, I HATE YOU YOU BEEPING BEEP OF A BEEPER! That's hate like abandonment from the flesh to the kingdom of God. That's like: Dudes, I CANNOT serve my God and serve this world as well. Sorry guys. But my choice is this: I'm leaving. I will not stay bound to this world. I WILL serve my God. Goodbye. So long. Farewell."

***You are absolutely correct, I just need to clarify for those who misinterpret*** {steps carefully around his toes}

I would say that he did not abandon anyone if my definition of abandon is the same as everyone else’s.
Abandon: to give up with the intent of never again claiming a right or interest in; to withdraw protection, support, or help from; to withdraw from often in the face of danger or encroachment etc...

**Provision for his Disciples**
15"If you love me, show it by doing what I've told you. 16I will talk to the Father, and he'll provide you another Friend so that you will always have someone with you. 17This Friend is the Spirit of Truth. The godless world can't take him in because it doesn't have eyes to see him, doesn't know what to look for. But you know him already because he has been staying with you, and will even be in you!
18"I will not leave you orphaned. I'm coming back. 19In just a little while the world will no longer see me, but you're going to see me because I am alive and you're about to come alive. 20At that moment you will know absolutely that I'm in my Father, and you're in me, and I'm in you.

**Provision for his Mother**
25Jesus' mother, his aunt, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene stood at the foot of the cross. 26Jesus saw his mother and the disciple he loved standing near her. He said to his mother, "Woman, here is your son." 27Then to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that moment the disciple accepted her as his own mother.
28Jesus, seeing that everything had been completed so that the Scripture record might also be complete, then said, "I'm thirsty."

**Only clarification***

Quote[/b] ]Matter of fact he says that unless we can do the same, we cannot give our hearts to him. Luke 12 I think. "Take up your cross, follow me." "Whoever doesn't hate his mother and brother and father, even himself, cannot follow me."

Matthew 10
Christ Brings Division
34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35For I have come to "set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law'; 36and "a man's enemies will be those of his own household.'[5] 37He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.

Luke 12
49"I've come to start a fire on this earth--how I wish it were blazing right now! 50I've come to change everything, turn everything rightside up--how I long for it to be finished! 51Do you think I came to smooth things over and make everything nice? Not so. I've come to disrupt and confront! 52From now on, when you find five in a house, it will be--

Three against two,
and two against three;
53Father against son,
and son against father;
Mother against daughter,
and daughter against mother;
Mother-in-law against bride,
and bride against mother-in-law."

*** The point is that nothing should take the place of God, meaning if you love your family more than following Christ (in your personal life)... Like King Soloman when he allowed his wives to influence him in regards to building alters to her gods as well as following them himself... As a follower of Christ you should not compromise your faith to satisfy your family... yes be a peace keeper but not at the cost of putting your family above God ***

1 Kings 11
4As Solomon grew older, his wives beguiled him with their alien gods and he became unfaithful--he didn't stay true to his GOD as his father David had done. 5Solomon took up with Ashtoreth, the whore goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech, the horrible god of the Ammonites.
6Solomon openly defied GOD; he did not follow in his father David's footsteps. 7He went on to build a sacred shrine to Chemosh, the horrible god of Moab, and to Molech, the horrible god of the Ammonites, on a hill just east of Jerusalem. 8He built similar shrines for all his foreign wives, who then polluted the countryside with the smoke and stench of their sacrifices.

Just needed to clarify so there would be no misconceptions

 

[Kidan]

Sagan

Quote[/b] ]Buddhism has been the heart of almost every religeon, because it was the first

Err..this is a tad generalistic.  Christ's teachings were based upon the Jewish law, while Budha's teachings were based upon a form of hinduism  Budhism did spring a few hundred years prior to Christ, but there were many many different religions prior to that.  the Norse, Greeks, Egyptians, Japanese, Aborignies, every different trive of Native American, Babylonian, Zoarastianism, Druidic, Roman, Ethiopian, all the tribes in mid and south Africa.  The list goes on and on of Religions that predate  Budhism.  Ok anyways

People have compared Christ to numerous religious figures form Budha to Muhamed (sp?) to one of Krishna's avatars.  Just because they compare them does not mean that they are actually similar.  I can compare apples and oranges, but  that doesn't mean they're both pears.

So you would denounce your religion to protect others, yet you said that if we follow a path, then we should follow it properly.  The path of a Tibetan style Budhist is totally pascifistic (and look what happened to them for that form of extreme pascifism).  Then according to your own statement, if you are going to follow Tibetan Budhism, then you should follow it properly, such that even if your mother was being killed next to you, and there was a gun within reach, you would not harm her attacker.  That is what it means to be a Tibetan Style Budhist.  Totally passive to everything.

So since you said you could not follow that form of extreme pascifism, why follow the remainder of the teachings?  For since you are not following that extremism, you are not properly following Tibetan Budhism.

Whereas in Christianity, if we fail, if we slip in our beliefs, if we sin.  We have an outlet to return to the same place we were before.  At any time if we realize that we're not following the path properly, we can start.  For a Christian, the path is there, we follow it, and we trust God to help us stay on it.  Do we fail?  Yes. Do we stumble? yes.  Do we wander away? Yes.  Yet we can always return and He will accept us with open arms.  We don't have to worry about whether or not we're following the path properly, for God will ensure that the path is before us.

So you say:
If you are going to follow a path, you have to follow it properly or not at all

Whereas I say:
If you follow the path of a Christian, God will lead you through the bushes.

 

[Ultima Avatar]

Thanks TribForce dude. I guess at times I needa be more clear.
Hmm...so Kidan you're saying if you say to follow your belief to the core forever and always, stick it out completely, and not select tidbits to remove from your belief due to your personality?
Sagan said his personality is that he would always protect others, whether or not he liked them or something. That's personality.
But as you pointed out that's selecting bits to leave out from part of his walk in Buddhism.
Just seeing if I completely understood you there Kidan.

 

[[7F]Griswald]

Quote[/b] ]Err..this is a tad generalistic. Christ's teachings were based upon the Jewish law, while Budha's teachings were based upon a form of hinduism Budhism did spring a few hundred years prior to Christ, but there were many many different religions prior to that. the Norse, Greeks, Egyptians, Japanese, Aborignies, every different trive of Native American, Babylonian, Zoarastianism, Druidic, Roman, Ethiopian, all the tribes in mid and south Africa. The list goes on and on of Religions that predate Budhism. Ok anyways

*** Just clarifing again ***

John 1
1.In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth

*** So I would say that Christ was around even before these other religions, only what we term "Christianity" as the followings of Christ, when Christ himself followed his Father, who existed in the beginning.(Before men and their religions)***

John 12
47"As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. 48There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. 49For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. 50I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."

John 12
50And I know exactly what his command produces: real and eternal life. That's all I have to say. What the Father told me, I tell you."

John 5
18For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
19Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, to your amazement he will show him even greater things than these.

***He based his words not on the Jewish laws, but from the Father who told him what to say... It makes sense that it seems to be based on the Jewish laws as they were given by God as well

***

 

[[7F]Griswald]

Quote[/b] ]Thanks TribForce dude. I guess at times I needa be more clear.

Oh no problem! By the way I really appreciate how you say things simply... taking what may be complex and processing it. Then saying it in a manner which people can relate to... Christ did this very thing as well, by speaking in parables that people could relate to... "The Kingdom of heaven is like..." type statements.

Anyhow... Later.

 

[Kidan]

ultimaYes, Sagan said "If you are going to follow a path, you have to follow it properly or not at all." Yet at the same he is saying that does not apply to him. (due to not being 100% pascifistic)

If he says that if we don't follow a path correctly then we need to get off that path, why would he stay on the path of Tibetan Budhism if he is willing to harm someone in the protection of others.


As I said, Sagan's statement was "If you are going to follow a path, you have to follow it properly or not at all"

My statement is "If you follow the path of a Christian, God will lead you through the bushes."


Gris: That is a wonderful excercise in theological thinking, but unfortunately has nothing to do with the point of the post. I was saying that Christ's teachings were a natural extension of Judaism, and did not have to go through another religion (i.e. Budhism) to become what they are. As well as proving a point that the quote listed above was overly general, and borderline falsehood. Yet also the concept that Christ's teachings are based on the Law is firmly rooted. Don't you think there is a reason the law was given first? Without the law, we would have had no reason to accept Christ's teachings, for the law shows us our sin, while Christ's teachings show us our forgiveness. Ecc says that for everything there is a time. There was a time for the Law to be taught (which came first) and then there was a time for Christ's teachings (which came second). Therefore in a naturalistic order of things, Christ's teachings are based upon the law, for if the law was never given, would Christ's teachings have been? The law is the foundation of Christ's teachings. Oh well, i'm rambling and it's time to go home.

God bless.

 

[SAGAN]

Quote[/b] ]Err..this is a tad generalistic. Christ's teachings were based upon the Jewish law, while Budha's teachings were based upon a form of hinduism

Hinduism came from Buddhism Kidan.

Ultima Avatar, you are beginning to frustrate me, your not RESEARCHING anything, stop saying Enlightenment is temporary, Because you dont know WHAT IT IS. It's like me saying Heavan is temporary, you throw out attacks and don't even look into what your saying.

Quote[/b] ]So you would denounce your religion to protect others, yet you said that if we follow a path, then we should follow it properly. The path of a Tibetan style Budhist is totally pascifistic (and look what happened to them for that form of extreme pascifism). Then according to your own statement, if you are going to follow Tibetan Budhism, then you should follow it properly, such that even if your mother was being killed next to you, and there was a gun within reach, you would not harm her attacker. That is what it means to be a Tibetan Style Budhist. Totally passive to everything.

I never said I would cause harm to people to protect others, I just said I would protect them. And I can do that without causing bodilly harm to them.

Quote[/b] ]People have compared Christ to numerous religious figures form Budha to Muhamed (sp?) to one of Krishna's avatars. Just because they compare them does not mean that they are actually similar. I can compare apples and oranges, but that doesn't mean they're both pears.

When compared, Buddha and Christ tourght the same things. Everything was just worded different. For Ultima Avatar who dosen't seem to even understand what he's talking about, Enlightenment IS Heavan, so would you please research stuff like others have, before trying to throw attacks at me.

 

[Moody]

Could you please explain how enlightenment is heaven?

 

[SAGAN]

Think of Heaven, now call it Enlightenment.
Same thing, different words.

 

[Moody]

So how do you achieve this enlightenment and what is it like

 

[Kidan]

how can you protect someone intent upon harming you and yours without harming them in return?  If someone wants to hurt you and/or your loved ones, no amount of talking will stop them


Where did you learn that Hinduism came from Budhism??
Actually there have been three religions that are based upon Hinduism (Budhism, Jainism,  and Sikishm Reference)


I thought Budhists sought Nirvana (or at the time of death parinirvana)...Yet it does not matter about parinirvana (or describing Enlightenment as Heaven) when Budha taught that humans are just a collection of 5 different traits, and not a single one of those was an eternal soul

 

[SAGAN]

It depends what kind of harming, if you mean they want to or are going to harm your family, thats what the police is for, to prevent that. If they are attacking someone you care about, it's not that hard to restrain a person without hurting them in return.

 

[Ultima Avatar]

And the follow-up Sagan?
Dude...enlightenment. Heaven.
Tash. Aslan.
God. Allah. Mentality.
Different names, same thing? Enlightenment is NOT heaven: it is a STATE. Not a PLACE. You PLACE yourself into that STATE, but it is not a physical locale. Heaven is a PLACE. It has direction. It has form. It has size. It has shape. It has place. Heaven has location. Heaven is substance. Enlightenment is NOT any of those except form: in the mind. Spirit and mind do not mingle: they coexist but do not meld into the other.

And like Moody, then, in that case: how do you achieve this alternative heaven?
And what if the police force wasn't there? And what if you didn't care about the someone about to be beat to death? But you were the only one who could do anything? Just sit by and watch him die or push the guy around who's attacking? Use a taser: that's nice. It doesn't "harm" them.
And since you seem to be a relativist of sort, define "harming" for me. What is "harm?" What is "pain?" What is "hurting?"
And what if by shoving them to restrain them you inflict some kind of pain on a weak arm and break it? Accidentally, of course, but "harm" nonetheless.