|
Post by robertmodell on Apr 7, 2010 0:17:08 GMT -5
Hi Jesse (and board members)
I have been enjoying watching your excellent YouTube videos – a wonderful ministry.
I have been unable to get a satisfactory answer to a question, despite ample Bible study, online searching, questioning within the Church, questioning outside of the Church, etc. So I want to bring you this difficult question to see what insight you might add.
First, the hypothetical: Suppose you are a German citizen living in Frankfurt in 1933, and you discover that your neighbor is part of a group of men known as the Sturmabteilung, who along with the Nazi Party have gained virtually full control of your country and their power is unchallenged. And further suppose that you discover their plans to murder some political opposition and to begin reorganizing the operation of society though methods of financial oppression.
The question(s): Is it right to bring violence in such a case? Do you barge into their meeting and declare that what they are doing is a sin and they need to repent and follow Christ? Do you flee? What ARE the options as a Christian?
Thank you for your response, Robert M. Odell Hillsboro, Oregon
|
|
|
Post by logic on Apr 7, 2010 13:53:14 GMT -5
The question(s): Is it right to bring violence in such a case? Do you barge into their meeting and declare that what they are doing is a sin and they need to repent and follow Christ? Do you flee? What ARE the options as a Christian? I don't know anything about Germany, but I do know about America. " 2nd Amendment of The Bill of Rights. A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The implication of this amendment is not a peaceful one Violence is the last resort. If all diplomacy and peaceful means have been attempted, then the only option is to use force to obtain what is rightfully ours & not the governments; this is legal.
|
|
|
Post by robertmodell on Apr 8, 2010 4:53:19 GMT -5
Thanks for the reply. However, I was looking for a biblical response instead of a political one. Please take another look at my hypothetical. It is not "the government" who is at issue. Also, the reply needs to be valid for ALL countries as I am after the right Christian options, not the permitted American options. For example, there are verses which explain we are not in a battle of flesh and blood. However, there are additional issue of protecting others from harm. Revenge for already comitted harm it sinful behavior, that's clear. This is a difficult issue. Some teach that all authority is from God. However God does not tempt people to sin, so how can sinful groups be God ordained? Does God every will rebellion or strife?
|
|
|
Post by robertmodell on Apr 11, 2010 5:24:05 GMT -5
Actually, after thinking about my question further, I have found a way to reduce it down to a much simpler question. Jesus taught us to love our enemies. He also taught us to love our neighbors as ourselves.
So, if an enemy is bringing physical or financial harm to our neighbors, what does Christ instruct us to do about it?
|
|
|
Post by logic on Apr 11, 2010 20:05:50 GMT -5
Actually, after thinking about my question further, I have found a way to reduce it down to a much simpler question. Jesus taught us to love our enemies. He also taught us to love our neighbors as ourselves. So, if an enemy is bringing physical or financial harm to our neighbors, what does Christ instruct us to do about it? Love your neighbors and defend them; with leathal force if needed. The love you show to the criminals (enimies) would be treating them with the justice they deserve if not repentent.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 11, 2010 20:21:49 GMT -5
Actually, after thinking about my question further, I have found a way to reduce it down to a much simpler question. Jesus taught us to love our enemies. He also taught us to love our neighbors as ourselves. So, if an enemy is bringing physical or financial harm to our neighbors, what does Christ instruct us to do about it? Love your neighbors and defend them; with lethal force if needed. Do you think it would be consistent to apply this same protective love to the unborn?
|
|
|
Post by logic on Apr 11, 2010 22:05:47 GMT -5
Love your neighbors and defend them; with lethal force if needed. Do you think it would be consistent to apply this same protective love to the unborn? yes, but our courts do not agree. If we are defendng life of others with leathel force beside those targeted for abortion, the courts will be on our side, however this is another story for the defense of the doomed unborn. We will be counted as religious fanatics who take the law into our own hands if we kill abortionist while we will be heros for killing them who would murder our neighbors. We will be imprisoned for killing abortionist but praised for defending our neighbors. What a warped & perverted world we live in.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 11, 2010 23:15:14 GMT -5
Do you think it would be consistent to apply this same protective love to the unborn? yes, but our courts do not agree. If we are defendng life of others with leathel force beside those targeted for abortion, the courts will be on our side, however this is another story for the defense of the doomed unborn. We will be counted as religious fanatics who take the law into our own hands if we kill abortionist while we will be heros for killing them who would murder our neighbors. We will be imprisoned for killing abortionist but praised for defending our neighbors. What a warped & perverted world we live in. Ps 73:16 When I thought to know this, it was too painful for me It was the same thing in the 1800's before the civil war. Now unborn children are the new 'n*ggers'. Do you think Christians are being consistent if they submit to civil law and public opinion in this matter?
|
|
|
Post by logic on Apr 12, 2010 11:34:10 GMT -5
yes, but our courts do not agree. If we are defending life of others with lethal force beside those targeted for abortion, the courts will be on our side, however this is another story for the defense of the doomed unborn. We will be counted as religious fanatics who take the law into our own hands if we kill abortionist while we will be heroes for killing them who would murder our neighbors. We will be imprisoned for killing abortionist but praised for defending our. What a warped & perverted world we live in. Ps 73:16 When I thought to know this, it was too painful for me It was the same thing in the 1800's before the civil war. Now unborn children are the new 'n*ggers'. Do you think Christians are being consistent if they submit to civil law and public opinion in this matter? I would think we should start throwing the matter to the courts to rethink the whole matter, but to start shooting the abortionists on sight is not the way to go. We would use lethal force on a murderous thief as He is ABOUT to and in the process of killing your neighbors because he is violent and uncompromising in his current mode of action. There is no way to say, "hey, don't shoot yet but let’s bring this to a court of law to see if you should be doing what your about to do. Let's reason this out." However, with the abortionists, we may block the entryways to the clinics and demand the courts to rethink their allowance for killing babies. With this, there will be some who concede, but they are selfish and unconscionable will not be swayed. My point is that there are civil ways to deal with abortion, but there is no civil way to deal with a murderous thief who is already in the process of killing your neighbor; you must shoot him before he shoots them. If partial birth abortion is leagal, it is logical to let a parent kill their 5 year old and call that an abortion.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 12, 2010 12:35:38 GMT -5
Ps 73:16 When I thought to know this, it was too painful for me It was the same thing in the 1800's before the civil war. Now unborn children are the new 'n*ggers'. Do you think Christians are being consistent if they submit to civil law and public opinion in this matter? I would think we should start throwing the matter to the courts to rethink the whole matter, but to start shooting the abortionists on sight is not the way to go. We would use lethal force on a murderous thief as He is ABOUT to and in the process of killing your neighbors because he is violent and uncompromising in his current mode of action. There is no way to say, "hey, don't shoot yet but let’s bring this to a court of law to see if you should be doing what your about to do. Let's reason this out." However, with the abortionists, we may block the entryways to the clinics and demand the courts to rethink their allowance for killing babies. With this, there will be some who concede, but they are selfish and unconscionable will not be swayed. My point is that there are civil ways to deal with abortion, but there is no civil way to deal with a murderous thief who is already in the process of killing your neighbor; you must shoot him before he shoots them. If partial birth abortion is leagal, it is logical to let a parent kill their 5 year old and call that an abortion. What if some of them were my children? Would it make sense for me to limit myself to non-violent intervention? Why this limitation? Would you recommend the same non-violent tactics if 3000 first-graders were scheduled to be killed tomorrow? And the day after, and the day after, etc. If so, could you explain why? I don't really understand why people reject violent intervention in the midst of a unilateral civil war of sorts.
|
|
|
Post by logic on Apr 12, 2010 13:16:46 GMT -5
I would think we should start throwing the matter to the courts to rethink the whole matter, but to start shooting the abortionists on sight is not the way to go. We would use lethal force on a murderous thief as He is ABOUT to and in the process of killing your neighbors because he is violent and uncompromising in his current mode of action. There is no way to say, "hey, don't shoot yet but let’s bring this to a court of law to see if you should be doing what your about to do. Let's reason this out." However, with the abortionists, we may block the entryways to the clinics and demand the courts to rethink their allowance for killing babies. With this, there will be some who concede, but they are selfish and unconscionable will not be swayed. My point is that there are civil ways to deal with abortion, but there is no civil way to deal with a murderous thief who is already in the process of killing your neighbor; you must shoot him before he shoots them. If partial birth abortion is leagal, it is logical to let a parent kill their 5 year old and call that an abortion. What if some of them were my children? Would it make sense for me to limit myself to non-violent intervention? Why this limitation? If they were your childeren about to be aborted, then you should speak to the mother. Yes, why not? However, the minute that they will be killed, then, yes, I would be popping off the executioners one by one. But then I would be a target for the execution also. I would have to be on the lamb for obstruction of the "law". I would say, as long as there is time for civility and reasoning out the justice or injustice about the situaltion, then let civility be the perdominant thing. However, when the act of the injustice of killing is currently happening or inevitabley going to happen with-in a few minutes, then the use of leathal force is justifyable. Fight unjust fire with justified fire.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 12, 2010 18:50:26 GMT -5
When you say "the minute" do you mean exactly 60 seconds before they are killed? What if it would take more than 60 seconds to defend them?
Also, wouldn't it be relatively easy to find out "the minute" that a baby is scheduled for an abortion?
Is temporal accuracy more important than actually saving the babies' lives?
What is the difference between legalized abortion and the civil war? The only difference I can think of is that more people were fighting for the right side in the civil war. If 50 million babies have been killed are we still in the civility phase? What if non-violent means cannot put a stop to it in time to save the babies who are actually going to be killed tomorrow? Are we still in the civility phase? I don't understand..
When you say "within a few minutes", how many minutes is the right number of minutes?
What is the underlying purpose of the time constraint? It seems to me that the principal of 'imminence' you are bringing up is an intersection of two underlying principals: 1) Avoiding excessive harm and 2) Actually saving the life. The reason we shouldn't resort to violence before it seems necessary is because the primary intention is not to harm people but rather to reduce or prevent harm. That's why in some situations you might not act until "the last minute". The second principal, actually saving the life, is why there is a cut off point for waiting. It is wrong to require so much waiting that saving the life becomes a more uncertain possibility. The waiting must be less important than actually saving the life. If waiting for 'imminence' reduces the possibility of actually saving the lives then imminence is already here.
What I don't understand is how a person can prevent the murder of babies who are scheduled to be killed today or tomorrow or even in a week by non-violent means. Is it so likely that I can sway the Supreme Court before they go to bed tonight that I can honestly say the death of 3000 babies tomorrow is not truly imminent? Isn't law enforcement already experienced with and prepared to handle non-violent attempts to save these children? What non-violent means can actually save lives tomorrow? What about the next day when the police are guarding the clinic in response to ineffective demonstrations? Who will save the children who are scheduled to die that day? Will nonviolent means work then?
What if that did not work? Then what can be done to best secure the safety of my children?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Apr 14, 2010 21:00:23 GMT -5
Logic, sorry if I overloaded you with questions here. I didn't mean to make the subject unnecessarily complex or anything.
Robert, sorry if I derailed your thread. I don't know how to answer your questions. I think if I understood the answer to the questions I've brought up then I would feel more confident giving you an answer. I'm pretty sure the whole non-violence doctrine is incorrect anyway.
|
|
|
Post by robertmodell on Apr 15, 2010 6:06:57 GMT -5
Hello. Yes, you guys did derail this thread a bit, by focussing too much around the abortion issue. There are many ways that "enemies" can hurt your neighbors. For example, suppose an enemy was defrauding everyone in your neighborhood of their life savings. And suppose there were no legal recourse to this situation. Then what is the proper Christian response? How do you "love" such an enemy?
|
|
|
Post by logic on Apr 15, 2010 10:37:31 GMT -5
Hello. Yes, you guys did derail this thread a bit, by focussing too much around the abortion issue. There are many ways that "enemies" can hurt your neighbors. For example, suppose an enemy was defrauding everyone in your neighborhood of their life savings. And suppose there were no legal recourse to this situation. Then what is the proper Christian response? How do you "love" such an enemy? If the enemy is the govenment, then render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things which are God's. However, we are not commanded to love the enemy IF it is an entity such as Caesar (the government). We are suposed to love our enemy if it is a person. Bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them who despitefully use you, and persecute you. Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite you on your right cheek (insult), turn to him the other also (let him keep insulting you); and if any man will sue you and take away your coat, let him have your cloak also. And whosoever shall compel you to go a mile, go with him two. Give to him that asks you, and from him that would borrow of you turn not away. (Wondering where the limit of "being walked on" is)
|
|