Murder

[Cheshire Cat]

Originally posted by armourbearer
But what gives an individual the right to enter into a judicial process, to sift the facts of the case, to discover guilt, and to execute the punishment he sees fit? It certainly isn't God. It certainly isn't man? Is it the individual? That is anarchy.

So, to go right back to my initial response. Proactive, yes, by using the legal means at our disposal.

It is quite clear that an abortionist is murdering a baby when an abortion is taking place (we are talking surgical here). He is going inside of the mother´s body and slaughtering it using various tools. There are no "œjudicial processes, sifting through the "œfacts" of the case, to discover guilt" in order to see this. It´s blatantly obvious that it is murder. If you want me to systematically prove to you that abortion is murder I will. But, I understand your main point is I don´t have the right to carry out a consequence I see deems fit. Going back to analogies here, if you see an innocent women being raped and beaten to death with a bat in the middle of a street (or anywhere), you have the right to kill the man/woman who is trying to murder her. Even though you are not an authority, indirect defense is taking place. Thus, the killing of the murderer is justified and you are not committing murder. How would it be any different with an abortion if you kill an abortionist while he is in the act, would it not still be an indirect defense for the baby that is being murdered and is therefore justified?

You say "œIt certainly isn´t God". So God doesn´t allow us to uphold his law when a manmade government authority is violating it? That wouldn´t be anarchy; that would be biblical.

Originally posted by ChristianTrader
It would be murder because it would be unjustified killing, because you do not have the right to enforce God's law in this situation, for you do not have the jurisdiction (without the civil magistrate giving you the jurisdiction by changing the laws concerning abortion etc.).

See my analogy above. Just switch the cop with some random law abiding citizen. I think it´s clear they have the right to act on an indirect defense for your life. In saving your life, they have the right to kill the person trying to murder you. Therefore, it is justified. Just because I do not have the jurisdiction of man, it does not necessarily deduce to saying I can´t violate man´s law in order to carry out God´s. If for some reason our government starts killing all Christians we would have a right to fight back and kill people in the government (in a direct or indirect defense situation of course), and yet it would not be murder.

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
Suppose you kill the abortionist today, and tomorrow the lady finds another practitioner?

Suppose the cop kills the hit man today, and tomorrow I find another hit man? Was killing of the hit man justified? Yes"¦Then why wouldn´t the killing of the abortionist be?

Originally posted by ChristianTrader
I think you picked up on a bad pragmatic out that Bruce used, but should not have.

Why not? It fit with what he was saying.

Originally posted by armourbearer

Originally posted by caleb_woodrow
but I am asking is it justifiable in God's eyes to kill an abortionist while they are in the act of murdering a baby? and if not why not?

No. Because it is a judicial act, and judicial authority has not been committed to all men. The powers that be are ordained of God, and they will answer for how they bear the sword.

Yes, but if the powers that be are breaking God´s law we have a right to uphold it. The position you gave only holds water if the authority that be is not breaking God´s law. In abortion, God´s law is being broken, even if man´s is not.

Originally posted by ChristianTrader
The position holds regardless. Because God's law is broken does not necessarily entail, God giving you the right to stop it from continuing to be broken by any method besides the ballet box.

CT

Why only the ballet box? It was legal for German´s to murder Jews under Hitler´s authority, so are you saying the Jews only form of fighting back justifiably is the ballet box?

Even if you don't knowingly promote it, your view holds to an underlying implication that we can only carry out God's law (when it is being violated by man's law) in a way that conforms with man's law.

My question is why? Wouldn't it be better to say that we can only carry out God's law (when it is being violated by man's law) in a way that conforms with God's law, even if that way violates man's law?

[Edited on 6-30-2006 by caleb_woodrow]

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by caleb_woodrow
... Just as the cop killing the hit man is justified, would´t it be justified to kill the abortionist? This isn´t necessarily my position; I am just throwing it out there. It needs to be addressed.

It would be murder because it would be unjustified killing, because you do not have the right to enforce God's law in this situation, for you do not have the jurisdiction (without the civil magistrate giving you the jurisdiction by changing the laws concerning abortion etc.).
...
CT

When the civil law violates God's law, then God's law trumps civil. If the civil law says it's everyone has the right to murder, do we still not have a moral obligation to uphold God's law against would-be murders. Certainly there are limits to what we are allowed to do, but the moral law of God supersedes civil law when it comes to protecting innocents (widows, orphans, unborn babies).

We would take up arms against the magistrate if he tried to gather up widows to have them murdered. If the laws says that my neighbor may kill my friend just because he's Jewish, I will still try to project my friend, even if it means using deadly force. We can not simply say, this is an issue for the the magistrate to deal with, when the magistrate is morally bankrupt. There comes a point where we are to resist the magistrate when the laws of the land clearly violate God's moral laws. The question is, have we reached this point with abortion laws in the US.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by caleb_woodrow

Originally posted by armourbearer
But what gives an individual the right to enter into a judicial process, to sift the facts of the case, to discover guilt, and to execute the punishment he sees fit? It certainly isn't God. It certainly isn't man? Is it the individual? That is anarchy.

So, to go right back to my initial response. Proactive, yes, by using the legal means at our disposal.

It is quite clear that an abortionist is murdering a baby when an abortion is taking place (we are talking surgical here). He is going inside of the mother´s body and slaughtering it using various tools. There are no "œjudicial processes, sifting through the "œfacts" of the case, to discover guilt" in order to see this.

The comment in question does not use judicial in the sense of determining the facts of the case. It is used in the sense of jurisdiction.

The core of the position is that when someone breaks God's law does not necessarily mean that you have the right to stop them or to enforce the penalty prescribed in God's law.

For example, because you can prove that person X and person Y have engaged in adultery does not imply that you have the right to execute them if the civil magistate does not prescribe such actions. (Even though that is a Godly punishment for such activities)

It´s blatantly obvious that it is murder. If you want me to systematically prove to you that abortion is murder I will.

No one is asking for such proof. That is not in question. The question is if you have been given the right by God to "make" it your jurisdiction to stop the breaking of God's law in this case.

But, I understand your main point is I don´t have the right to carry out a consequence I see deems fit.

If you admit this, then your core contention takes a huge hit.

Going back to analogies here, if you see an innocent women being raped and beaten to death with a bat in the middle of a street (or anywhere), you have the right to kill the man/woman who is trying to murder her. Even though you are not an authority, indirect defense is taking place.

This action is completely consistent with the law. You are given the right to act in the place of the police officer in this case.

Thus, the killing of the murderer is justified and you are not committing murder. How would it be any different with an abortion if you kill an abortionist while he is in the act, would it not still be an indirect defense for the baby that is being murdered and is therefore justified?

The difference is that one is sanctioned by the civil magistrate (the stopping the rape) while the other is not (the abortion).

As you admitted above, because evil is occuring does not imply that you have the right to act to stop it (anyway that you see fit). So at a certain point, you are going to have to differentiate between evil that you are called to stop (by violence etc.) and evil that you just have to pray or vote against to stop it.

You say "œIt certainly isn´t God". So God doesn´t allow us to uphold his law when a manmade government authority is violating it? That wouldn´t be anarchy; that would be biblical.

He does allow us to do it, in certain cases. The question is in what section does each case fit in?

Originally posted by ChristianTrader
It would be murder because it would be unjustified killing, because you do not have the right to enforce God's law in this situation, for you do not have the jurisdiction (without the civil magistrate giving you the jurisdiction by changing the laws concerning abortion etc.).

See my analogy above. Just switch the cop with some random law abiding citizen.

I can and still come up with the same conclusion. It is perfectly legal for a non cop to come to the aid of a person being violated by a perpertrator. It is something akin to a citizen's arrest. This is perfectly within the laws of the land.

I think it´s clear they have the right to act on an indirect defense for your life.

This is correct.

In saving your life, they have the right to kill the person trying to murder you. Therefore, it is justified. Just because I do not have the jurisdiction of man, it does not necessarily deduce to saying I can´t violate man´s law in order to carry out God´s.

And no one said otherwise. But even with your reply your assume that there are situations when God's law is violated and you cannot use violence to fix it. So the question is when does God gives you the jurisdiction to act in a physical sense?

If for some reason our government starts killing all Christians we would have a right to fight back and kill people in the government (in a direct or indirect defense situation of course), and yet it would not be murder.

I am not exactly sure what I would do in this situation. If someone came to kill me because of the gospel, I think I might just take the arrest and be fed to the lions etc. (Of course writing this on a message board is a bit different than actually doing it.

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
Suppose you kill the abortionist today, and tomorrow the lady finds another practitioner?

Suppose the cop kills the hit man today, and tomorrow I find another hit man? Was killing of the hit man justified? Yes"¦Then why wouldn´t the killing of the abortionist be?

Originally posted by ChristianTrader
I think you picked up on a bad pragmatic out that Bruce used, but should not have.

Why not? It fit with what he was saying.

Well I disagree with this aspect of what he was saying

Originally posted by armourbearer

Originally posted by caleb_woodrow
but I am asking is it justifiable in God's eyes to kill an abortionist while they are in the act of murdering a baby? and if not why not?

No. Because it is a judicial act, and judicial authority has not been committed to all men. The powers that be are ordained of God, and they will answer for how they bear the sword.

Yes, but if the powers that be are breaking God´s law we have a right to uphold it. The position you gave only holds water if the authority that be is not breaking God´s law. In abortion, God´s law is being broken, even if man´s is not.

Originally posted by ChristianTrader
The position holds regardless. Because God's law is broken does not necessarily entail, God giving you the right to stop it from continuing to be broken by any method besides the ballet box.

CT

Why only the ballet box? It was legal for German´s to murder Jews under Hitler´s authority, so are you saying the Jews only form of fighting back justifiably is the ballet box?

If you read my quote carefully, I make the point "not necessarily entail". So in some cases, you have more than the ballet box/prayer and some cases you do not. Selecting which is which is hard.

Even if you don't knowingly promote it, your view holds to an underlying implication that we can only carry out God's law (when it is being violated by man's law) in a way that conforms with man's law.

Not exactly. The implication is that sometimes, man has the authority to be evil and unjust and other times, we have the authority to physically fight back.

My question is why? Wouldn't it be better to say that we can only carry out God's law (when it is being violated by man's law) in a way that conforms with God's law, even if that way violates man's law?

[Edited on 6-30-2006 by caleb_woodrow]

I have no problem with that position, but that is easier said in general theory than specific application.

CT

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Civbert

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by caleb_woodrow
... Just as the cop killing the hit man is justified, would´t it be justified to kill the abortionist? This isn´t necessarily my position; I am just throwing it out there. It needs to be addressed.

It would be murder because it would be unjustified killing, because you do not have the right to enforce God's law in this situation, for you do not have the jurisdiction (without the civil magistrate giving you the jurisdiction by changing the laws concerning abortion etc.).
...
CT

When the civil law violates God's law, then God's law trumps civil.

Most definitely. The issue is what God's law says for us to do when the civil magistrate is acting evilly.

If the civil law says it's everyone has the right to murder, do we still not have a moral obligation to uphold God's law against would-be murders.

The question is how to uphold God's law in this case. Do we preach against it. Yes. Do we pray against it. Yes. How much farther do we go?

Certainly there are limits to what we are allowed to do, but the moral law of God supersedes civil law when it comes to protecting innocents (widows, orphans, unborn babies).

Protect them in what way?

We would take up arms against the magistrate if he tried to gather up widows to have them murdered. If the laws says that my neighbor may kill my friend just because he's Jewish, I will still try to project my friend, even if it means using deadly force. We can not simply say, this is an issue for the the magistrate to deal with, when the magistrate is morally bankrupt. There comes a point where we are to resist the magistrate when the laws of the land clearly violate God's moral laws. The question is, have we reached this point with abortion laws in the US.

That is the question. I would also make a distinction between having an evil society and having an evil government. The former entails the latter but the latter does not entail the former.

With abortion today, we just have an evil society. Its not the like the government is pro abortion but the society is pro life. The government reflects the society.

I do not believe that there is much that can be done with such situations besides prayer.

CT

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by ChristianTrader


The question is how to uphold God's law in this case. Do we preach against it. Yes. Do we pray against it. Yes. How much farther do we go?

What's too far??

Certainly there are limits to what we are allowed to do, but the moral law of God supersedes civil law when it comes to protecting innocents (widows, orphans, unborn babies).

Protect them in what way? [/quote] How can we ask in what way? What way should we not try to save the life of a infant or widow or neighbor? Should we not go so far as risk our own lives?

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

We would take up arms against the magistrate if he tried to gather up widows to have them murdered. If the laws says that my neighbor may kill my friend just because he's Jewish, I will still try to project my friend, even if it means using deadly force. We can not simply say, this is an issue for the the magistrate to deal with, when the magistrate is morally bankrupt. There comes a point where we are to resist the magistrate when the laws of the land clearly violate God's moral laws. The question is, have we reached this point with abortion laws in the US.

That is the question. I would also make a distinction between having an evil society and having an evil government. The former entails the latter but the latter does not entail the former.

With abortion today, we just have an evil society. Its not the like the government is pro abortion but the society is pro life. The government reflects the society.

I do not believe that there is much that can be done with such situations besides prayer.

CT

Prayer should be only the beginning. We are talking about the moral and physical equivalent of the rape and murder of infants. And when we sit back allow this to occur, it's not better than the Germans who allowed Jews to be carted off to concentration camps. And we do not have the luxury of ignorance. The Germans citizens who looked the other way could say they didn't know what was going on in these camps - but we know exactly what happens in abortion clinics.

Premeditated murder of innocent life is going to take place tomorrow by people we can identify at places we know about maybe in our own towns and cities, and we are suppose to do no more than pray and say it's an evil world we live in. Your walking by the house on fire, knowing that there is a baby in that house. You even knew in advance it was going to happen. Yet you think it's sufficient to pray about it because the law says that it's legal? Or you don't want to violate the privacy and property of the couple that is burning down the house? It's not worth risking your life for, much less your comfort? How many babies lives does it take? When they start killing the elderly, will we do more than pray? When they start euthanizing newborns, will we consider disturbing the peace?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Anthony,
I'm with you. So, practically speaking, what do we as Christians do?

 

[Civbert]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Anthony,
I'm with you. So, practically speaking, what do we as Christians do?

The general moral arguments I think are the easy part. The specifics are more difficult because then I'll have to no excuses and I'll have to put my money where my mouth is or be a hypocrite. I already know I'm a hypocrite for not doing more than I have. If I make the next step and say I should do specifically X, Y, or Z - then I need to be willing to do that. What good are my words if my actions do not follow? It's no better than saying bless you to a starving brother, but not giving him some food.

Where do we draw the line? So, hypothetically speaking - is it not morally justified to make it very difficult to get an abortion even if that means violating someones property or peace? If we really take abortion seriously, if we really believe it's murder - shouldn't we at least be stomping the pavement and protesting, and blocking access and pleading with women?

We should at least abortion alternative counseling centers. There are some things that are easy. What about homes for unwed teenage mothers? Money to pro-life organizations?

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Civbert

Originally posted by ChristianTrader


The question is how to uphold God's law in this case. Do we preach against it. Yes. Do we pray against it. Yes. How much farther do we go?

What's too far??

Certainly there are limits to what we are allowed to do, but the moral law of God supersedes civil law when it comes to protecting innocents (widows, orphans, unborn babies).

Protect them in what way?

How can we ask in what way? What way should we not try to save the life of a infant or widow or neighbor? Should we not go so far as risk our own lives?
[/quote]

One should not act out of fear for their lives from man but fears of the almighty for contradicting his revelation. Romans 13 says Vengeance is God's, right? We know that does not mean that there is no Biblical justification for punishment because God gives the civil magistrate the power of the sword. So he has delegated that right to the civil magistrate. So the question becomes who else has he delegated that right to and under what circumstances.

So you have to tell me where God has given you the right to stop abortions from occuring. (outside of the peaceful prayer and ballot box options). I shall wait in vain for an answer.

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

We would take up arms against the magistrate if he tried to gather up widows to have them murdered. If the laws says that my neighbor may kill my friend just because he's Jewish, I will still try to project my friend, even if it means using deadly force. We can not simply say, this is an issue for the the magistrate to deal with, when the magistrate is morally bankrupt. There comes a point where we are to resist the magistrate when the laws of the land clearly violate God's moral laws. The question is, have we reached this point with abortion laws in the US.

That is the question. I would also make a distinction between having an evil society and having an evil government. The former entails the latter but the latter does not entail the former.

With abortion today, we just have an evil society. Its not the like the government is pro abortion but the society is pro life. The government reflects the society.

I do not believe that there is much that can be done with such situations besides prayer.

CT

Prayer should be only the beginning.

Yeah, we should move onto the ballet box next.

We are talking about the moral and physical equivalent of the rape and murder of infants.

That we are. So we need to examine why we have the right to stop rape (violence even death), then use that principle to look at the immoral killing of infants.

And when we sit back allow this to occur, it's not better than the Germans who allowed Jews to be carted off to concentration camps.

No one is saying that one should be indifferent, the issue is how to deal with this morally repugnant action in a biblical fashion. I do not see where you can justify biblically the right to gun down Germans soldiers or abortion doctors.

And we do not have the luxury of ignorance. The Germans citizens who looked the other way could say they didn't know what was going on in these camps - but we know exactly what happens in abortion clinics.

No one is claiming ignorance. We can see the evil, the issue is how does God prescribe us to act.

It is interesting that as a Clarkian you have not cited Biblical passages to justify your stance. I guess your just giving me your opinion, so I can just ignore it.

Premeditated murder of innocent life is going to take place tomorrow by people we can identify at places we know about maybe in our own towns and cities, and we are suppose to do no more than pray and say it's an evil world we live in.

Alright, give me passages that defend your position on the issue, or be exposed as just trying to defend your gut reaction.

Your walking by the house on fire, knowing that there is a baby in that house. You even knew in advance it was going to happen. Yet you think it's sufficient to pray about it because the law says that it's legal?

Again, Chapter and Verse please? Where does God give you the right to gun down a person in this situation?

Or you don't want to violate the privacy and property of the couple that is burning down the house? It's not worth risking your life for, much less your comfort?

The question is not life or comfort its listening to how God wants you to act. Again if you admit that evil occuring does not imply that you are given the right to act however you wish to prevent such, then you have the burden of proof to defend your position.

How many babies lives does it take? When they start killing the elderly, will we do more than pray? When they start euthanizing newborns, will we consider disturbing the peace?

Your position seems to imply that prayer and ballet measures do not work, and somehow violent action necessarily works better?

Humm, that is a real reformed position.

CT

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Anthony,
I'm with you. So, practically speaking, what do we as Christians do?

Shame on you for agreeing to such incoherence.

CT

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Civbert

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Anthony,
I'm with you. So, practically speaking, what do we as Christians do?

The general moral arguments I think are the easy part. The specifics are more difficult because then I'll have to no excuses and I'll have to put my money where my mouth is or be a hypocrite. I already know I'm a hypocrite for not doing more than I have. If I make the next step and say I should do specifically X, Y, or Z - then I need to be willing to do that. What good are my words if my actions do not follow? It's no better than saying bless you to a starving brother, but not giving him some food.

Where do we draw the line? So, hypothetically speaking - is it not morally justified to make it very difficult to get an abortion even if that means violating someones property or peace? If we really take abortion seriously, if we really believe it's murder - shouldn't we at least be stomping the pavement and protesting, and blocking access and pleading with women?

No objection to protesting and picketing. But that is a whole different story from unbiblically justified violence.

We should at least abortion alternative counseling centers. There are some things that are easy. What about homes for unwed teenage mothers? Money to pro-life organizations?

At least? This is all we should do until God grants us the change in the public's heart due to the ministering of the Gospel.

CT

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Anthony,
I'm with you. So, practically speaking, what do we as Christians do?

Shame on you for agreeing to such incoherence.

CT

Thank you.

 

[MW]

The raising of the ballot-box is an interesting point. It has been said that the institution of democracy ensures non violent revolution. So to an extent, to live in and support a democratic model is to implicitly agree to follow non violent measures for reform.

What do you think?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by Civbert

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Anthony,
I'm with you. So, practically speaking, what do we as Christians do?

The general moral arguments I think are the easy part. The specifics are more difficult because then I'll have to no excuses and I'll have to put my money where my mouth is or be a hypocrite. I already know I'm a hypocrite for not doing more than I have. If I make the next step and say I should do specifically X, Y, or Z - then I need to be willing to do that. What good are my words if my actions do not follow? It's no better than saying bless you to a starving brother, but not giving him some food.

Where do we draw the line? So, hypothetically speaking - is it not morally justified to make it very difficult to get an abortion even if that means violating someones property or peace? If we really take abortion seriously, if we really believe it's murder - shouldn't we at least be stomping the pavement and protesting, and blocking access and pleading with women?

No objection to protesting and picketing. But that is a whole different story from unbiblically justified violence.

We should at least abortion alternative counseling centers. There are some things that are easy. What about homes for unwed teenage mothers? Money to pro-life organizations?

At least? This is all we should do until God grants us the change in the public's heart due to the ministering of the Gospel.

CT

Hermonta,
Are you for breaking China's law in smuggling bibles into that country?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Was America right into entering the Iraqi abortion clinic and killing the abortionists there? The country was under it's typical dictatorship and following the law of that particular land; should we have just prayed and waited?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by armourbearer
The raising of the ballot-box is an interesting point. It has been said that the institution of democracy ensures non violent revolution. So to an extent, to live in and support a democratic model is to implicitly agree to follow non violent measures for reform.

What do you think?

Rev Winzer,
Having reread your post and pondering a bit, I would have to agree. This is the general idea. I am a bit frustrated over the abortion issue as you can see. My heart breaks for the infants that are being yanked out of the womb, piece by piece; how dare they say, 'there is no pain' and 'this is ok!'

Thanks for bearing with me.

 

[MW]

This misses the point somewhat, Mr. Bushey. The war in Iraq is for the alleged goal of establishing a democracy. Once established, non-violent reform can then supposedly be carried on.

As you like raising comparisons, here is one which might resonate with you. Suppose some do-gooder removes your children from out of your care because he believes they are being abused. To what extent will you then believe that God's law should be obeyed over man's law? Will you not then
cry, Due process? Of course you will.

Anarchy results from the suppostition that the individual can take God's law into his own hands. If every one did so, there would be no peace and order in a society.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Anthony,
I'm with you. So, practically speaking, what do we as Christians do?

Shame on you for agreeing to such incoherence.

CT

Thank you.

 

[MW]

Mr. Bushey,

Sorry, my last post was sent before I read your last post.

I think as Christians we are all frustrated at the failure of modern politics to carry out a responsible moral agenda. After entreating them in a civl way, we have recourse to the Judge of all the earth to express our horror to Him. He WILL repay.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by armourbearer
This misses the point somewhat, Mr. Bushey. The war in Iraq is for the alleged goal of establishing a democracy. Once established, non-violent reform can then supposedly be carried on.

As you like raising comparisons, here is one which might resonate with you. Suppose some do-gooder removes your children from out of your care because he believes they are being abused. To what extent will you then believe that God's law should be obeyed over man's law? Will you not then
cry, Due process? Of course you will.

Anarchy results from the suppostition that the individual can take God's law into his own hands. If every one did so, there would be no peace and order in a society.

Matthew,
The whole premise for this thread was not based upon individual ideas on the subject of anti-abortion, but a collective Christian plan. Should we not be much more proactive in this plight? I never meant to imply we should do what PH did, though I can understand his frustration. But as this travesty goes on day after day, we eat our lunches and watch our television shows like it's all ok. This I hate!

Some pictures for your edification:

http://www.uklifeleague.com/pictures.htm

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Was America right into entering the Iraqi abortion clinic and killing the abortionists there? The country was under it's typical dictatorship and following the law of that particular land; should we have just prayed and waited?

Did this actually happen?

I actually oppose the whole war in general, so if this did occur, then I would have to say it would be akin to some Christians on the street pulling a Paul Hill. So I have to say it would not be right.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by armourbearer
Mr. Bushey,

Sorry, my last post was sent before I read your last post.

I think as Christians we are all frustrated at the failure of modern politics to carry out a responsible moral agenda. After entreating them in a civl way, we have recourse to the Judge of all the earth to express our horror to Him. He WILL repay.

One point, it is not politics, its the evil in the hearts of the people in our society. If the people change, the voting patterns will change.

But as to the point that God will repay.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Was America right into entering the Iraqi abortion clinic and killing the abortionists there? The country was under it's typical dictatorship and following the law of that particular land; should we have just prayed and waited?

Did this actually happen?

I actually oppose the whole war in general, so if this did occur, then I would have to say it would be akin to some Christians on the street pulling a Paul Hill. So I have to say it would not be right.

Hermonta,
Sorry, I was using the war itself as a bad analogy. Iraq is akin to an abortion clinic that America invaded, killing it's civil leaders.......

 

[MW]

We all have different places in society. But I agree, yes, less TV watching (which only engenders sympathy with transgressors of God's law) and more promoting of good is the order of the day for modern reformed Christians.

Also, a generally more active Christian presence in society will serve as something of a conscience to society, even if the people's hearts are bad. It will also mean that worldly men cannot have recourse to the hypocrisy cop-out.

BTW, those pictures were disgusting, which is obviously what they were intended to provoke.

Many blessings!

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Originally posted by ChristianTrader So you have to tell me where God has given you the right to stop abortions from occurring. (outside of the peaceful prayer and ballot box options). I shall wait in vain for an answer.

You don´t have to wait much longer "œin vain".

Originally posted by ChristianTrader
The comment in question does not use judicial in the sense of determining the facts of the case. It is used in the sense of jurisdiction.

The core of the position is that when someone breaks God's law does not necessarily mean that you have the right to stop them or to enforce the penalty prescribed in God's law.

It does not necessarily mean that I have the right, but it is also situational dependent on when God grants me the right.

Originally posted by ChristianTrader For example, because you can prove that person X and person Y have engaged in adultery does not imply that you have the right to execute them if the civil magistate does not prescribe such actions. (Even though that is a Godly punishment for such activities)

There you go on again about the civil magistrate. If the civil magistrate did prescribe such actions, I would not do them because it would be breaking God´s law (Let´s keep this in the context of the new covenant shall we?, that in which we live).

Originally posted by ChristianTrader The question is if you have been given the right by God to "make" it your jurisdiction to stop the breaking of God's law in this case.

For one thing, I am not "œmaking" anything my jurisdiction. Like I said it is situational dependent on the circumstances at hand. Suppose we live inside of a country where <b>it is</b> illegal to indirectly defend a person on their behalf when they are getting murdered. So if an innocent woman is being hacked to death in the middle of the street I indirectly defend her by shooting her murderer in the head. He dies. The killing was unjustified under man´s law (in this case because it was deemed illegal by the civil magistrate), yet would you not say that it was justified in the eyes of the Lord? If not why not?

But, I understand your main point is I don´t have the right to carry out a consequence I see deems fit.

Originally posted by ChristianTrader"If you admit this, then your core contention takes a huge hit."

I was not "œadmitting´ anything. I was merely stating that I understood his point that he was trying to get across to me, even if I am arguing his point is false. I understand the point he is *trying* to make. I never said it would be whatever consequence I see deems fit. I said whatever is required in the case of indirectly defending the innocence when a murder is taking place. To kill the murderer is justified. If you don´t think so, you have to show why that is not the case. So far you have not.
Btw, any other analogy you use of something where murder is not taking place (like adultery) is dis-analogous, for we are discussing instances of murder here.

Going back to analogies here, if you see an innocent women being raped and beaten to death with a bat in the middle of a street (or anywhere), you have the right to kill the man/woman who is trying to murder her. Even though you are not an authority, indirect defense is taking place.

Originally posted by ChristianTrader
This action is completely consistent with the law. You are given the right to act in the place of the police officer in this case.

We aren´t given a right merely because it is consistent with the law of the land, for that law may violate God´s law. In addition, if we violate the law of the land in order to carry out God´s law (and yet we violate man´s law) we are rightly justified in doing so. Of course then the question is raised of what method is allowed for us to carry out God´s law? In the case of a murder that is being performed right in front of your eyes, what are you going to do, throw a ballet box at the murderer? In the same sense as you are justified in shooting the murderer in the street analogy (even if it would break a law of the land hypothetically), aren´t you are also justified in shooting the doctor in the head? If you disagree, explain why.

Thus, the killing of the murderer is justified and you are not committing murder. How would it be any different with an abortion if you kill an abortionist while he is in the act, would it not still be an indirect defense for the baby that is being murdered and is therefore justified?

Originally posted by ChristianTrader
The difference is that one is sanctioned by the civil magistrate (the stopping the rape) while the other is not (the abortion).

As you admitted above, because evil is occurring does not imply that you have the right to act to stop it (anyway that you see fit). So at a certain point, you are going to have to differentiate between evil that you are called to stop (by violence etc.) and evil that you just have to pray or vote against to stop it.

It´s not "œanyway that I see fit". I am clearly only talking about murder here. The main point I was making in my analogy is that you are justified by killing the murderer *because* he was murdering her, not just because he was raping her. In order to save a life that is at that very moment being murdered, force is necessary. If I walk in and a doctor is performing a murder on his infant patient, I think I have clearly demonstrated that lethal force is justified in order to indirectly act on the infants behalf.
Let´s note what exactly I am arguing here. I am arguing solely that lethal force is necessary when a murder is being performed by the abortionist, not while he is sleeping in bed or any other circumstance. I am not arguing for killing on revenge, but killing in the indirect defense of the baby that is being murdered.

Originally posted by ChristianTrader
I am not exactly sure what I would do in this situation. If someone came to kill me because of the gospel, I think I might just take the arrest and be fed to the lions etc. (Of course writing this on a message board is a bit different than actually doing it.

We would be at war, and you would be justified in fighting back using lethal force.

Originally posted by ChristianTraderShame on you for agreeing to such incoherence. CT

CT, Shame on you for thinking such incoherence .


[Edited on 7-1-2006 by caleb_woodrow]

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by caleb_woodrow

Originally posted by ChristianTrader So you have to tell me where God has given you the right to stop abortions from occurring. (outside of the peaceful prayer and ballot box options). I shall wait in vain for an answer.

You don´t have to wait much longer "œin vain".

That is tough talk, we shall see if you can deliver.

Originally posted by ChristianTrader
The comment in question does not use judicial in the sense of determining the facts of the case. It is used in the sense of jurisdiction.

The core of the position is that when someone breaks God's law does not necessarily mean that you have the right to stop them or to enforce the penalty prescribed in God's law.

It does not necessarily mean that I have the right, but it is also situational dependent on when God grants me the right.

Originally posted by ChristianTrader For example, because you can prove that person X and person Y have engaged in adultery does not imply that you have the right to execute them if the civil magistate does not prescribe such actions. (Even though that is a Godly punishment for such activities)

There you go on again about the civil magistrate. If the civil magistrate did prescribe such actions, I would not do them because it would be breaking God´s law (Let´s keep this in the context of the new covenant shall we?, that in which we live).

Do you know the heritage of the position that adultery deserves the death penalty in NEW testament times as it did in old testament times?

I've never seen the position that executing adulterers would be breaking God's law. I would love to see that spelled out. (I've seen the position that God's law does not necessitate such but it being the breaking of God's law, wow)

I go on and on about the civil magistrate because he is God's servant with the right to bear the sword (Romans 13) And going against him is not always wrong but must be carefully thought out.

Originally posted by ChristianTrader The question is if you have been given the right by God to "make" it your jurisdiction to stop the breaking of God's law in this case.

For one thing, I am not "œmaking" anything my jurisdiction. Like I said it is situational dependent on the circumstances at hand.

Alright, we shall see how you spell out your jurisdiction and how you use scripture to justify your position.

Suppose we live inside of a country where <b>it is</b> illegal to indirectly defend a person on their behalf when they are getting murdered. So if an innocent woman is being hacked to death in the middle of the street I indirectly defend her by shooting her murderer in the head. He dies. The killing was unjustified under man´s law (in this case because it was deemed illegal by the civil magistrate), yet would you not say that it was justified in the eyes of the Lord?

Let's make the situation just a shade simplier, lets say that law says that women on the street are fair game for anything (rape, murder, etc.)

Now what do you need to establish for your position to hold:
1)Evil is occuring
2)You have the God given right to step in and do something physically.

You have established 1) and assumed that 1) automatically establishes 2)

I see no Biblically justification for the automatic jump. Since there is no automatic jump, you then must make the case that some evils 1) are so bad that 2) is automatically established. At that point, you invite anarchy because various people will see various different points when the "really bad evils" are occuring and must be stopped.

My position is that the only place God has given the individual situation the right to unconditional right to force is to protect their family in their home. (The Bible speaks on this in Ex. 22:2-3, part of the proof texts for the Larger Catechism discussion on the sixth commandment)

If you can find other passages that speak to this issue (in your favor), then I will welcome seeing them.

If not why not?

God has not given us the right to act in a physically violent manner, anytime evil is done.

But, I understand your main point is I don´t have the right to carry out a consequence I see deems fit.

Originally posted by ChristianTrader"If you admit this, then your core contention takes a huge hit."

I was not "œadmitting´ anything. I was merely stating that I understood his point that he was trying to get across to me, even if I am arguing his point is false. I understand the point he is *trying* to make. I never said it would be whatever consequence I see deems fit. I said whatever is required in the case of indirectly defending the innocence when a murder is taking place.

What you deem fit is just a generalization of your position. You just seem to see fit violence up to and including death is warranted in the case of murder. (I agree with you that such is the proper punishment for such actions) How would you argue against other violence for other things?

So it seems that you reject the distinction between "proper" and "what one is allowed to do. You believe that such is always the same?

To kill the murderer is justified. If you don´t think so, you have to show why that is not the case. So far you have not.

Actually it is you with the burden, to show that God has given you the right in this case to act (contrary to the civil magistrate).

Btw, any other analogy you use of something where murder is not taking place (like adultery) is dis-analogous, for we are discussing instances of murder here.

I can argue with any situation or scenario. One question is why do you consider murder super special? Why cannot someone else come along and add another scenario to the list of things warranting disobedience to the civil magistrate?

Going back to analogies here, if you see an innocent women being raped and beaten to death with a bat in the middle of a street (or anywhere), you have the right to kill the man/woman who is trying to murder her. Even though you are not an authority, indirect defense is taking place.

Originally posted by ChristianTrader
This action is completely consistent with the law. You are given the right to act in the place of the police officer in this case.

We aren´t given a right merely because it is consistent with the law of the land, for that law may violate God´s law.

Given the right by whom? God? Where? No one disagrees that raping etc is against God's law, but again being against God's law does not automatically grant your position that God grants you the right to stand in on his behalf and fight on behalf of his law.

In addition, if we violate the law of the land in order to carry out God´s law (and yet we violate man´s law) we are rightly justified in doing so.

Actually it depends on the scenario again. I will not grant a blank check.

Of course then the question is raised of what method is allowed for us to carry out God´s law?

You reading minds again

In the case of a murder that is being performed right in front of your eyes, what are you going to do, throw a ballet box at the murderer?

You are trying to do a reductio but it wont work, because I will be consistent with my position.

If a society has degenerated to the point that such actions are legal, God's judgment is coming soon. And he has not granted me the position to move that judgment along.

In the same sense as you are justified in shooting the murderer in the street analogy (even if it would break a law of the land hypothetically), aren´t you are also justified in shooting the doctor in the head? If you disagree, explain why.

I think I have above. I disagreed with the initial street analogy so I disagree here.

Thus, the killing of the murderer is justified and you are not committing murder. How would it be any different with an abortion if you kill an abortionist while he is in the act, would it not still be an indirect defense for the baby that is being murdered and is therefore justified?

Originally posted by ChristianTrader
The difference is that one is sanctioned by the civil magistrate (the stopping the rape) while the other is not (the abortion).

As you admitted above, because evil is occurring does not imply that you have the right to act to stop it (anyway that you see fit). So at a certain point, you are going to have to differentiate between evil that you are called to stop (by violence etc.) and evil that you just have to pray or vote against to stop it.

It´s not "œanyway that I see fit". I am clearly only talking about murder here.

But that implies what you see fit, unless you can bring Biblical justification into the discussion. If you can't then as you see fit, "fits". Someone else has the same right to see more than murder as being fit for violent action.

The main point I was making in my analogy is that you are justified by killing the murderer *because* he was murdering her, not just because he was raping her. In order to save a life that is at that very moment being murdered, force is necessary.

So rape is not a capital crime issue? We set that aside for a moment.

I do not see how to justify your position biblically. And if I believe if you knew how, you would have already done it, instead you argue by analogy, not from the Bible, but from other actions you think people would not have a problem doing.

If I walk in and a doctor is performing a murder on his infant patient, I think I have clearly demonstrated that lethal force is justified in order to indirectly act on the infants behalf.

It is only clearly demonstrated if I accept the validity of your analogies.

Let´s note what exactly I am arguing here. I am arguing solely that lethal force is necessary when a murder is being performed by the abortionist, not while he is sleeping in bed or any other circumstance.

Unless he is operating on the street corner, getting him in the act will be close to impossible. Since this is the case, what do you do then?

I am not arguing for killing on revenge, but killing in the indirect defense of the baby that is being murdered.

If you killed the doctor at any point, he would no longer kill any other babies, so it would be indirect defense.

Originally posted by ChristianTrader
I am not exactly sure what I would do in this situation. If someone came to kill me because of the gospel, I think I might just take the arrest and be fed to the lions etc. (Of course writing this on a message board is a bit different than actually doing it.

We would be at war, and you would be justified in fighting back using lethal force.

If society has outlawed Christianity and I am hiding in caves etc. I would not do the deadly force, but I would run. If Christianity is legal and someone just does not light Christians, they are going to get it in the head.

Originally posted by ChristianTraderShame on you for agreeing to such incoherence. CT

CT, Shame on you for thinking such incoherence .

[Edited on 7-1-2006 by caleb_woodrow]

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Originally posted by ChristianTrader Do you know the heritage of the position that adultery deserves the death penalty in NEW testament times as it did in old testament times?

I've never seen the position that executing adulterers would be breaking God's law. I would love to see that spelled out. (I've seen the position that God's law does not necessitate such but it being the breaking of God's law, wow)

I go on and on about the civil magistrate because he is God's servant with the right to bear the sword (Romans 13) And going against him is not always wrong but must be carefully thought out.

I should have been more clear. Obviously lethal force is not the only viable option in the case of adultery, whereas in order to save a life that is at the moment being murdered, it is. *I* would be breaking God´s law if I killed the adulterers because I am not delegated the right to kill them in such an instance, as lethal force is not the only option.

Originally posted by ChristianTraderLet's make the situation just a shade simplier, lets say that law says that women on the street are fair game for anything (rape, murder, etc.)

Now what do you need to establish for your position to hold:
1)Evil is occuring
2)You have the God given right to step in and do something physically.

You have established 1) and assumed that 1) automatically establishes 2)

I see no Biblically justification for the automatic jump. Since there is no automatic jump, you then must make the case that some evils 1) are so bad that 2) is automatically established. At that point, you invite anarchy because various people will see various different points when the "really bad evils" are occuring and must be stopped.

My position is that the only place God has given the individual situation the right to unconditional right to force is to protect their family in their home. (The Bible speaks on this in Ex. 22:2-3, part of the proof texts for the Larger Catechism discussion on the sixth commandment)

If you can find other passages that speak to this issue (in your favor), then I will welcome seeing them.

Occurring is spelled with two r´s . Sorry, it was bugging me.

You totally missed my point. My point was that in the case of a murder that is happening right in front of your eyes, the only viable option to save the life that is being murdered is to indirectly act in their defense, and lethal force may be required. If it is required, then the killing is justified.

Originally posted by ChristianTraderGod has not given us the right to act in a physically violent manner, anytime evil is done.

If you mean we do not have the right to act in a physically violent manner every time evil is done I agree.

Originally posted by ChristianTraderWhat you deem fit is just a generalization of your position. You just seem to see fit violence up to and including death is warranted in the case of murder. (I agree with you that such is the proper punishment for such actions) How would you argue against other violence for other things?

So it seems that you reject the distinction between "proper" and "what one is allowed to do. You believe that such is always the same?

I am arguing for a specific case here and no more. I am only arguing for a case when murder is occurring and a person indirectly defends the person being murdered by using lethal force (if it is necessary), and if it is necessary it is justified (whether it is illegal or not in the law of the land).

Originally posted by ChristianTraderI can argue with any situation or scenario. One question is why do you consider murder super special? Why cannot someone else come along and add another scenario to the list of things warranting disobedience to the civil magistrate?

I am only arguing for a case when lethal force is necessary in order to indirectly act in the defense of a person being murdered. So all of your analogies about rape, etc, don´t really hit on what I am stating.

Originally posted by ChristianTraderSo rape is not a capital crime issue?

You are stilling missing my point. It´s not only that something is deserving of execution, it is in what instance am I delegated the right to carry it out. In the case of a murder that is being performed in front of your eyes, the only option I can think of to act on an indirect defense of the person being murdered is to use force, and if necessary lethal force. Like I said before, are you going to throw a ballot box at the doctor in order to save the baby´s life? No, I can only think of force being the only option. If you can think of another immediate option to save the babies life while he/she is being muredered, feel free to say it.

Originally posted by ChristianTraderUnless he is operating on the street corner, getting him in the act will be close to impossible. Since this is the case, what do you do then?

I am not arguing in practicality, only in theory. I think there are much better ways of going about the issue, but I am still going to defend a position that I think you are attacking inconsistently (which is the position I have set forth).

Originally posted by ChristianTraderIf you killed the doctor at any point, he would no longer kill any other babies, so it would be indirect defense.

Again, missing the point. The point is that force or lethal force would not be *required* in those instances, whereas when an abortion is being performed in front of your face that is the *only* option to save the baby´s life.

Originally posted by ChristianTraderIf society has outlawed Christianity and I am hiding in caves etc. I would not do the deadly force, but I would run. If Christianity is legal and someone just does not light Christians, they are going to get it in the head.

So be it.

[Edited on 7-1-2006 by caleb_woodrow]

 

[Contra_Mundum]

On the subject at hand

I commented heavily in this thread, probably 10 posts or more: http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=2436

I'm not going to revisit my contentions or bring them up to date in this thread. You may read them, think what you like. I'm not changing my mind.

As I indicated in my only post found in the current thread, theorizing about extremely unlikely situations can in some cases actually lead us farther astray, rather than back to first principles.

If you found a killer plying his trade, in public I guess--assuming you knew (!) what this guy performing what might well look like an ordinary doctor's operation was actually doing, assuming a hundred other variables, assuming you could interfere without letting the woman bleed to death (or have her attack you herself--after its all over, what are you going to do to her? assuming the child lives)--IS KILLING THIS GUY THE ONLY WAY TO STOP THIS? HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? Why not throw him to the ground and handcuff him?

See? Taking this "scenario" or theory out of the realm of the real world gets us (as Hermonta has ably shown) into arguments by analogies, which I hasten to add are about as dissimilar as they are similar, if not more so. Thus endless qualifications of the position, myriads of assumptions multiplied endlessly.

In finding first principles, we head the other direction. We find and establish the fundamentals upon which we can then extrapolate to various scenarios. A duty to act supercedes a right to act. Both duty and liberty are bound by law, ultimately by God's commandment. Certain moral duties are unenforceable by the laws of men. But God can and will enforce all moral judgments eventually. In the meantime, we cannot assume jurisdiction--the exercise of lawful authority--without warrant. Even if we are correct in our assumption that God's law has been violated, or is being violated, we do not for that reason automatically have either a duty or a right to act.

And assuming we do have one or the other, we cannot simply do whatever feels appropriate in that situation, because our choice of "what to do" is ITSELF subject to the same law of judgment that we just "enforcced." "By the same measure with which you judge, you youself will be judged." So reads Jesus precient warning.

[Edited on 7-1-2006 by Contra_Mundum]

 

[Cheshire Cat]

I actually disagree with the argument I am setting forth (not the logic but the conclusion), but my point is that it needs to be thought out. I believe abortion is murder and that it is blatantly obvious. I believe that abortionist are murderers and should be punished as such. I also believe it should be overturned in a non-violent fashion, but at the same time I have sympathy and am partial to those who kill abortionist, because I can see where they are coming from, even though I don´t think what they are doing is right. That is all. This will be my last post on the subject. Good dialogue though. "“Caleb

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by caleb_woodrow
I actually disagree with the argument I am setting forth (not the logic but the conclusion), but my point is that it needs to be thought out. I believe abortion is murder and that it is blatantly obvious. I believe that abortionist are murderers and should be punished as such. I also believe it should be overturned in a non-violent fashion, but at the same time I have sympathy and am partial to those who kill abortionist, because I can see where they are coming from, even though I don´t think what they are doing is right. That is all. This will be my last post on the subject. Good dialogue though. "“Caleb

Caleb,
I can side with this post; it describes my sentiments exactly.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Make your closing statements as the thread has run it's course.