Cheshire Cat
Puritan Board Sophomore
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.
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 Contra_Mundum
Suppose you kill the abortionist today, and tomorrow the lady finds another practitioner?
Why not? It fit with what he was saying.Originally posted by ChristianTrader
I think you picked up on a bad pragmatic out that Bruce used, but should not have.
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 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.
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?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
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]