Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Ethics, etc. > Gun Supporters

Forum Quick Jump

132 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 5/13/2003 9:35 AM (GMT -6)

Electra: Osama bin Laden is an example of what willingness to take this risk can look like. So is Ghandi. Real power is found not in subscription to the status quo, but in those who are so full of hate they are willing to sacrifice themselves in order to destroy their enemies, or so full of love they are willing to sacrifice themselves for the sake of their enemies.

Brett: No one is denying that non-violent resistance can be effective, Electra. Of course it can be. But would you not agree that there is a time for Ghandi and a time for Eisenhower?

Electra: My point was about power, not non-violent vs. violent resistance. When order is based on the threat of destruction, real power belongs to those who are not deterred by this threat—whether this power leads to violent or non-violent revolution. And yes, I do believe there is a time for both.

Brett: And by the way, if you are not a pacifist, as you have repeatedly stated, how is the above statement you made consistent?

Electra: How is it inconsistent? Defense of self and/or others from clear and present danger is justified. Malcolm X said that self-defense is not violence, it is intelligence. He said people should not hesitate to kill any dog that attacked them, whether it was the four-legged or two-legged kind. I am not a pacifist because I believe people have a right to “intelligent” self-defense.

However, I personally choose to defend myself nonviolently. Here are a few reasons why: 1) I don’t trust my own judgment under pressure and/or in a panic to determine whether someone constitutes enough of a threat to justify using deadly force. 2) I’m not willing to invest the time and energy into developing the physical and technical skills necessary to use deadly force responsibly. Even if I did possess a gun and acquire the skills to use it responsibly, my protection against an assailant is still not guaranteed. 3) There are risks associated with choosing to remain unarmed (e.g. getting killed) and choosing to arm myself (e.g. accidentally or mistakenly killing someone else). I would rather risk being a victim than being a victimizer. When Augustine used violence against the Donatists (he argued that refusing to use force in this case would constitute “a false and cruel tolerance”), rather than defending themselves with violence they responded, “Christ has given Christians the prototype not of killing but of dying.”

Electra

Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 5/13/2003 11:43 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
I hope this doesn't seem condenscendly (because I mean it is all seriousness) but how does one defend oneself non-violently? These would seem contradictory. For instance, if you are being raped, how would you depend yourself against the criminal non-violently (aside from allowing him to rape you and then get away)? Or against a murderer?

Fair question, honorman. Stopping short (I hope) of using deadly force, I would prevent an assailant from raping or killing me however I could—for my own sake but also for his.

A kill-or-be-killed scenario in which the police would not be able to provide timely protection is a real possibility, but it is so remote that it is not a possibility I dwell on or feel threatened by. The time and energy I would invest in responsibly acquiring and maintaining a gun would be better spent in more constructive ways—especially given the fact that owning and knowing how to use a gun skillfully would not garantee protection anyway.

Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky

Edited by - Electra on 05/13/2003 5:13:12 PM

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 5/14/2003 9:05 AM (GMT -6)

honorman:

quote:
I agree, but I would say most people would agree with you to a certain extent. Most gun owners would say the same things you are saying because they believe that owning a gun is the best way of protection. I think most people believe as you whether or not they own a gun.

Electra: If most people (whether or not they choose to own guns) truly feel this way, then that just reinforces graygirl's original question. I think that allowing more people to conceal and carry weapons will increase rather than decrease the possibility of a kill-or-be-killed scenario.

I am happy to pay taxes that support professionals who are trained in the use of deadly force for protection and service of the public. I am not happy about the prospect of making it easier for average citizens to use deadly force when they perceive a threat that justifies it. In spite of their training and public accountability, the police still make tragic errors in their use of deadly force due to incompetence and corruption. In spite of their excellent educations, high ethical standards, and hard work, judges and lawyers sometimes still sentence innocent people to death. So how is making it easier for private citizens with little training or public accountability and who knows what education and ethical standards to use deadly force when they perceive a threat supposed to make the world a safer place?

I think that those who want to carry weapons should have to wear tights and a cape so that people who are interested in vigilante justice know who to turn to.

Electra

Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 5/14/2003 9:40 AM (GMT -6)

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 5/14/2003 11:39 AM (GMT -6)

While I think what you are saying is valid, Electra, it goes completely against what the framers of the Constitution wrote about the right to bear arms. Plus, I believe you are assuming that most people who bear arms (average citizens) are the stereotypical "yahhoos" who have taken no steps to learn about how to use them. What is the difference between a paid professional and the average citizen? Knowledge and familirity with the weapons. As one who knows many who have guns on both sides, I can tell you that many ordinary citizens are much better prepared than the professionals I know.
Finally, I think your saying that those who have guns should wear tights and capes shows your ignorance of the average private citizen who owns a gun. Owning a gun is not about bringing about an individual sense of justice, but protection. That is what we are discussing here.
PS> simply being imperfect isn't an excuse to not arm oneself, take self defense, etc. If it was, we would never do anything.

Edited by - honorman on 05/14/2003 4:40:46 PM

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 5/14/2003 12:21 PM (GMT -6)

Honorman: While I think what you are saying is valid, Electra, it goes completely against what the framers of the Constitution wrote about the right to bear arms.

Electra: I have not argued against this right.

honorman: Plus, I believe you are assuming that most people who bear arms (average citizens) are the stereotypical "yahhoos" who have taken no steps to learn about how to use them.

Electra: So far I have been using myself as an example. I do know how to use a gun and I even have awards for marksmanship. But as I said before, I would not trust myself to judge who deserves to have deadly force inflicted on them in a crisis situation. Sure there are lots of people out there who can use a gun better than I can, and who can make better judgments than me. But how good is good enough when we are talking about shooting people?

honorman: What is the difference between a paid professional and the average citizen? Knowledge and familirity with the weapons. As one who knows many who have guns on both sides, I can tell you that many ordinary citizens are much better prepared than the professionals I know.

Electra: I'm sure this is true in some cases. I just don't think the payoff is worth risking the cases in which it is not true.

Honorman: Finally, I think your saying that those who have guns should wear tights and capes shows your ignorance of the average private citizen who owns a gun.

Electra: On the contrary, I am assuming at least some basic training on the part of gun owners. I think the law requires this in order to get a permit, but I'm not sure.

honorman: Owning a gun is not about bringing about an individual sense of justice, but protection.

Electra: I agree that protection is important. There are many steps I can take to protect myself against criminals. There are no steps that guarantee this protection. I think it is extremly unlikely that my protection will ever depend on my potential to inflict deadly force on someone by pulling a trigger. If a person depraved enough to randomly kill an unarmed woman ever targets me, I am content to trust that he may be brought to justice by the courts, and to hope that he somehow will be reconciled with God.

Electra

Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky

Edited by - Electra on 05/14/2003 5:23:37 PM

Edited by - Electra on 05/15/2003 08:23:38 AM

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 5/15/2003 3:21 AM (GMT -6)

Iconoclast: There is nothing more important than ascribing unsurpassing love to all those we come in contact with. But why isn’t it okay to also allow citizens the power to protect themselves?

Electra: Given the fact that most murder victims are killed by someone they knew, ascribing infinite worth to others is not a denial of the power to protect ourselves—it is the most powerful protection available to us. It may be easier to pull a trigger, it may save us some suffering, and it may be a legal right, but that does not mean that carrying concealed weapons is a more powerful means of protection than love.

Iconoclast: If we behaved just like Jesus then those who felt loved by us probably wouldn’t want to kill us. However, it seems to me that Jesus’ loving action toward the Pharisees didn’t seem to engender warm feelings towards Him – quite the opposite.

Electra: True. And when the disciples picked up swords to defend Jesus against the Pharisees and armed guards who came to arrest him, Jesus rebuked them. According to the law, Jesus would have been justified for defending himself—an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. But Jesus didn’t just love people who clearly reciprocated his love. He loved even the people who clearly rejected it. And his love never ceased, even when they condemned him to death and nailed him to the cross. What else could it mean to love our enemies? Suffering.

Love ascribes infinite worth to another person at cost to ourselves. It may be possible to avoid suffering by shooting at people who want to harm us, and the law would be on our side. But I’m not sure how choosing to shoot someone else rather than suffer ourselves is consistent with love.

Iconoclast: The Pharisees did not respond to Jesus’ love for them. A certain percentage of citizens will not respond to anything positive that society does and they will become violent criminals.

Electra: True, some people will harden their hearts toward God and neighbor. But judging hearts is not our job. Nicodemus was a Pharisee whose heart remained open enough to ask Jesus what it meant to be born again. Joseph of Arimathea was a wealthy Pharisee who was present at Jesus' trial, yet he arranged for Jesus' body to be placed in his own tomb. Gamaliel was a Pharisee who trained Pharisees, but he persuaded others not to persecute Christians too harshly. Saul was a Pharisee who killed Christians, but he gave his heart to Jesus.

We simply cannot know which people have irreversibly resolved their hearts against God—not with the certainty that warrants pulling a gun on them and shooting.

Electra

Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky

Edited by - Electra on 05/15/2003 08:27:15 AM

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 5/15/2003 4:26 AM (GMT -6)

Electra said:

quote:
A kill-or-be-killed scenario in which the police would not be able to provide timely protection is a real possibility...

Correct. A VERY REAL possibility indeed. For the most part, police REACT to a crime ALREADY IN PROGRESS (present tense) or one that has ALREADY BEEN COMMITTED (past tense). If there is no crime committed (in the sense that I'm talking about), there is therefore no need for police protection. Chances are, for the police to respond to you, there will have been a crime committed AGAINST you.

www.tednugent.com

Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com

BBBCanada
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763

Posted 5/15/2003 7:28 AM (GMT -6)

LOL!!

Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 5/15/2003 11:07 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
For the most part, police REACT to a crime ALREADY IN PROGRESS (present tense) or one that has ALREADY BEEN COMMITTED (past tense). If there is no crime committed (in the sense that I'm talking about), there is therefore no need for police protection. Chances are, for the police to respond to you, there will have been a crime committed AGAINST you.

Yes, this is a risky world. We should take measures to protect ourselves from crimes committed against us because life is very very precious. In the real, but remote, possibility of a kill-or-be-killed situation, we have a legal right to kill. Whether we die as victims of senseless violence or in our sleep, love has already made us more than conquerors. Why would a more-than-conqueror kill?

Electra

Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 5/15/2003 11:46 AM (GMT -6)

Electra:

quote:
Why would a more-than-conqueror kill?

I am really having a hard time following you on these issues, Electra. You consistently maintain that you are not a pacifist, and just when you've reassured me of it, you state something like the above. The implication of your statement is clearly that Christians (i.e., “more-than-conquerors”) shouldn’t kill.

I understand the necessity for appropriate nuances to any position, but at a certain point things begin to seem inconsistent.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 5/15/2003 12:28 PM (GMT -6)

Electra

Love ascribes infinite worth to another person at cost to ourselves. It may be possible to avoid suffering by shooting at people who want to harm us, and the law would be on our side. But I’m not sure how choosing to shoot someone else rather than suffer ourselves is consistent with love.

Iconoclast

What I am hearing you say is that love requires us to allow a criminal to kill us rather than us kill the criminal. Please correct me if I am hearing you wrong.

What about your 3 year old child? If you have the power to stop your 3 year old from being abducted by shooting the abductor what does love require you to do? Is there any case where love would required you to defend another through violence? Or would you just refuse to commit violence in order to protect another?

thanks,
Iconoclast

"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 5/15/2003 1:10 PM (GMT -6)

Iconoclast: What I am hearing you say is that love requires us to allow a criminal to kill us rather than us kill the criminal.

Electra: Jesus commanded us to love our enemies, and Jesus showed us what this love looks like. It is not afraid to take on suffering; it is more powerful than death. I can understand how laying down my life so someone else can live would be consistent with Jesus' teachings and example. I can't understand how taking someone else's life so I can live would be consistent with this. Maybe you can.

Iconoclast: What about your 3 year old child? If you have the power to stop your 3 year old from being abducted by shooting the abductor what does love require you to do?

Electra: The loss of a child is a horrible thing for any mother to suffer. I would violently resist someone who was trying to abduct my child. But I would not sacrifice someone else's child for the sake of my child. I would not rest until I got her back. I would grieve her suffering, repent for whatever responsibility I had in it, and hope that we would have a lifetime of healing together.

Iconoclast: Is there any case where love would required you to defend another through violence? Or would you just refuse to commit violence in order to protect another?

Electra: Honorman gave me a chance to clarify this: I would use violence to defend myself and/or others. I would not use deadly force to defend myself and/or others unless a person was in the midst of taking others' lives and there was no other way to incapacitate him.

Electra

Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 5/15/2003 1:32 PM (GMT -6)

honorman: I would disagree with your definition of love, Electra, in the sense that you are using it. Infinite love doesn't require that we give up our lives for the selfish benefit of the person we supposely are loving.

Electra: I'm not suggesting we should sacrifice ourselves for someone else's selfish gain. What is the possibility that someone's soul would be saved worth? If I kill someone, that possibility no longer exists for them. If I let them live, God may yet get ahold of them. Moses didn't meet God until after he murdered a man.

honorman: It may mean (and does mean many times) stopping that person from hurting others...

Electra: Killing seems like a self-contradictory way to stop a person from potentially hurting others.

honorman: you seem to feel that love means allowing a person to do what they want, even at the cost of ruining another's life.

Electra: Refusing to kill someone is not the same as condoning what they do. They should be brought to justice and get right with God.

honorman: Why should I give up my life for a murderer just so he can murder?

Electra: You shouldn't. If there is no alternative, you should give up your life for a murderer so he may yet come to know the same love you do.

Electra

Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655

Posted 5/15/2003 5:21 PM (GMT -6)

What does "turn the other cheek" mean anyway? Can anyone seriously think Jesus would be packing heat? :)

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 5/16/2003 2:51 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
I am really having a hard time following you on these issues, Electra. You consistently maintain that you are not a pacifist, and just when you've reassured me of it, you state something like the above. The implication of your statement is clearly that Christians (i.e., “more-than-conquerors”) shouldn’t kill.

I understand the necessity for appropriate nuances to any position, but at a certain point things begin to seem inconsistent.

Brett

Pacificm is an ideology that denies any justified use of force. I affirm people's right to defend themselves. I agree that by law people can carry guns if they want, and they have a right to kill someone who is threatening them or their children or whoever.

I just don't see how exercising the right to inflict deadly force on someone else is consistent with Jesus' teaching (esp. Matt. 5–7; Luke 6) or example. The plain sense of passages like “Love your enemy” seem to prohibit killing enemies. But maybe this is a lack of imagination on my part.

Romans 8 describes how Jesus made us more than conquerors and no one can separate us from his love. In Philipians Paul talks about living in the love of Christ, and dying that will only bring gain. God has been very very good to me in this life, and I am so thankful to be a child of God. I don't relish the thought of death, but neither do I fear its sting. Not enough to cling to this life at cost to others.

I feel quite self-conscious answering all these questions.

Electra

Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 5/16/2003 5:56 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Pacificm is an ideology that denies any justified use of force. I affirm people's right to defend themselves. I agree that by law people can carry guns if they want, and they have a right to kill someone who is threatening them or their children or whoever.

I understand. I agree that there is a distinction between the technical legal right to kill an aggressor and the fundamental moral right to kill an aggressor.

quote:
I just don't see how exercising the right to inflict deadly force on someone else is consistent with Jesus' teaching (esp. Matt. 5––7; Luke 6) or example. The plain sense of passages like ““Love your enemy”” seem to prohibit killing enemies. But maybe this is a lack of imagination on my part.

So this is what I am hearing you say: you believe there is no moral right to ever “inflict deadly force on someone else.” Yet you resist the term “pacifist” because (as I understand you) you are okay with defending one’s self with non-deadly force. Am I understanding you correctly?

Here’s what I find confusing:

(1) If “Love your enemies” prohibits killing in self-defense, why would it not prohibit any other form of violent self-defense? With that text as your guide, how do you consistently hold to a position that prohibits deadly force in self-defense, but allows for other forms of violent self-defense?

(2) You made it very plain a few posts ago that you believed there was a “time for Eisenhower.” Now, however, you claim that it is immoral to ever use deadly force on someone else. Please explain how these two statements are consistent.

quote:
Romans 8 describes how Jesus made us more than conquerors and no one can separate us from his love. In Philipians Paul talks about living in the love of Christ, and dying that will only bring gain. God has been very very good to me in this life, and I am so thankful to be a child of God. I don't relish the thought of death, but neither do I fear its sting. Not enough to cling to this life at cost to others.

In reading the above paragraph, can you understand why one might be confused by your reluctance to be termed a pacifist?

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 5/16/2003 10:24 AM (GMT -6)

BJS: So this is what I am hearing you say: you believe there is no moral right to ever “inflict deadly force on someone else.”

Electra: I have given some examples in which killing might be moral. I personally have a hard time imagining how killing someone to save myself might be loving. I can see how killing an enemy might be a loving thing to do for myself or someone else, but I can't see how it would be a loving thing to do for my enemy.

In a case where killing is the only way to stop someone who is in the process of killing, the most loving thing to do might be to volunteer to be the assassin—to take the guilt of killing upon yourself so someone else doesn't have to, and trust that God will show you mercy. I think this is what Bonhoeffer did when he participated in the plot to kill Hitler, even though he used to be a pacifist.

BJS: Yet you resist the term “pacifist” because (as I understand you) you are okay with defending one’s self with non-deadly force. Am I understanding you correctly?

Electra: Maybe. Reasons why I resist the term pacifist: 1) I don't know much about it; 2) it is an ideology that claims the use of force is illegitimate; 3) I do think there is such a thing as just war; 4) My primary concern is not whether killing is justifiable, but whether it is loving; 5) Given 4, my primary concern will be with the particular, not the theoretical (e.g. ideology); 6) My view is based on what seems to be the plain reading of some key teachings of Jesus, that seem to be exemplified in his own actions. But hey, this is not the first time I've been guilty of naïve literalism.

BJS: (1) If “Love your enemies” prohibits killing in self-defense, why would it not prohibit any other form of violent self-defense? With that text as your guide, how do you consistently hold to a position that prohibits deadly force in self-defense, but allows for other forms of violent self-defense?

Electra: Life is precious. We should take measures to preserve it, whether we are talking about our own life or our enemy's, about the life of our own child or someone else's. Killing destroys the life of the victim but can also destroy the soul of the victimizer. If I can save my own life and prevent my enemy from incurring bloodguilt by kicking him in the balls, that is a loving thing to do. Loving someone doesn't always mean doing nice things for people. But it does mean watching out for their best interest and affirming their infinite worth. I just can't reconcile killing with this, but I don't deny that it might be possible.

BJS: (2) You made it very plain a few posts ago that you believed there was a “time for Eisenhower.” Now, however, you claim that it is immoral to ever use deadly force on someone else. Please explain how these two statements are consistent.

Electra: I know I haven't stated things as clearly as I could have, but I don't think I have claimed that using deadly force against someone else is always immoral. I have given examples in previous responses in which killing another person might be justifiable and repeated them above (E.g. if killing is the only way to stop someone in the process of killing others).

BJS:

quote:
Romans 8 describes how Jesus made us more than conquerors and no one can separate us from his love. In Philipians Paul talks about living in the love of Christ, and dying that will only bring gain. God has been very very good to me in this life, and I am so thankful to be a child of God. I don't relish the thought of death, but neither do I fear its sting. Not enough to cling to this life at cost to others.

In reading the above paragraph, can you understand why one might be confused by your reluctance to be termed a pacifist?

Electra: To be honest I really can't, which is why I'm probably not giving you very satisfying answers.

What is at stake for you in nailing down whether or not I am a pacifist?

Electra

Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky

Tigress
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252

Posted 5/16/2003 11:30 AM (GMT -6)

All I can say is that if I had children I'd want to stop whoever was trying to harm or kill them and if the only way to do that is to kill them, so be it. This is the lesser evil. Sometimes doing that is the most Godly thing we can do. Because to do nothing and let the killer murder the children would be worse than killing only him to prevent that much greater atrocity. I think this is part of the justification for gun ownership. And it holds much weight, in my opinion.

On a global scale, not everyone will respond positively to non-violent diplomacy. Case in point - Nazi Germany. Hitler was a madman bent on "purifying" the world. No amount of reason or appeals to compassion would sway him from his demented agenda. It is naive and unwise to presume that not "keeping up with the Jones'" (or not matching a country's weaponry but instead laying down arms) is ever truly going to work in this fallen world.

Plus, if only the government had access to weapons but its citizens did not, it could easily turn on those citizens and thus become a dictatorship that takes away ALL of our freedoms and threaten ever GREATER harm to all our loved ones. Granted, since we live in a democracy that would be difficult to make happen, but I'm sure it could be done if enough people in government aligned together and set up a military behind them to uphold their position.

Tigress

The Angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear Him, and He delivers them.
-Psalm 34:7

Tigress
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1252

Posted 5/16/2003 11:36 AM (GMT -6)

Also, Jesus said in the end times, people would cry, "Peace, peace!" when in reality there can never truly be peace until Jesus returns and fully establishes His eternal Kingdom. In the meantime, Christians must do all they can to protect the innocent, and if that means carrying weapons and using them to stop those who would harm the innocent, so be it.

A good friend of mine told me that to those who have been given much have much responsibility and that was why she supported the war in Iraq - not because of oil or any threat to the U.S. but because Saddam Hussein and his sons were brutallizing their own people.

Tigress

The Angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear Him, and He delivers them.
-Psalm 34:7

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 5/16/2003 12:12 PM (GMT -6)

Electra:

quote:
What is at stake for you in nailing down whether or not I am a pacifist?

Fair question. It's not that I need to know whether or not you're a pacifist per se, as much as I am just trying to understand your position in order to dialogue more effectively. If you're a pacifist, then I would approach our conversation from a certain perspective. Thus far, however, your position has confused me. It's almost as if you want the moral comfort and simplicity that pacifism seems to offer, but at the same time, your pragmatic side forces you to acknowledge the practical impossibility of pacifism. As a result, you make statements like:

"Why would more-than-conquerors kill?"

"I just don't see how exercising the right to inflict deadly force on someone else is consistent with Jesus' teaching (esp. Matt. 5–7; Luke 6) or example."

"The plain sense of passages like “Love your enemy” seem to prohibit killing enemies."

"I’m not sure how choosing to shoot someone else rather than suffer ourselves is consistent with love."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the gist of all of these statements is that it is immoral (i.e., inconsistent with Scripture, inconsistent with Jesus, and inconsistent with Love) to use deadly force against an enemy.

Now, I hear all of these statements, and I think, okay, Electra's a pacifist. I understand where she's coming from now. Then however, after one of us begins to point out the unavoidable problems with pacifism, you will quickly and begrudgingly concede that deadly force can in fact be used in a manner consistent with Scripture, Jesus, and Love---which, of course, is all that we are saying in the first place.

I just re-read a paragraph of yours that I think exemplifies the conflicted nature of your position:

quote:
In a case where killing is the only way to stop someone who is in the process of killing, the most loving thing to do might be to volunteer to be the assassin—to take the guilt of killing upon yourself so someone else doesn't have to, and trust that God will show you mercy. I think this is what Bonhoeffer did when he participated in the plot to kill Hitler, even though he used to be a pacifist.

What I hear you saying here is that even if using deadly force is "the most loving thing to do," you are still guilty of sin and better hope "that God will show you mercy." So you have set up a catch-22 for us. If we don't do "the most loving thing" by using deadly force, then we are choosing the more UNloving thing, which is sin. And if we do "the most loving thing" by using deadly force, we have also sinned (I assume this is what you mean when you say that we should bear "guilt" for it and hope for God's mercy).

This is indeed where I don't understand you. I think it is fair to say that using deadly force in a specific situation is either right or wrong, sinful or not sinful, loving or unloving. I don't believe moral catch-22's are God's way of doing things.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 5/16/2003 11:44 PM (GMT -6)

BJS: It's not that I need to know whether or not you're a pacifist per se, as much as I am just trying to understand your position in order to dialogue more effectively. If you're a pacifist, then I would approach our conversation from a certain perspective.

Electra: Why don’t you approach our conversation based on what I am saying, rather than what I’m not saying. Maybe my views on this issue happen to be consistent with pacifism, but I don’t understand myself to be a pacifist and I have not been appealing to this ideology to support my position. Do you think my interpretation of the passages I have sited is faulty? OK, let’s talk about that. Do you think there are problems with the examples I’ve given? Fine, what are they? But I really don’t know that much about pacifism.

BJS: Thus far, however, your position has confused me. It's almost as if you want the moral comfort and simplicity that pacifism seems to offer…

Electra: Comfort and simplicity are nice. But these nice things are not motivating me. Again, I am motivated by my interpretation of Jesus’ teaching and example, and my understanding of love. I expect this will involve extreme suffering and complexity (think crucifixion), not comfort and simplicity. There is a sense in which this is simple. While this understanding of love may lead to suffering and complexity in practice, I think that in theory it’s really not that complicated. I am honestly surprised that I seem to be the only one in this conversation who interprets deadly force as incompatible with love for enemy. I assumed most Christians saw it this way. This naivete on my part has probably contributed to some of the confusion.

BJS: …but at the same time, your pragmatic side forces you to acknowledge the practical impossibility of pacifism.

Electra: This must be happening at a subconscious level, because I don’t know what you’re talking about.

BJS: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the gist of all of these statements is that it is immoral (i.e., inconsistent with Scripture, inconsistent with Jesus, and inconsistent with Love) to use deadly force against an enemy.

Electra: I don’t understand why you would subordinate my references to Scripture, Jesus’ teaching/example, and Love under the heading immoral, instead of just dealing directly with Scripture, Jesus’ teaching/example, and Love. Instead of analyzing the gist behind my statements, why not just deal with the statements themselves? Let’s start with this one: How is killing someone to save myself consistent with loving my enemy (especially when love is defined as “ascribing infinite worth to another at cost to one’s self”)?

BJS: Now, I hear all of these statements, and I think, okay, Electra's a pacifist. I understand where she's coming from now. Then however, after one of us begins to point out the unavoidable problems with pacifism, you will quickly and begrudgingly concede that deadly force can in fact be used in a manner consistent with Scripture, Jesus, and Love---which, of course, is all that we are saying in the first place.

Electra: You lost me here. As far as I can tell, you are the only one talking about pacifism. What “problems with pacifism” have been pointed out by anyone? That refusing to use deadly force might mean laying down your life instead of taking someone else’s? Yep. That’s a problem. It might mean your child gets hurt instead of someone else’s? Yep. That’s a problem. That it’s possible someone you refuse to kill might kill others? Yep. That’s a problem. They also might be arrested, tried, and sentenced for their crimes according to the law. They also might meet Jesus. Love refuses to cast judgment on hearts and hopes all things. As I have said many times, love in action risks taking harsh and dreadful things upon itself instead of shoving them off on to someone else.

BJS: What I hear you saying here is that even if using deadly force is "the most loving thing to do," you are still guilty of sin and better hope "that God will show you mercy."

Electra: Yes, killing is still a sin whether someone else does it or I do it myself.

BJS: So you have set up a catch-22 for us. If we don't do "the most loving thing" by using deadly force, then we are choosing the more UNloving thing, which is sin. And if we do "the most loving thing" by using deadly force, we have also sinned (I assume this is what you mean when you say that we should bear "guilt" for it and hope for God's mercy).

Electra: If there is a catch-22 it is set up by the person who will not stop killing unless he is killed.

BJS: This is indeed where I don't understand you. I think it is fair to say that using deadly force in a specific situation is either right or wrong, sinful or not sinful, loving or unloving.

Electra: OK. I’ve made several attempts but I still can’t make sense of how killing someone else in order to save yourself is consistent with loving your enemy, but I trust you have some way of working it out.

BJS: I don't believe moral catch-22's are God's way of doing things.

Electra: Glad to hear it.

I wish I understood better where the breakdown is happening because we are obviously mismatching. I’m sorry. I hope we can figure it out.

Electra

Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 5/17/2003 12:06 AM (GMT -6)

Tigress, I am sympathetic to your desire to protect your children. My mother lost two children and I know it causes suffering.

Tigress: All I can say is that if I had children I'd want to stop whoever was trying to harm or kill them and if the only way to do that is to kill them, so be it. This is the lesser evil.

Electra: Maybe so. But how is it consistent with loving your enemy?

Tigress: Sometimes doing that is the most Godly thing we can do.

Electra: God gave up his only Son for wicked and ungrateful people. God could have stopped them, but God didn't.

Tigress: Because to do nothing and let the killer murder the children would be worse than killing only him to prevent that much greater atrocity.

Electra: I agree that doing nothing and allowing children to be murdered is bad. Thankfully, we do not have to choose between either doing nothing or killing. There are many things we can do to prevent such atrocities from happening. The justice system in our country isn't perfect, but it is very good and we are blessed to have it. There are also many ways to get involved in community-based crime prevention organizations that seek ways to protect children.

Electra

Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky

Paul5388
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295

Posted 5/17/2003 3:40 PM (GMT -6)

Electra,

This sure is a long thread to wade through, but I did accomplish it. I did notice, while reading, there may be a couple of misconceptions floating around.

Moses killed an Egyptian, but if you check the Hebrew word, you will find it to be a different word from what is used in the Decalogue. I might add that Moses killed the Egyptian in an eyeball to eyeball confrontation with either his bare hands or with the weapons available at the time. Either way, it was mano a mano, not a premeditated and unexpected attack with no option for defense like what is described in the Decalogue (sort of like an assassin). Therefore, killing is not a sin, but murder is.

This what is recorded in Genesis 14.14 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan. {armed: or, led forth} {trained: or, instructed}
15 And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus.
16 And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.
17 ¶ And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king’s dale.
18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: You will notice there is a blessing pronounced by the priest of the most high God, not a rebuke and Lot was only a kinsman/nephew.

For a New Testament situation to relate to, consider that Jesus and Peter never rebuked the Centurions for their occupation, which is killing on a grander scale. Knowing Cornelius was accepted by God for salvation, seems to do damage to your concept of what God desires. If we accept his continuing participation in his vocation, we have no reason to think otherwise, then we have to accept God approving of the killing those enemies. If I choose to join the military, which I have done twice, and bear arms against enemies, what changed when I became a civilian? John 15:13 says this, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Notice that it is the "greater love" and it doesn't say "for his enemies".

The beginning for the Baptist movement was caused by a disagreement with the Waterland Mennonites over whether one could be a magistrate (police officer) and still be a Christian. Since the Mennonites practice a form of non-aggression that would amount to being a pacifist, they maintained that the magistrate was not a Christian. You have basically taken the same position as the Mennonites, because you seem to think a real Christian won't kill.

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 5/17/2003 6:00 PM (GMT -6)

honorman: Finally, loving your enemies does not supercede loving your loved ones.

Electra: I agree. In asking how killing an enemy is consistent with loving an enemy, I don't mean to imply that we should only love our enemies, or love our enemies more than our self/family/friends, etc., or love either our enemies or our self/family/friends/etc.

When God decided not to stop people from killing Jesus, does that mean the Father didn't love Jesus, or that the Father loved Jesus' killers more than he loved Jesus?

Electra

Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky

Edited by - Electra on 05/17/2003 11:04:43 PM

132 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:40 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual