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 5/17/2003 6:25 PM (GMT -6)

Paul, thanks for your reflections on this thread. I'm sorry if I have given the impression that "real Christians won't kill." I know what it feels like to not be counted as a "real Christian." I think that real Christians can come to different conclusions on this issue without questioning whether or not they are brothers and sisters in Christ.

Though I did not support our invasion of Iraq, I do believe in just war, and I have considered joining the military myself. I'm not sure where I stand on other issues that involve killing, such as capital punishment and euthanasia. I think that a word study of the decalogue and other passages you mention would be fruitful for working out a position on these issues.

My question is regarding how it is possible to love an enemy and kill that enemy. Because the question involves love, an interpersonal, relational action, I'm not really talking about these broader justice-related issues (e.g. war, punishment, etc.).

Electra

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

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 5/17/2003 7:51 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

My question is regarding how it is possible to love an enemy and kill that enemy. Because the question involves love, an interpersonal, relational action, I'm not really talking about these broader justice-related issues (e.g. war, punishment, etc.).

Hi Electra,

It seems to me we must first define love before we can properly define loving our enemies. The best definition I know of for love is unselfish goodwill; that is, desiring and acting towards the highest good of God and man, with no selfish motives attached. (The latter condition must be included, for there are plenty of people in history who have claimed they were acting only in the interest of God and fellow man by burning heretics or covert Bible translators/distributors at the stake, forcing Jews to convert to Catholicism in the Spanish Inquisition, or that they truly were serving God while they were in fact serving themselves and lining their pockets, and so forth).

It also seems to me that we must always consider motives when trying to sort out ethics.

That said, if one's motive is to unselfish goodwill towards all, one can in fact act in self defense and in defense of those who cannot defend themselves by even going so far as to kill the violent aggressor/criminal, and in such a case one has in fact done the most loving thing possible given the situation.

For example, a man decides to use schoolkids for rifle practice. If I were a policeman who had the man in my sights, I would not hesitate to do the most loving thing for everyone by killing the bastard (That's a good Bible word, by the way).

It is loving to do this, even loving towards the murderous criminal, because his sin-cycle has been effectively stopped, he can break God and man's laws no longer, and can harm others no longer. Therefore he will not suffer quite as much in hell as he would have had he been allowed to do more killing.

"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

Edited by - John Earp on 05/18/2003 12:54:31 AM

Paul5388
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295

Posted 5/18/2003 6:23 PM (GMT -6)

Electra,

It might help you settle some of these issues to watch the movie SGT York, starring Gary Cooper. Alvin York wrestled with the dilema of killing being contrary to his beliefs and being drafted into the army during WWI.

I also have to agree with John Earp, that there needs to be a better definition for love in this discussion.

Whatever that definition, I'm not too sure how to reconcile loving your enemy with this: Romans 12:20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 5/18/2003 6:55 PM (GMT -6)

I also want to add that it seems to me that assassinating Hitler was absolutely the most loving thing Bonhoeffer (or anyone) could have done at the time, even the most loving thing for Hitler.

I also want to be clear that I do not believe violence should be the normal mode of action for Christians, not at all. The scenarios I am presenting for consideration are obviously worst-case scenarios. I have great respect and admiration for the Anabaptist tradition; I do, however, think that there are situations in which the truly Christian thing to do is to use force, even deadly force if necessary, to restrain criminals.

"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

Edited by - John Earp on 05/19/2003 01:27:41 AM

Edited by - John Earp on 05/19/2003 01:29:19 AM

Edited by - John Earp on 05/20/2003 01:13:15 AM

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 5/19/2003 5:56 AM (GMT -6)

Electra:

quote:
Why don’t you approach our conversation based on what I am saying, rather than what I’m not saying.

I’m honestly doing my best, Electra. I apologize if I have offended you. I feel like I have made a good-faith effort to hear what you are actually saying, which is why I try to directly quote you as much as possible.

quote:
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.

Again, this isn’t about a need I have to pin you down with a label. I’m just trying to understand you. Thus far, you have offered a seemingly contradictory position on deadly force. I have tried (but apparently failed) to explain what I find contradictory about it. I’ll try to do better. I would dispute, however, your contention that I have not dealt specifically with what you have said. I have directly quoted you time and again, demonstrating that while you believe that it is sin to ever use deadly force, you at the same time say that deadly force is justifiable in certain situations.

Lest I be accused of not addressing your actual statements again, I will again directly quote you:

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

"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."

And then you say:

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).

My simple question is: Which is it? Does the scriptural principle Love Your Enemy “prohibit killing enemies,” as you say, or are there occasions in which killing enemies is not in fact prohibited, as you also say?

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 5/19/2003 6:41 AM (GMT -6)

John Earp, Paul, honorman, I look forward to responding to the issues you raise when I get a chance.

Briefly:

Paul, one definition of love that is shared by a number of participants on this board is: “Ascribing infinite worth to another at cost to yourself.”

BJS, maybe this distinction will help clarify. Ethics, morality, and justice all have to do with the law. According to the law, the use of deadly force can be justified on a range of grounds, including self-defense or trespassing. My question is not about what is justifiable, but rather, what is loving. I do not deny the possibility that using deadly force against an enemy can be consistent with loving that enemy, but I personally cannot imagine how. I assume that those of you in this discussion who advocate the use of deadly force have some way of working this out.

Electra

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

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 5/19/2003 8:44 AM (GMT -6)

Electra:

quote:
BJS, maybe this distinction will help clarify. Ethics, morality, and justice all have to do with the law. According to the law, the use of deadly force can be justified on a range of grounds, including self-defense or trespassing. My question is not about what is justifiable, but rather, what is loving. I do not deny the possibility that using deadly force against an enemy can be consistent with loving that enemy, but I personally cannot imagine how. I assume that those of you in this discussion who advocate the use of deadly force have some way of working this out.

I'll try one more time: Is killing an enemy ALWAYS sinful?

Why so evasive and cryptic on this? You're killing me here.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 5/19/2003 9:05 AM (GMT -6)

BJS: I'll try one more time: Is killing an enemy ALWAYS sinful?

Electra: I think that your question is linked with mine: Is killing an enemy EVER loving? To both questions I would answer: I grant that it may be possible (that killing is not ALWAYS sinful/is SOMETIMES loving). I admit that I can’t see how. Since you and others on this board advocate the use of deadly force against enemies, I thought you could help me understand this. Instead, I am the one on the defensive, and I am the one being accused of being evasive and cryptic.

BJS: Why so evasive and cryptic on this? You're killing me here.

Electra: I have nothing to hide. I am sorry that I haven't been able to clarify my position to your satisfaction. Is there anything else you wish to say in order to clarify your own position, or is the MAD doctrine the best articulation of it?

Electra

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

Edited by - Electra on 05/19/2003 2:09:27 PM

Paul5388
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295

Posted 5/19/2003 10:41 AM (GMT -6)

Electra,

If I just ascribe (ascribe: to refer to a supposed cause, source or author/ lay something to the account of a person or thing (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 107)) some value to a person or object, there really isn’t any action taken outside the mental exercise. Agapate is an action word that suggests far more than just mental exercises. One can ascribe to the validity of the gospel message and still be lost, because there is no action on what is known to be true. Yes, it cost them time and energy to have those thoughts, so it did cost them something. It’s a situation that reminds me of this passage from James 2.16, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? It seems to be a very inadequate definition for love when action is left out.

Jesus said this in Luke 19:27, But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. It has been said that the best way to understand the meaning of ones words is to watch those words in action. In other words, Jesus said “love your enemies”, but we find “slaying” (to kill off, to slaughter) those enemies to also be an action commanded by Jesus. Houston, we have a problem! Are we to understand that which is future (the slaying referred to is a future event) is totally unrelated to the present? Are we to understand the Old Testament and the killing commanded by God, has no bearing on the present? I submit that He who is “the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever” has a consistant attitude toward killing.

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 5/19/2003 6:56 PM (GMT -6)

Hi Electra,

I've been thinking about your definition of love. If by "ascribing infinite worth" you mean "not ever killing" a man who is killing schoolchildren one by one, then by definition I am NOT "ascribing infinite worth" to the schoolchildren he continues to murder, and I therefore am actually misjudging the relative worth of all involved in that particular scenario.

Therefore I honestly don't see how the concept of "infinite worth" can possibly apply to everyone. The only one who is worthy of such ascription is God himself, who is in fact of infinite worth; all others' worth is relative to God.

"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

Edited by - John Earp on 05/19/2003 11:59:15 PM

honorman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137

Posted 5/20/2003 4:59 AM (GMT -6)

John: you are pointing out a central theme that I have been trying to articulate. We cannot in any form love our enemy in isolation, but must always take into account those around us and how it will effect them. Ascribing infinite worth to one person is, that sense, impossible because to do so would mean you would not be ascribing to not only those God has given us but also to other enemies God has called us to live. It is an impossibility. Rather we are called to love all to the best of our abilities, taking into account how to best all those around us together.

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 5/20/2003 5:11 AM (GMT -6)

Paul

quote:
If I just ascribe (ascribe: to refer to a supposed cause, source or author/ lay something to the account of a person or thing (Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 107)) some value to a person or object, there really isn’t any action taken outside the mental exercise. Agapate is an action word that suggests far more than just mental exercises. One can ascribe to the validity of the gospel message and still be lost, because there is no action on what is known to be true. Yes, it cost them time and energy to have those thoughts, so it did cost them something. It’s a situation that reminds me of this passage from James 2.16, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? It seems to be a very inadequate definition for love when action is left out.

Maybe “ascribe” isn’t the best choice of words. I agree that love is an action word.

Paul

quote:
Jesus said this in Luke 19:27, But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. It has been said that the best way to understand the meaning of ones words is to watch those words in action. In other words, Jesus said “love your enemies”, but we find “slaying” (to kill off, to slaughter) those enemies to also be an action commanded by Jesus. Houston, we have a problem! Are we to understand that which is future (the slaying referred to is a future event) is totally unrelated to the present? Are we to understand the Old Testament and the killing commanded by God, has no bearing on the present? I submit that He who is “the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever” has a consistant attitude toward killing.

Yikes. This verse is taken from a parable. Even if you draw a one to one analogy between the command given by the ruler in this parable and the command given by Jesus when he said, “Love your enemies,” what do you make of the fact that we have no record of disciples slaying anyone in Jesus’ presence? Do you think the point of this parable is that followers of Jesus should be in the business of slaying his enemies? Or is it possible that the point has something to do with pounds the ruler trusted his servants to use wisely while he was away? The reference to slaughter at the end is a hyperbolic way (a typical literary technique in Jesus’ parables and sermons) to emphasize the urgency of being faithful with what God has entrusted to us.

The Bible does speak of a time of judgment for sins. The prerogative of vengeance is consistently claimed by God throughout the Bible. For example, Jesus’ commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves comes from Lev. 19:18. The whole command goes like this: “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD” (Lev. 19:18). A passage from the book of Sirach that Jesus draws on when he teaches the disciples how to pray (Matt. 6:12, 14; Mark 11:25) begins with this warning: “The vengeful will face the Lord’s vengeance, for he keeps a strict account of their sins” (Sir. 28:1). If using deadly force against an enemy is done out of vengeance rather than love, it is taking something God claims for Godself into our own hands.

God’s vengeance against enemies is celebrated in the Song of Moses’ (Deut. 32:33–43). The author of Hebrews refers to this song in order to encourage believers to keep the faith, rather than sanctioning the use of deadly force against enemies: “For we know the one who said, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay.’ And again, ‘The Lord will judge his people.’ It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb. 10:30–31). Paul also quotes from this song in the fuller context of that passage in Romans you cited in a previous post: “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’ No, ‘if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Rom. 12:19). Whatever the obscure reference to “heaping burning coals” on someone’s head might mean (here Paul is quoting from Prov. 25:21–22), it has to do with giving our enemies food when they are hungry and drink when they are thirsty and overcoming evil with good.

Electra

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

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 5/20/2003 5:33 AM (GMT -6)

honorman

quote:
I think it is also important to recognize that loving a person's enemies does not happen in a vacumn. We are called to love the people around us collectively, which means we must take into account how to best love everyone.

I don’t think it’s possible to love people “collectively,” because this involves abstraction. The good of the whole is the realm of ethics, but love upholds the worth of each one. This worth is not relative to their relationship to me—e.g. my child is worth more than my enemy; but rather is relative to their relationship to God—e.g. Jesus died for each person so they could come to live in love with God and neighbor.

honorman

quote:
Also, parents have a higher responsibility to love their children before their enemies, because their children are a gift from God. Therefore, the concept of "loving your enemies," must take into account the responsibility we have to love those God has given to us.

I totally agree that children are a gift from God, and this gift comes with responsibility. Jesus’ command to love our enemies does not diminish this. The Golden Rule (“Do to others as you would have them do unto you”) was a common standard throughout first-century Jewish and Gentile cultures. Jesus’ interpretation of this rule as loving our enemies (Luke 6) is what distinguished Christian love from pagan love. Christians aren’t the only parents who value loving their children. Christianity is more than just a tool to help us love the people we would be most inclined to love anyway a little bit better.

Electra

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

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 5/20/2003 6:11 AM (GMT -6)

John, thanks for your questions. I will try to get to them when I have a chance. Electra

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

Paul5388
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 295

Posted 5/20/2003 10:26 AM (GMT -6)

Electra,

When you say this

quote:
Yikes. This verse is taken from a parable. ...
The reference to slaughter at the end is a hyperbolic way (a typical literary technique in Jesus’’ parables and sermons) to emphasize the urgency of being faithful with what God has entrusted to us.

are you trying to say Jesus, who spoke this parable, told something that wasn’t/isn’t true? I find that suggestion to be very inconsistent with Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

quote:
what do you make of the fact that we have no record of disciples slaying anyone in Jesus’’ presence?

I think I addressed that point before you asked it, “Are we to understand that which is future (the slaying referred to is a future event) is totally unrelated to the present?” Rev 19.14, 21 14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

Now, let’s consider a scenario where an enemy is killing a neighbor and you are present to stop that killing. Is the enemy of greater value or is the neighbor? They can’t both be “infinite worth”, which implies that there is nothing of greater value. Matt. 22 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
It seems pretty clear, from the order assigned to the two greatest commandments, that loving your enemy has to be a lesser priority than loving your neighbor. If you allow the neighbor to be killed, you have violated the second greatest commandment.

I might also ask where you got this idea,

quote:
If using deadly force against an enemy is done out of vengeance rather than love, it is taking something God claims for Godself into our own hands.

I don’t believe anyone has suggested anything remotely resembling vengeance. Just about everyone has taken the position of protecting family/friends/children/neighbors as a situation that might justify the use of deadly force.

BTW, judgement and vengeance are two different things.

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 5/21/2003 5:01 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

BJS: I'll try one more time: Is killing an enemy ALWAYS sinful?

Electra: I think that your question is linked with mine: Is killing an enemy EVER loving? To both questions I would answer: I grant that it may be possible (that killing is not ALWAYS sinful/is SOMETIMES loving). I admit that I can’t see how. Since you and others on this board advocate the use of deadly force against enemies, I thought you could help me understand this. Instead, I am the one on the defensive, and I am the one being accused of being evasive and cryptic.

You are indeed "on the defensive." I just don't know why. I'm trying to understand your position. In order to do so, it is necessary to ask you questions about your position. Why is this so difficult? Have you taken offense at something?

Contrary to your suggestion, I have never resisted explaining my position to you. I think killing is justifiable when it is the most loving thing to do. Is the point of my question to you just not being understood? It seems obvious to me. You claim that killing an enemy is always prohibited, but then you concede examples of situations in which killing an enemy is not prohibited. Why wouldn't I wonder how your position can hold to both of these propositions at the same time?

*sound of my head exploding*

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 5/21/2003 7:00 AM (GMT -6)

BJS: You are indeed "on the defensive." I just don't know why. I'm trying to understand your position.

Electra: I thought this thread was about trying to understand the rationale behind carrying a loaded concealed weapon. I'm trying to articulate questions about a view I admit I don't get. You have confused this for an articulation of my own position. If my intention were to help people understand my position better, I wouldn't do it in the form of questions about a position I don't hold. No wonder you are confused.

BJS: In order to do so, it is necessary to ask you questions about your position. Why is this so difficult?

Electra: This is not about my position, its about the position of those who support the use of deadly force for self-defense. Some of us have some questions about that. What difference does my position make in your articulation of your own view?

BJS: Have you taken offense at something?

Electra: No.

BJS: Contrary to your suggestion, I have never resisted explaining my position to you. I think killing is justifiable when it is the most loving thing to do.

Electra: OK. Legally and ethically, killing is justifiable whether or not it is the most loving thing to do. My question is not about the justifiability of killing. I grant that it may be possible to simultaneously kill an enemy and love an enemy. But I don't see how. You have not answered this question.

BJS: Is the point of my question to you just not being understood? It seems obvious to me. You claim that killing an enemy is always prohibited, but then you concede examples of situations in which killing an enemy is not prohibited.

Electra: I have not claimed that killing an enemy is always prohibited. I grant that it is not prohibited by the law or by ethics. I wonder if it is prohibited by love, though I grant that it is possible that love may permit it. I just don't see how. And this is where you could help me.

Electra

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

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 5/21/2003 7:19 AM (GMT -6)

Paul: are you trying to say Jesus, who spoke this parable, told something that wasn’t/isn’t true? I find that suggestion to be very inconsistent with Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Electra: I believe the whole Bible is true, and that God never lies like people do. My point was that I think you misinterpreted the truth of the parable you cited. I think it has more to do with using our God-given gifts wisely, rather than sanctioning the use of deadly force.

Paul: I think I addressed that point before you asked it, “Are we to understand that which is future (the slaying referred to is a future event) is totally unrelated to the present?”

Electra: The way the future is related to the present is that God claims all rights to vengeance. God will mediate vengeance as God sees fit as time passes, but there will come a day when the deeds of every person will be uncovered and they will receive judgment or mercy. In the parable you cited, the ruler was the one who judged each servant, and the ruler was the one who dictated the slaying. It's just not our job. Anyone who takes this responsibility upon themselves is making a claim to something only God has a right to. If you are interested in trying your hand at God's job, then refusing to sacrifice yourself for vile people is a bad way to start.

Paul: Now, let’s consider a scenario where an enemy is killing a neighbor and you are present to stop that killing. Is the enemy of greater value or is the neighbor? They can’t both be “infinite worth”, which implies that there is nothing of greater value.

Electra: Did Jesus die for some people more than others? Who do you think you are to judge the worth of someone Jesus died for? Reread Jesus' response to the lawyer who wanted to justify himself by figuring out which people were his neighbor and which ones were not. Neighbors are those who show mercy. If you kill someone that you decide deserves to die, then you are not a neighbor.

Paul: I don’t believe anyone has suggested anything remotely resembling vengeance. Just about everyone has taken the position of protecting family/friends/children/neighbors as a situation that might justify the use of deadly force.

Electra: There is no question that killing people to protect those who are close to you is a loving thing to do for your family/friends/children/neighbors. But how is it a loving thing to do for the people you kill? How is it any different than what any decent human being would do? What difference does you faith and allegiance to Christ make in your decision? Please reread Luke 6.

Electra

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

Edited by - Electra on 05/21/2003 12:47:03 PM

ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655

Posted 5/21/2003 7:45 AM (GMT -6)

Electra:

Jesus' Beatitudes are VERY difficult to practice. If someone hits us, we're supposed to give him our other cheek for him to hit. If someone takes our coat, we are supposed to give more to the thief. If we lend someone money, we are not to ask for it back.

Does anyone actually follow these precepts?

People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
--Søren Kierkegaard

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 5/21/2003 9:39 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Electra: I thought this thread was about trying to understand the rationale behind carrying a loaded concealed weapon. I'm trying to articulate questions about a view I admit I don't get. You have confused this for an articulation of my own position. If my intention were to help people understand my position better, I wouldn't do it in the form of questions about a position I don't hold. No wonder you are confused.

This is not about my position, its about the position of those who support the use of deadly force for self-defense. Some of us have some questions about that. What difference does my position make in your articulation of your own view?

This is honestly getting silly. Yes, Electra, this thread originated with a discussion of the conceal and carry laws, but it has obviously expanded itself to other related topics (like the vast majority of threads on this board), including the underlying ideologies that drive many people's opposition to conceal and carry laws. For you to refuse to answer questions about the ideology that motivates your opposition to conceal and carry laws because it's somehow "off-topic" is simply petty and evasive. Are you telling me to start another thread now?

quote:
BJS: Is the point of my question to you just not being understood? It seems obvious to me. You claim that killing an enemy is always prohibited, but then you concede examples of situations in which killing an enemy is not prohibited.

Electra: I have not claimed that killing an enemy is always prohibited. I grant that it is not prohibited by the law or by ethics. I wonder if it is prohibited by love, though I grant that it is possible that love may permit it. I just don't see how. And this is where you could help me.

When will these word games end? All right, I guess I’m forced to play. How’s this:

You seem to be saying that you can't understand how killing an enemy would not be prohibited by love. Right?

Which means killing enemies is sin. Right?

Which means that to advocate killing an enemy under any circumstances, one would be advocating something unloving and sinful. Right?

So, in order to avoid advocating sin, one must never advocate killing an enemy. Right?

Given the above, do you still wonder why you're coming across to me as a conflicted pacifist?

Okay, despite the fact that you have apparently decided to preclude your own position from inquiry, in an effort to keep this conversation alive (I'm a glutton for punishment), I will continue to explain my position to you.

As I said before, I believe killing an enemy is justified (in every way: legally, ethically, and morally) if it is the most loving thing to do. Moreover, the "most loving thing to do" can often not be determined in some sort of one-on-one moral vacuum. One has to consider how an action will affect everyone concerned, not just the person who you are killing. As I've said many times before, loving one's enemies must be coordinated with loving one's neighbors. This is the fundamental principle behind the just war theory, and it also applies to the theory of justified individual self-defense.

Carrying a weapon is one way that people have historically enabled their ability to fight off enemies. You may be able to argue that allowing citizens to arm themselves ultimately causes more harm than good, but I don't believe you can oppose it based upon your pacifist contention that it is always unloving to kill an enemy, because to do so, in my opinion, is to ignore the obligation to love your neighbor. That obligation means we must defend each other from violent criminals, and sometimes, despite all the other non-violent means we have at our disposal, that obligation may unfortunately require deadly force.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

Edited by - BJS on 05/21/2003 2:41:06 PM

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 5/21/2003 11:19 AM (GMT -6)

BJS: You seem to be saying that you can't understand how killing an enemy would not be prohibited by love. Right?

Electra: Right. I also grant that it may be permitted.

BJS: Which means killing enemies is sin. Right?

Electra: If it’s not done in love for the enemy.

BJS: Which means that to advocate killing an enemy under any circumstances, one would be advocating something unloving and sinful. Right?

Electra: If it is possible to simultaneously kill an enemy and love an enemy, then it is possible to advocate doing so without advocating something sinful.

BJS: So, in order to avoid advocating sin, one must never advocate killing an enemy. Right?

Electra: This would only be the case if it was impossible to simultaneously kill someone and love someone.

BJS: Moreover, the "most loving thing to do" can often not be determined in some sort of one-on-one moral vacuum.

Electra: I’m not sure what you mean by this.

BJS: One has to consider how an action will affect everyone concerned, not just the person who you are killing.

Electra: I agree.

BJS: As I've said many times before, loving one's enemies must be coordinated with loving one's neighbors.

Electra: On what basis do we make distinctions between who is our neighbor and who is not?

BJS: This is the fundamental principle behind the just war theory, and it also applies to the theory of justified individual self-defense.

Electra: The just war theory is an ethical theory. It makes claims about what is justifiable, not what is loving. You seem to be saying that whatever is loving is justifiable. This is not the same as saying that whatever is justifiable is loving.

BJS: …I don't believe you can oppose it based upon your pacifist contention…

Electra: I am not a pacifist, I am not motivated by pacifist ideology, and I am not making pacifist contentions. Please drop this. I have been appealing to the teachings and example of Jesus. If you think I have misinterpreted them or misapplied them—which is quite possible—then let’s talk about that.

BJS: …that it is always unloving to kill an enemy…

Electra: I have not claimed this. Again, I grant that it is possible to simultaneously love someone and kill them. I just don’t see how. I am not trying to play word games or evade questions or punish you. This is the clearest expression I can come up with on this issue. I take it seriously and I am not trying to be silly.

BJS: …because to do so, in my opinion, is to ignore the obligation to love your neighbor.

Electra: I don’t see the obligation to love self/neighbor and enemy as an either/or. How this looks in practice can be complicated and painful, but the obligation to love both seems clear to me.

BJS: That obligation means we must defend each other from violent criminals, and sometimes, despite all the other non-violent means we have at our disposal, that obligation may unfortunately require deadly force.

Electra: I agree that there may be times when it is necessary to kill someone in order to save self/others. In those cases, what are the implications for our obligation to love our enemy? Does the necessity of a killing make it a loving thing to do to that person? Does necessity entail exemption from the obligation to love that person? On what basis do we subordinate the call to love our enemy beneath the call to love self/neighbor?

Electra

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

Edited by - Electra on 05/21/2003 4:28:02 PM

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 5/21/2003 12:30 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
BJS: You seem to be saying that you can't understand how killing an enemy would not be prohibited by love. Right?

Electra: Right. I also grant that it may be permitted.

BJS: Which means killing enemies is sin. Right?

Electra: If it’s not done in love for the enemy.

BJS: Which means that to advocate killing an enemy under any circumstances, one would be advocating something unloving and sinful. Right?

Electra: If it is possible to simultaneously kill an enemy and love an enemy, then it is possible to advocate doing so without advocating something sinful.

BJS: So, in order to avoid advocating sin, one must never advocate killing an enemy. Right?

Electra: This would only be the case if it was impossible to simultaneously kill someone and love someone.

You should have been a lawyer. Your capacity for rhetorical maneuvering is quite impressive. Not very helpful, but impressive.

quote:
BJS: …I don't believe you can oppose it based upon your pacifist contention…

Electra: I am not a pacifist, I am not motivated by pacifist ideology, and I am not making pacifist contentions. Please drop this. I have been appealing to the teachings and example of Jesus. If you think I have misinterpreted them or misapplied them—which is quite possible—then let’s talk about that.

Please chill out. You act as if you are being stigmatized as some sort of card-carrying member of a political organization. I merely used an adjective that I felt described what you are trying to say. I'm doing the best I can with the equivocal definition of your position that you are willing to provide.

quote:
BJS: …that it is always unloving to kill an enemy…

Electra: I have not claimed this. Again, I grant that it is possible to simultaneously love someone and kill them. I just don’t see how. I am not trying to play word games or evade questions or punish you. This is the clearest expression I can come up with on this issue. I take it seriously and I am not trying to be silly.

This is what I'm talking about, Electra. Whether you're trying to play them or not, these are word games. Look at what you said. If you "don't see how. . .it is possible to simultaneously love someone and kill them", then you are in effect saying that it is, as I said above, "unloving to kill an enemy." Just say it out loud, and let us move on.

quote:
Electra: I don’t see the obligation to love self/neighbor and enemy as an either/or. How this looks in practice can be complicated and painful, but the obligation to love both seems clear to me.

BJS: That obligation means we must defend each other from violent criminals, and sometimes, despite all the other non-violent means we have at our disposal, that obligation may unfortunately require deadly force.

Electra: I agree that there may be times when it is necessary to kill someone in order to save self/others. In those cases, what are the implications for our obligation to love our enemy? Does the necessity of a killing make it a loving thing to do to that person? Does necessity entail exemption from the obligation to love that person? On what basis do we subordinate the call to love our enemy beneath the call to love self/neighbor?

See below.

quote:
BJS: One has to consider how an action will affect everyone concerned, not just the person who you are killing.

Electra: I agree.

Okay. If you agree with this statement, then you agree with my fundamental point about whether killing an enemy can ever be the most loving thing to do. I believe that it can sometimes be the most loving thing to do, even if it is a less than perfect alternative in this less than perfect world. No, in this world, I do not believe it is possible to never harm anyone, because oftentimes interests collide--and collide violently. You ask how it is loving an enemy to kill him? Yet how can it be loving to the enemy's victim to allow him to be killed? So we have competing interests here, right? Therefore, we are forced to decide what action on our part would produce the most loving result. I believe that killing an enemy in order to protect the innocent is an effort to produce the most loving result possible.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 5/21/2003 12:46 PM (GMT -6)

ReasonableDoubt

Does anyone actually follow these precepts?

Iconoclast

Ghandi did. And it worked pretty well I might add.

Also, Jesus is not telling us to be doormats here. Jesus is teaching us about non-violent resistance. Take for example the one about if a Roman soldier makes you carry his pack for a mile then you should carry it for two miles. The Roman law was that a soldier could force a Jewish person to carry their pack for one mile but NO MORE. To carry the soldiers pack two miles would actually get the Roman soldier in trouble with his commanding officer. The same sort of thing is going on with the other two items Jesus mentioned - the turn the other cheek has to do with a Jewish custom that it was okay to slap someone with the right hand but only with an open hand - to slap someone backhanded was considered extremely shameful as well as with the left hand - thus to turn the other cheek is to, in essence, let the person know that what they did was considered by you to be an extremely shameful act. I read this in Walter Wink's book "The Powers that Be". Good stuff.

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

Iconoclast
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227

Posted 5/21/2003 12:56 PM (GMT -6)

Electra

I grant that it may be possible to simultaneously kill an enemy and love an enemy. But I don't see how. You have not answered this question.

Iconoclast

How about this:

1. You know Hitler is in the midst of committing genocide.
2. You know he will not stop but must be stopped.
3. The only means you have to stop him is to kill him.

I think that to love Hitler given this scenario would be to kill him. If you were in the midst of committing genocide and no one could talk you out of it and the only way someone could stop you would be to kill you do you think it would be a loving thing to do for that person to stop you from committing more murders (like a million more let's say) by killing you? My answer to this is yes. I would consider it loving for someone to stop me from murdering millions of people, even if it meant killing me.

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

John Earp
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715

Posted 5/21/2003 3:07 PM (GMT -6)

Not meaning to be pushy, but I sincerely would like to hear how one can truly ascribe infinite to anyone but God.

(From my earlier post).

Hi Electra,

I've been thinking about your definition of love. If by "ascribing infinite worth" you mean "not ever killing" a man who is killing schoolchildren one by one, then by definition I am NOT "ascribing infinite worth" to the schoolchildren he continues to murder, and I therefore am actually misjudging the relative worth of all involved in that particular scenario.

Therefore I honestly don't see how the concept of "infinite worth" can possibly apply to everyone. The only one who is worthy of such ascription is God himself, who is in fact of infinite worth; all others' worth is relative to God.

"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.

revivaltheology.net

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

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:27 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