# Murder



## Scott Bushey (Jun 25, 2006)

Is there ever an excuse for murder? 

Wikipedia states: 



> In criminal law, murder is the crime of causing the death of other human beings, *without lawful excuse*, which is traditionally termed "malice aforethought". In attempted murder, the mens rea requirement, Latin for "guilty mind", is limited. In some common law jurisdictions, an accused is not guilty of murder if the victim lives for longer than a year and a day after the attack. This reflects the likelihood that, if the victim has survived so long after the initial attack, there will be other factors contributing to the cause of death and so break the chain of causation. Subject to the local statute of limitation, the accused can still be charged with an offense representing the seriousness of the initial assault. But, with the advance of modern medicine, the majority of countries have abandoned a fixed time period and test causation on the facts. In most countries murder is considered the most serious crime, and invokes the highest punishment available under the law. As with most legal terms, the precise definition varies between jurisdictions.



Is _Malice Aforethought_ a misnomer biblically? As Christians, it ok for the abortionist to practice right under our noses? Is this an example of _Malice Aforethought_, and how should the Christian understand the practice in relation the the Word of God?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 25, 2006)

What Paul said.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jun 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Is there ever an excuse for murder?



One may speak of a justifiable killing or a justifiable homicide, which only occurs when self-defense is a necessity for the protection of one's own life or the life of another. Murder is by definition "without lawful excuse" always and therefore is always immoral, wrong and unlawful. There are degrees, and the Bible even makes a distinction between involuntary manslaughter owing to negligence and killing with "malice aforethought" which is murder. In our system, crimes in the heat of passion are not as severely punished typically, but the merits of that lesser punishment are moot.

I don't see the point in pulling out American Jurisprudence, 2d. or a criminal law book. This stuff is cut and dry. Murder is wrong. Self-defense within certain reasonable constraints makes a homicide justifiable legally and ethically.

So, the simple answer to Scott's query, _"Is there ever an excuse for murder?"_ is always going to be a resounding *"No."* If you supplanted "_killing_" for "_murder_," then self-defense remains a justification for taking the life of another, and homicide in self-defense is assuredly not to be confused with an act of murder.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jun 25, 2006)

See Ex 21:12ff, Num. 35:10ff.

BTW I notice the NIV has "malice aforethought" at Num. 35:20 where most other translations have "hatred". My guess is that the rendering there is influenced by that term from the common law. I would argue that "hatred" that appears in most other versions is more easily understood by most.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jun 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> See Ex 21:12ff, Num. 35:10ff.
> 
> BTW I notice the NIV has "malice aforethought" at Num. 35:20 where most other translations have "hatred". My guess is that the rendering there is influenced by that term from the common law. I would argue that "hatred" that appears in most other versions is more easily understood by most.



"Malice aforethought" conveys premeditation. The NIV writers were trying more to sneak "common law" words into the translation perhaps than actually exercise precision in the translation. But the Biblical Principle remains the same either way, whether it is rendered "hatred" or not.

Interestingly, I had a professor throw a monkeywrench in the barrel, and remind the class that "self-defense can be premeditated." Granted, a person does make provision for procuring the means of self-defense (i.e. acquiring a weapon) in most every case, and it is not always improvised at the last minute when a person acts in self-defense.

I would be interested to hear what any Hebrew scholars thought about the original words. I've heard discrepencies from different parties who are supposedly cognizant of the issue.

[Edited on 6-26-2006 by Puritanhead]


----------



## Puritanhead (Jun 25, 2006)

Paul,

FYI For clarity, I was trying to elucidate further, not rebut your exposing California's statutory contradictions, and did not really have abortion in mind when I posted.

Statutes in many jurisdictions, federal included, are at times notoriously poorly written and structured. While statutory law supplants the common law rules, sometimes the common law rules have to be kept in mind when statutes are ambigious. The first principles are always there in the shadows.


----------



## bigheavyq (Jun 26, 2006)

Killing with malice aforethought is not always murder. besides self defense, war and execution are both with malice. You want to kill the enemy. You want that murderer to have justice. Accidental death in the old testament is not considered murder unless the victim is an unborn child.
I guess that puts a new light on the abortion issue.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jun 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by bigheavyq_
> Killing with malice aforethought is not always murder. besides self defense, war and execution are both with malice. You want to kill the enemy. You want that murderer to have justice. Accidental death in the old testament is not considered murder unless the victim is an unborn child.
> I guess that puts a new light on the abortion issue.



Jonathan,

Malice by every legal definition"”whether you look it up in Black's Law Dictionary or Barron's Law Dictionary"”implies no justification for a killing is present. Dare I say that you're wrong on this one?

The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon On Malice

If you want to redefine it... that's your prerogative, and far be it for me to bind people by the lexicon of legalese and the courts, but _legally_ your definition doesn't hold water.

Respectfully,
Ryan


----------



## SRoper (Jun 26, 2006)

"Killing with malice aforethought is not always murder. besides self defense, war and execution are both with malice. You want to kill the enemy. You want that murderer to have justice."

Besides Ryan's point about your use of the word malice, (personal) self-defense should not be included with war and execution. The latter two are done by the authority of the sword. An individual can not morally intend to bring about justice by his action of self-defense because he does not have that authority.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jun 26, 2006)

I'm not going to argue this with all the nuanced exceptions people perceive to "malice aforethought"... I don't care. I am not in pre-law or law school anymore anyway.

Murder is wrong. Nough said. Point made.


----------



## bigheavyq (Jun 26, 2006)

I thought malice aforethought ment intent to do physical harm to another. 
I mainly have a problem with the issue of hate crimes. murder is murder and according to God's law requires execution.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 26, 2006)

What would be the Christians responsibility if he was in a situation where a murder was about to happen?


----------



## SRoper (Jun 27, 2006)

"What do you do when you have a mother who's driving to an abortion clinic intent on terminating her pregnancy, who's fetus is killed when the abortionist who's to perform that abortion runs a red light and crashes into the mother's car?

"The same doctor, the same mother, the same baby, who is now dead consistent with the ultimate intention of both the mother and the abortionist. In this case, though, the doctor is guilty of homicide. If he'd have just waited a few more minutes and not run the light, but killed the same baby through D & C abortion or saline abortion or even partial-birth abortion, the very same baby could have been killed legally. Odd, isn't it?" 

Is this any more odd than a condemned man being tranported and his executioner running a red light and striking the transport, killing the man he was scheduled to kill anyway?


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Jun 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> Of course we should not confuse *lawful* with *legal.*
> 
> ...


That helps alot. I was able to explain it before but not that easily. Thanks.


----------



## LarryCook (Jun 27, 2006)

> ...the Therapeutic Abortion Act



therÂ·aÂ·peuÂ·tic
Pronunciation: -'pyÃ¼t-ik
Function: adjective
1 : of or relating to the treatment of disease or disorders by remedial agents


----------



## Civbert (Jun 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> "What do you do when you have a mother who's driving to an abortion clinic intent on terminating her pregnancy, who's fetus is killed when the abortionist who's to perform that abortion runs a red light and crashes into the mother's car?
> 
> ...
> ...



Interesting scenarios. In the case of both car crashes, the fetus and the condemned man are both considered persons and both the executioner and the abortionist are guilty of manslaughter.

On the other hand, the abortionist and the executioner are still protected by the law in the performance of a "legal" killing. Although the law see the condemned man as a person, and the fetus as a blob of tissue, the results are still the same - a living things being legally killed. 

Of course, as it's been noted, "legal" does not necessarily mean "lawful" in God's eyes. Most Christians agree that while there is lawful biblical warrant for executing prisoners, the same is not true for an unborn child. 

It appears the US law is a bit schizoid when it comes to the person-hood of an unborn infant. Apparently it depends on the circumstances. Kill a pregnant woman and her fetus, or cause the death of a fetus by auto accident, and the fetus is considered a person. But if you kill a fetus on purpose, especially with the mother's consent, and the fetus is not a blob of tissue. 

This gets into the definition of person - is a person defined by pain and brain activity. Is matter and energy a necessary precondition of person-hood - or is a existence of a soul the only necessary precondition of being a person? Let's go off on a tangent! Whee!!


----------



## Civbert (Jun 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> What would be the Christians responsibility if he was in a situation where a murder was about to happen?



Try to prevent it.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Jun 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> On the other hand, the abortionist and the executioner are still protected by the law in the performance of a "legal" killing. Although the law see the condemned man as a person, and the fetus as a blob of tissue, the results are still the same - a living things being legally killed.



It is easily demonstrated that the zygote/embryo/fetus (what have you, the prenatal being) is a human being. A critical analysis of the functionality arguments for personhood reveal that they are inadequate and flawed. Note that the unborn entity is not only a living thing, but a living human being. 



> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> Of course, as it's been noted, "legal" does not necessarily mean "lawful" in God's eyes. Most Christians agree that while there is lawful biblical warrant for executing prisoners, the same is not true for an unborn child.



Even atheist agree that there is an underlying difference, which obviously shows their contradictory nature in that they deny absolute morality (we have to look at the claim of "relative morality" more deeply in order to understand why I am saying this). Even the atheist must note that even though it was at one time legal to murder Jews under Hitler's command in the German society, it was morally impermissable (even though the society "liked" what was being done). 




> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> This gets into the definition of person - is a person defined by pain and brain activity. Is matter and energy a necessary precondition of person-hood - or is a existence of a soul the only necessary precondition of being a person? Let's go off on a tangent! Whee!!


I agree with you here, even though you can take the argument a different way. Even when a lawyer is not functioning as a lawyer, he is still a lawyer. Even when a human being is not functioning as a person, s/he is still a person. The underlying identity is does not change in either case. Of course with a human being, s/he is still a person even if they have *yet to ever* functioned as a person.

It seems the major arguments promoting abortion these days are 1) That the unborn child is not a person because of the lack of development of the cerebral cortex, and 2) One human being "supposedly" does not have the right to use another human beings body (note that the only case in which this is analogous is during pregnancy, as any analogies of one human being using another human beings body outside of pregnancy are unnatural, whereas pregnancy is a natural event).


----------



## SRoper (Jun 27, 2006)

"Yes, because the criminal is considered human nonetheless in *both* instances.

"One is justifiable homicide, the other is possibly man 2, or something like that, but the guy killed is viewed as a human person in both cases."

Hmm, it seems that in both cases in Greg Koukl's scenario the being is a fetus, not a human person in one case and "man 2" in another.

"Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought."

Nowhere does it say that a fetus belongs to the class human being. So it could be that it is not a human being in either case.

"also, your analogy equates the just killing of a murderer to what happens to the fetus undergoing murder by abortion, not [sic] *that's* odd!"

Well, they are the same in the sense that both actions are permitted legally. My point is that the "oddness" that comes about by changing the timing and circumstances surrounding the death is a poor indicator of whether the law is inconsistent.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 27, 2006)

The thread has gone exactly as I planned. The bible says that a fetus is a life; should believers intervene; should we be more proactive?


----------



## MW (Jun 27, 2006)

Proactive, yes, only in the sense of following the regular procedure for law reforms. Not in the sense of disturbing the peace.


----------



## JasonGoodwin (Jun 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> The thread has gone exactly as I planned.



No kidding! If anything, I would say that starting something like this challenges people's assumptions. It forces them to not just believe that murder is wrong, but to answer why and give a valid explanation.

As for my answer, Scripture couldn't be any clearer than what it says in the Pentateuch. (Sorry, I don't have my Strong's in front of me to give the precise references.)


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> Proactive, yes, only in the sense of following the regular procedure for law reforms. Not in the sense of disturbing the peace.



If the civil law breaks Gods law does that make it right? I assume you would advocate the smuggling of bibles into areas like China where it breaks Gods law, no? Are you being consistant?


----------



## MW (Jun 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> If the civil law breaks Gods law does that make it right? I assume you would advocate the smuggling of bibles into areas like China where it breaks Gods law, no? Are you being consistant?



In a fallen world consistency is well nigh impossible, given the degree of ethical variables in any given situation. If someone is willing to risk his life by smuggling Bibles into China, may God be with him. It does not follow that one is obliged to disturb the peace in order to stop the slaughter of innocents.

There are some things in life in which a Christian can only be horrified at the transgression of God's law, Ps. 119:53.


----------



## SRoper (Jun 27, 2006)

"A 'fetus' does not mean it's not a human person."

Right, but your position _requires_ California law to see a fetus as a human person. You have not shown this to be the case.

"2. But the timing and circumstances are what make it inconsistent. It's inconsistent to say that chopping a person up in 5 minutes is not murder because it's done in a doctors office, but it is not [sic] manslaughter is [sic] a person is killed 5 minutes earlier by a negligent driver."

But the timing and circumstances are what make it inconsistent. It's inconsistent to say that poisoning a man is not murder because it is done by a lawful order, but it is manslaughter if the person is killed five minutes earlier by a negligent driver.

"At this point your eebuttal has been to use the guilty murder as a counter example. Unfortualtely this is not an appropriate analogy since in the first case he justly deserves death while in the first case of the fetus s/he does not justly deserve death."

Now you are introducing new ideas such as "justice" and "deserving death" into the argument that really obscure your original objection that the law is inconsistent. In any case, the anlaogy still holds because the fetus's status as to whether he deserves death does not change in the five minute interval between the road and the "clinical" environment and neither does the condemned man's status. The man is just as deserving of death whether he gets killed in an accident or in the death chamber.

You might as well be objecting to my analogy because Koukl's example involves a fetus and an abortionist while mine involves a condemned man and an executioner.


----------



## Civbert (Jun 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...


Hold the presses! Please tell me you are not saying that one is not morally obliged to break minor civil laws in order to save innocent lives!!

Consider this scenario - one in which you would not only be morally obligated to "disturb the peace" but far worse. You go by a house where the top floor is clearly on fire. On the first floor, behind a locked screen door, you see a toddler. Question, are you morally obligated to commit the crime of trespass, breaking and entering, and yes, disturbing the peace, in order to save the toddler? Certainly! I'd also assault someone on the way to the door, and parking in a no parking zone too!




> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> There are some things in life in which a Christian can only be horrified at the transgression of God's law, Ps. 119:53.



Ps. 119:53 in no way says that there are things in life were one can *only* be horrified at the transgression of God's law. It does not in any way say that sometimes we have no choice but to passively sit there and do nothing. We have a moral obligation to proclaim the law to all people. There may be situations where timing or conditions do not allow you to shout out warnings to those who break God's commands, but neither can you justify not warning law-breakers that there are real and eternal consequences to sin. Even if that means disturbing the peace occasionally.

Making correct ethical decisions is not all that difficult - it is the opposite of "well nigh impossible". We have clear guidance that works, even in a fallen world. And unbelievers are capable of making correct moral decisions in most daily situations. There is no excuse for not trying to do the right thing. Consistency impossible? Sure - but some things are clear and the impossibility of perfect consistency is not an excuse for not trying to be consistent.

I hope in this case I have misunderstood what you were trying to say, because the point you seem to be making was very disturbing.


----------



## JasonGoodwin (Jun 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> ...



Sounds to me like we're getting into situational ethics.


----------



## MW (Jun 27, 2006)

I think if you read all of the above posts it will be clear that the situational element is the detrmining factor in the difference between what constitutes murder and what does not.

As for a house being on fire, going on to the property to help people would not be considered trespassing.


----------



## MW (Jun 27, 2006)

I should also like to add,

You are talking to a traditional Presbyterian who believes one hundred percent in the establishment principle, and that it is the duty of the magistrate to uphold both tables of the law.

Do you believe that Christians ought to stand outside idolatrous places of worship and hinder people from going inside to worship? If not, then you uphold the same principle I am advocating.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Jun 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> ...


That is a very good point. Of course we can't break God's law in carrying it out, like blowing up an abortion clinic with people inside, etc. 

To the other posters, I don't think that a situation really changes things that much. If there was a train coming and you have one minute to save a child who's shoe is caught in the tracks, and all you have to do is lift him up and carry him from the tracks, yet you just stare at him and watch him get crushed, that is murder. If you can save a child from burning to death and you sit there and watch her burn, that is murder. Even if indirectly so, it is still murder. Now if you couldn't save them, then no it would not be murder.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 28, 2006)

Consistancy would state that we will not break any civil laws, even if they usurp Gods command, no matter what country or place. Smuggling bibles into China would 'break the peace'. Peace in china is controlled by the civil law. If a breach in that law brings about an assault on that law, the peace is broken.

Caleb:



> That is a very good point. Of course we can't break God's law in carrying it out, like blowing up an abortion clinic with people inside, etc.



Would it be ok if no one was inside?


----------



## MW (Jun 28, 2006)

I do think one needs to differentiate at least between a private breach and flagrant public activity. Smuggling is private, and can at least look to the apostle's actions in preaching the gospel against the wishes of authorities as a precedent. Public disturbing of the peace tended to be the actions of the apostles' enemies.

Another factor which contributes to show the inequality of the comparison is, that only a few individuals do the smuggling. It obviously isn't a moral duty then, because a moral duty by definition is universal.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Jun 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Caleb:
> 
> 
> ...


No, for the building in and of itself isn't doing the killing, the people inside are. At least that is one way of looking at it.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Jun 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> http://www.reformed.org/social/let_2_paul_hill.html


I have only read part of that at the moment, but so far it is a good read. Not sure if your post was directed at me or not, but I wasn't advocating murdering anybody, as that would be violating God's law inorder to carry out God's law, which is contradictory. Then again would it be murder or killing to kill a murderer while he is in the act?


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Jun 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Basically, if the Bible acommands me to save my neighbor's wife whose husband is trying to kill her, even if that means killing then husband, and if Scripture tells us that fetus' are human persons, then why should I not be allowed by Scripture's standards to kill abortionists and not be guilty in God's eyes.


Hmmm



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> if someone was trying to murder your wife and kids you could kill them. Would this violate God's law to carry out God's law?


Nope, because that would be killing and not murder. In addition, the killing is just. That's kind of what I was getting at in my post above...Would it be killing or murder to "terminate" an abortionist and would they have to be in the act or not?


----------



## MW (Jun 29, 2006)

Actually, it depends on whether or not killing the person trying to harm my wife and children was warranted. The attacker might have been rendered harmless, and then nothing but revenge initiated the fatal blow. At which point it would be murder.

Thus showing what was said above is true -- the situation makes the difference.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> just posting in general for the question on how we "stop" abortion.
> 
> Some people would say that we should kill them since self-defense, or other-defense, is recognized, comanded (via 6th commandment), and allowable in Scripture (as well as our culture, but they don't recognize the fetus as human).
> ...



Paul,
You took the words right out of my mouth! As I have said, the thread has developed in exactly the direction I planned. Thanks


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> Actually, it depends on whether or not killing the person trying to harm my wife and children was warranted. The attacker might have been rendered harmless, and then nothing but revenge initiated the fatal blow. At which point it would be murder.
> 
> Thus showing what was said above is true -- the situation makes the difference.



If my home was invaded, unarmed or not, bullets are flying. I am not taking any chances nor am I processing any information.

[Edited on 6-29-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## MW (Jun 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> ...



A court of law would not see it that way. Force must be justified.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Force? If someone invades my home they have forced themselves upon me and my family.



http://www.snowbirds.org/html/gunlaw.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

http://www.flsenate.gov/session/ind...1&BI_Mode=ViewBillInfo&Billnum=0249&Year=2005

The South Rules!

[Edited on 6-29-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Jun 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> A court of law would not see it that way. Force must be justified.


Which is a problem because many times a "video recording" of an event does not take the psychological effects in mind like tunnel vision, auditory exlusion, etc....



> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> Actually, it depends on whether or not killing the person trying to harm my wife and children was warranted. The attacker might have been rendered harmless, and then nothing but revenge initiated the fatal blow. At which point it would be murder.
> 
> Thus showing what was said above is true -- the situation makes the difference.


Thus the question appears that would it be justified to kill an abortionist while s/he is in the process of murdering the baby? (I don't care if the court doesn't see the baby as a human being, it has already been proven that the unborn child is a human being; people now try to claim it is not a person). I understand that the *court* might not see it as justifiable (although perhaps they should if they consider the unborn a human being), 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? 

[Edited on 6-29-2006 by caleb_woodrow]


----------



## MW (Jun 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Force? If someone invades my home they have forced themselves upon me and my family.



This very attitude is the reason why arms should not be permitted to every person.

If I remember correctly the Waco disaster was the result of pseudo-religionists maintaining the same stand.


----------



## MW (Jun 29, 2006)

> _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.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 29, 2006)

How much "hypothetical" do we want to entertain in the discussion.

Barring a forced abortion, the murderous act of the aborionist is at the behest of the mother. The mother is the murderess. We really have to focus on the prime culprit in these crimes. Are you going to kill the mother to save the baby? No? But its OK (I'm not putting these words in anyone's actual mouth here) to kill the abortionist? Do you have to kill anyone to save the life? Suppose you kill the abortionist today, and tomorrow the lady finds another practitioner? See, you can't get away from the mother--the one person in the world who has undeniable jurisdiction and responsibility to interpose.


----------



## Peter (Jun 29, 2006)

Arms should be permitted to every person because self-preservation is the right of every person. Protection from so-called governments that are a licentious deviation of government is the main reason for private ownership of arms.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Uhhhhhh Rev Winzer, did you read the attachments? I am well within my legal rights to bear arms and the law supports my position. I pray you are not calling me a 'pseudo-religionists'.

[Edited on 6-30-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## MW (Jun 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> how has the abortionist been rendered "harmless?"
> I think killing abortionists is the main issue under discussion.



I won't be able to keep up with this medium if it keeps flicking from one scenario to the other. My head doesn't turn tat quickly.

My statement was made within the context of a person breaking into the home, not within the context of a supposed duty to break into another person's premises to stop abortion.


----------



## MW (Jun 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Uhhhhhh Rev Winzer, did you read the attachments? I am well within my legal rights to bear arms and the law supports my position. I pray you are not calling me a 'pseudo-religionists'.



As for what the law grants you, it is within the context of the "justified" force which you cast doubt upon that the law grants you such a right.

The fact you have to ask if I called you a 'pseudo-religionist' is indicative of the fact that I did not.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> Actually, it depends on whether or not killing the person trying to harm my wife and children was warranted. The attacker might have been rendered harmless, and then nothing but revenge initiated the fatal blow. At which point it would be murder.
> 
> Thus showing what was said above is true -- the situation makes the difference.



Matthew,
In response, I agree. Any form of aggression towards my family, i.e. breaking into my secure setting by force is an attempt to forcefully take my possessions, ie my wife and children. God has called me to be protector; in this, I would give my life for them. So, is bearing arms and initiating _warranted_? Absolutely.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



I am legally justified under Florida's 'Stand your ground' law. As far as my question, indicative? I asked because you lumped me in the statement w/the Branch Davidians of Waco. Intenitionally or not, you did (or I took it as you did). If you did not, we're cool.


----------



## MW (Jun 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> In response, I agree. Any form of aggression towards my family, i.e. breaking into my secure setting by force is an attempt to forcefully take my possessions, ie my wife and children. God has called me to be protector; in this, I would give my life for them. So, is bearing arms and initiating _warranted_? Absolutely.



Absolutely warranted, yes, but only if you are willing to be held accountable for the use of arms. This means you will have to think before you start firing bullets, contrary to your assertion above. It will also mean that you accept the authority f the State to hold you to account for the way in which you use the weapon.

I think you will find that it is the failure of citizens to use weapons accountably which has resulted in the responsible action of governments to take away the right altogether.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Have you read the links I posted? I am willing to be held accountable for the use of the firearms I discharge. I have served in two branches of the U. S. Military and am an expert with a firearm. As far as thinking goes, any loud crashes in my home, unatural noises, etc. and out comes the metal; and it only takes one bullet. 

Let me be perfectly clear, I am not a war monger; I do love this country. I am not a member of the Ku Klux Clan, not the NRA (Though I thought of becoming a member). I am God fearing. A husband, father and protector of those I love. Whatever the cost, the devil is going down! 

On the issue of abortion, I like Paul M. believe that it is murder and can to a degree understand Paul Hill's obsession. I am not saying that PH was correct in what he did, just that I am as sickened by this tragedy as he was. It is the rudest form of depravity and I along with God am sickened by it.


----------



## MW (Jun 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> As far as my question, indicative? I asked because you lumped me in the statement w/the Branch Davidians of Waco. Intenitionally or not, you did (or I took it as you did). If you did not, we're cool.



We're cool then. It is quite within the bounds of Christian discussion to mention an erroneous scenario in order to re-examine a premise and ensure that it does not lead there. The bare mention of it in connection with another does not assume a relationship and/or accusation.


----------



## MW (Jun 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Have you read the links I posted? I am willing to be held accountable for the use of the firearms I discharge. I have served in two branches of the U. S. Military and am an expert with a firearm. As far as thinking goes, any loud crashes in my home, unatural noises, etc. and out comes the metal; and it only takes one bullet.



Then I will just regard your former statements as mere rhetoric. Time to move on, I think.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 29, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> ...



Mr. Bushey,

You missed the Matthew's point completely. He never attacked your right to use force to protect your home, family etc. He make the point that once the intruder has been rendered harmless, "tied up, knocked out, etc"; then you no longer have the right to use deadly force.

Deadly force is only a justified option when the outcome is in doubt.

On top of all this, your claimed expertise with weapons would make it even harder to justify deadly force in any situation.

CT


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Jun 30, 2006)

Getting back to topic"¦	


> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> How much "hypothetical" do we want to entertain in the discussion.
> 
> Barring a forced abortion, the murderous act of the abortionist is at the behest of the mother. The mother is the murderess. We really have to focus on the prime culprit in these crimes. Are you going to kill the mother to save the baby? No? But its OK (I'm not putting these words in anyone's actual mouth here) to kill the abortionist? Do you have to kill anyone to save the life? Suppose you kill the abortionist today, and tomorrow the lady finds another practitioner? See, you can't get away from the mother--the one person in the world who has undeniable jurisdiction and responsibility to interpose.



Suppose I hire a hit man to kill my mom. He is in the process of trying to murder her when a cop shoots him in the head. Now of course I should go to jail for attempted murder, but the hit man is also a murderer (or at least he was in the process). So yes, is the mother a murderer in the case of abortion? Yes. Is the abortionist? Yes. Would killing the mother solve anything? No. Would killing the mother kill the baby? Yes. In killing the mother we would murder the baby, which would be contracdictory to upholding God´s law (remember we are talking about in the act here). So she is indirectly murdering the baby, but the abortionist is directly murdering the baby. Killing the mother would do no good as it would also murder the baby, but I fail to see how killing the abortionist would equate to murder? Thoughts? Just as the cop killing the hit man is justified, wouldn´t it be justified to kill the abortionist? This isn´t necessarily my position; I am just throwing it out there. It needs to be addressed. 



> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Suppose you kill the abortionist today, and tomorrow the lady finds another practitioner?


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



> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by caleb_woodrow_
> ...


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.


----------



## MW (Jun 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by caleb_woodrow_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> ...



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

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


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> ...



Actually on this line of discussion Matthew began by making the point that force can still be unjustified even if one's home is invaded.

So at best Scott missed Matthew's point by talking about bullets flying regardless.

Not at one point did Matthew say that one should take chances so that is just more proof that the point was missed.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by caleb_woodrow_
> Getting back to topic"¦
> 
> 
> ...



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.).



> > _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> > Suppose you kill the abortionist today, and tomorrow the lady finds another practitioner?
> 
> 
> Suppose the cop kills the hit man today, and tomorrow I find another hit man? Was killing of the hit man justified? Yes"¦Then why wouldn´t the killing of the abortionist be?



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



> > _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> >
> >
> > > _Originally posted by caleb_woodrow_
> ...



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


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ...



Hermonta,
You are correct; I did miss this point Matthew made. To be clearer, if someone _forced_ there way into my home, tripped over my dog Bentley in the process, bumped his head in the fall which rendered him unconcious, I would NOT shoot him while he lay there. I would, by the ankle, drag him out into the front yard and call for the Police. 

In regards to subduing an attacker: I don't believe it is a good idea to get within 5-10 feet of any intruder. I would never try and wrestle with an intruder; he may overtake me and my family would be no better off then. 

[Edited on 6-30-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Jun 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> But what gives an individual the right to enter into a judicial process, to sift the facts of the case, to discover guilt, and to execute the punishment he sees fit? It certainly isn't God. It certainly isn't man? Is it the individual? That is anarchy.
> 
> So, to go right back to my initial response. Proactive, yes, by using the legal means at our disposal.



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

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



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



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



> > _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> > Suppose you kill the abortionist today, and tomorrow the lady finds another practitioner?
> 
> 
> Suppose the cop kills the hit man today, and tomorrow I find another hit man? Was killing of the hit man justified? Yes"¦Then why wouldn´t the killing of the abortionist be?





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


Why not? It fit with what he was saying. 



> > _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> >
> >
> > > _Originally posted by caleb_woodrow_
> ...





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


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

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

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

[Edited on 6-30-2006 by caleb_woodrow]


----------



## Civbert (Jun 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by caleb_woodrow_
> ...



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

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


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by caleb_woodrow_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> ...



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

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

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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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

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



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



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



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



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



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



This is correct.



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



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



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



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




> > > _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> > > Suppose you kill the abortionist today, and tomorrow the lady finds another practitioner?
> >
> >
> ...



Well I disagree with this aspect of what he was saying 



> > > _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> > >
> > >
> > > > _Originally posted by caleb_woodrow_
> ...


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> ...



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



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



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



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



Protect them in what way?




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



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

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

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

CT


----------



## Civbert (Jun 30, 2006)

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



What's too far??



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



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



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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

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


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 30, 2006)

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


----------



## Civbert (Jun 30, 2006)

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



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

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

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


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> ...


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

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

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



> > _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> >
> >
> >
> ...



Yeah, we should move onto the ballet box next.



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



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



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



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



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



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

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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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

Humm, that is a real reformed position.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 30, 2006)

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



Shame on you for agreeing to such incoherence.

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



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



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



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

CT


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Thank you.


----------



## MW (Jun 30, 2006)

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

What do you think?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Civbert_
> ...



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


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 30, 2006)

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


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 30, 2006)

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



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

Thanks for bearing with me.


----------



## MW (Jun 30, 2006)

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

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

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


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> ...


----------



## MW (Jun 30, 2006)

Mr. Bushey,

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

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


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> This misses the point somewhat, Mr. Bushey. The war in Iraq is for the alleged goal of establishing a democracy. Once established, non-violent reform can then supposedly be carried on.
> 
> As you like raising comparisons, here is one which might resonate with you. Suppose some do-gooder removes your children from out of your care because he believes they are being abused. To what extent will you then believe that God's law should be obeyed over man's law? Will you not then
> ...



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

Some pictures for your edification:

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


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 30, 2006)

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



Did this actually happen?

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


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> Mr. Bushey,
> 
> Sorry, my last post was sent before I read your last post.
> ...



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

But as to the point that God will repay.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 30, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



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


----------



## MW (Jun 30, 2006)

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

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

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

Many blessings!


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Jul 1, 2006)

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



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



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> The comment in question does not use judicial in the sense of determining the facts of the case. It is used in the sense of jurisdiction.
> 
> The core of the position is that when someone breaks God's law does not necessarily mean that you have the right to stop them or to enforce the penalty prescribed in God's law.


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


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


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


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


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


> But, I understand your main point is I don´t have the right to carry out a consequence I see deems fit.
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_"If you admit this, then your core contention takes a huge hit."


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






> Going back to analogies here, if you see an innocent women being raped and beaten to death with a bat in the middle of a street (or anywhere), you have the right to kill the man/woman who is trying to murder her. Even though you are not an authority, indirect defense is taking place.
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> > This action is completely consistent with the law. You are given the right to act in the place of the police officer in this case.


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



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


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


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


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


> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_Shame on you for agreeing to such incoherence. CT


CT, Shame on you for thinking such incoherence . 


[Edited on 7-1-2006 by caleb_woodrow]


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jul 1, 2006)

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



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



> > _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> > The comment in question does not use judicial in the sense of determining the facts of the case. It is used in the sense of jurisdiction.
> >
> > The core of the position is that when someone breaks God's law does not necessarily mean that you have the right to stop them or to enforce the penalty prescribed in God's law.
> ...



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

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

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



> > _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_ The question is if you have been given the right by God to "make" it your jurisdiction to stop the breaking of God's law in this case.
> 
> 
> For one thing, I am not "œmaking" anything my jurisdiction. Like I said it is situational dependent on the circumstances at hand.



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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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



> If not why not?



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



> > But, I understand your main point is I don´t have the right to carry out a consequence I see deems fit.
> >
> >
> > > _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_"If you admit this, then your core contention takes a huge hit."
> ...



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

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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



You reading minds again 



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



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

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



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



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



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



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



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



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

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




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



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



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



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



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



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



> > _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_
> > I am not exactly sure what I would do in this situation. If someone came to kill me because of the gospel, I think I might just take the arrest and be fed to the lions etc. (Of course writing this on a message board is a bit different than actually doing it.
> 
> 
> We would be at war, and you would be justified in fighting back using lethal force.



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




> > _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_Shame on you for agreeing to such incoherence. CT
> 
> 
> CT, Shame on you for thinking such incoherence .
> ...


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Jul 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_ Do you know the heritage of the position that adultery deserves the death penalty in NEW testament times as it did in old testament times?
> 
> I've never seen the position that executing adulterers would be breaking God's law. I would love to see that spelled out. (I've seen the position that God's law does not necessitate such but it being the breaking of God's law, wow)
> 
> I go on and on about the civil magistrate because he is God's servant with the right to bear the sword (Romans 13) And going against him is not always wrong but must be carefully thought out.



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



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_Let's make the situation just a shade simplier, lets say that law says that women on the street are fair game for anything (rape, murder, etc.)
> 
> Now what do you need to establish for your position to hold:
> 1)Evil is occuring
> ...



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

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



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


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



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_What you deem fit is just a generalization of your position. You just seem to see fit violence up to and including death is warranted in the case of murder. (I agree with you that such is the proper punishment for such actions) How would you argue against other violence for other things?
> 
> So it seems that you reject the distinction between "proper" and "what one is allowed to do. You believe that such is always the same?



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


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



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



> _Originally posted by ChristianTrader_So rape is not a capital crime issue?



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



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



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



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


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



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



So be it.

[Edited on 7-1-2006 by caleb_woodrow]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 1, 2006)

*On the subject at hand*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Edited on 7-1-2006 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Jul 1, 2006)

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


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 1, 2006)

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



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


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 1, 2006)

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


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jul 1, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by caleb_woodrow_
> ...


----------

