Murder

[Scott Bushey]

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]

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]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).

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.

That's why I posted tghe link.

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]

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]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

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]

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

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by armourbearer

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by armourbearer

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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'.

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.

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]

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]

Originally posted by armourbearer

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.

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

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.

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]

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

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

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

 

[MW]

Originally posted by caleb_woodrow

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

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

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]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

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.

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

But this missed Mr. Bushey's point, which was: "I don't take any chances, if someone breaks in I shoot, thus there is no time to "tie up" etc.

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]

Originally posted by caleb_woodrow
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.

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

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

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

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]

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

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.

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

But this missed Mr. Bushey's point, which was: "I don't take any chances, if someone breaks in I shoot, thus there is no time to "tie up" etc.

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

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]