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.
You don´t have to wait much longer "œin vain".
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.
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).
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.
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."
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.
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
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.
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
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 occurring 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.
It´s not "œanyway that I see fit". I am clearly only talking about murder here.
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 ChristianTraderShame on you for agreeing to such incoherence. CT
CT, Shame on you for thinking such incoherence
.
[Edited on 7-1-2006 by caleb_woodrow]
