| Re: ginnyrose|
I admit I was a little upset in reaction to your first post. I did not mean to let the emotion get the best of me and I am certainly not continuing to be upset at you or anything like that.
The reason I was upset is because of the way your question sounded to me. I will explain and maybe you will understand.
First, I am not upset that it sounded as if you jumped to the conclusion that I was promoting using violence against abortionists. I object to your misrepresentation of my posts because I had not promoted anything other than understanding why people will defend born children but not the unborn. That does not upset me because I can see how someone might mistakenly assume that was my intention to promote violence.
However, your question seemed to me to suggest that the number of years I've worked for pro-life organizations would have some relevance to whether people should defend the born and unborn equally. This is why I was upset. I took it to mean: [i]"If you haven't been working for years in pro-life organizations than you don't are not qualified to promote defending the born and unborn equally."[/i] I would like to apologize if this is an incorrect understanding of what you wrote. To me it seemed that you had ignored me, misrepresented me, and then demanded an answer of me with a question which I felt was not only wrong but insulting. I hope you will forgive me if I have jumped to any hasty conclusions about you. I have no hard feelings.
Thank you for sharing your experience.
I don't see any benefit in discussing this with people who hold to pacifism. It would be like discussing the right way to evangelize with someone who didn't believe in evangelism.
I do have some experience with the pro-life movement. My father has been in executive positions in NRTL affiliates my whole life. My mother co-founded a birth right near my hometown. I've understood the evil of abortion for a while now.
I'm sure you'll understand that it doesn't matter how many people never promoted defending the born and unborn equally. That doesn't determine whether it is right or wrong. As for preaching against fornication... of course we should do that. But even if suddenly no one fornicated ever again, that would only save the babies in the future. It wouldn't save any children who are scheduled for an abortion next week.
So, if it is right to defend the born and unborn equally then it would be right to do both: Defend AND preach.
If you want to discuss pacifism, let's discuss it separately, privately, or perhaps in another thread so as not to confuse this thread. Just let me know. You are free to use my email also.
| 2009/12/4 20:34|
| Re: Miccah|
I rushed through this reply so it may be blunt in places. That was only to allow myself time to finish the whole thing and not to be short with you or anything like that.
I did take time to carefully consider everything you said though. Hopefully you will find that to be true as you read.
Quote:This does not answer the question at all. Unless you believe that we should not defend born children either, your answer should explain why you would treat the unborn differently when it came to protecting them with force. Your statement also presents a false dichotomy. Following Jesus may mean doing things that are unpleasant for others. I could just as easily say "You are called to suffer for Christ, not to passively let others suffer." Both my statement and yours shallowly miss the deeper issue. Quote:You are called to suffer for Christ, not make others suffer.
Is it inherently morally right or wrong to defend the unborn with the same force we would use for born children?
Why or why not?
Quote:I don't see how. It is an entirely hypothetical question which assumes nothing other than the fact that born and unborn children are equal in value. Quote:
If defending the born and unborn children is a duty, is this duty inalienable and God-given or is it man-given?
Why or why not?
Respectfully, you are starting your question out wieghted towards your pre-determined beliefs.
Quote:I've never heard of such a philosophy. Why would I be any less willing to defend my nephew or niece than my own children? Or why would I let my second cousins die but not my own son? What about my third cousin's children? My fourth cousins? This just sounds like partiality to me. Perhaps you could explain where you came across this idea.
It is not your duty to defend anyone (outside of your family), except spiritually in my belief.
Quote:If it is opinion then it cannot be inherently wrong.
To say that defending others is a duty in my opinion is not a "Lord" question, but more of an opinion of circumstance.
Quote:Dumping our responsibilities back onto God does not glorify him nor does it justify us. The question is not whether God "needs" this or that, but whether God expects of us to do this or that. Does God need you? Is that why he commands that you love your neighbor as yourself? Of course not. He commands it because it is right and good. I'll quote a reply I sent to a friend about this same topic before. This is really getting into pacifism and not the topic of the thread though.
The Lord defends. The Lord needs no hands of man to make things happen or not.
[color=006699][b]4. Only God has the authority to make these life and death decisions.[/b]
You wrote, [i]"The Bible states that God holds the keys to life and death, not us."[/i]
I don't know if I've understood you correctly here. Jesus said he has "the keys of hell and of death". Is that the verse you are referring to? That verse (in its context) doesn't seem to say what I understood you to mean. The message I took from your statement is that we should not play God by deciding who lives and who dies.
We do and must make life and death decisions. What is deciding to let someone be killed if not deciding who lives and who dies? What is more of a life and death decision than deciding not to defend someone when you are able to do so? Whatever my belief or course of action is, I am undeniably making a life and death decision. I hold the "keys to life" for the person in need of defense. God has put them in my hand. Should I toss these keys at God's feet and maintain that I had no responsibility? Should I say to God, "You must intervene. I will not be held accountable for such decisions. They are your duty. You are able to control everything, therefore you must control everything. I refuse to control what you have put into my power to control. You must do it. Why should I receive glory for such responsibilities? Should not you be the one to receive all the glory? I refuse these responsibilities for I know better than you what contributes to your glory."[/color]
Quote:God's will is not being done when someone refuses to do their moral duties. Because men have refused to obey God, the Lord taught us to pray "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven". God will put an end to sin soon. Until then, and even after that time, we cannot simply say "anything goes because God is in control." We must always do everything that is our duty to do.
The Lord's will WILL be done regardless if you or I or anyone else is alive.
Quote:Of course the law of the land is the law of the land. This doesn't answer the question but only states the obvious. The question is what the law of the land SHOULD be, not what it IS. Everyone knows what it already is. Quote:
Would that be a morally correct state of the civil law to authorize defense of the unborn just as it already does in the case of born children?
Sickinning as it is, the law of the land is the law.
Quote:Who said anything about stoning people? Stoning was a retributive form of justice or punishment. I have only been asking about defensive force, not punishment, vengeance, governmental justice or anything like that.
Morally there should be no abortion. MOrally there should be no pre-marital sex. Both are sin, yet you are willing to stone one and not the other?
Furthermore, stoning fornicators will not save babies who are about to be killed. In a way, it would probably contribute to far less abortions. Phinehas would be the expert on killing fornicators. I'm not qualified to give an opinion at this point. Murder however is clearly so severe that it can require taking a life in order to prevent it. Another difference between abortion and fornication is that the baby doesn't fall in love with the doctor first. Fornication requires consent. Baby killers don't ask the baby's permission.
Quote:That would mean that if the government outlawed defending one's own children, then only police officers could defend their children. Do you agree with that? Is the right to defend your own children something the government gives you or is it something God gives you? Quote:
Can a duty to defend others be subject to civil law?
Why or why not?
Depends. Are you a trained, qualified professional that the civil law hires to defend others or not? If so, yes it is subject to civil law, since you are working under the law. If you are not one of the above, then you are called to pray, tarry and fast for as a defense.
Quote:I meant - If violence is not the best tactic does that mean that it would be completely wrong? or does it mean that it couldn't be the second best tactic? Quote:
Do overall pro-life tactics DETERMINE the inherent morality of using force to defend the helpless (born or unborn) OR is defense inherently morally right even though better (legal) tactics win out as the greater of two goods?
First, what pro-life tactics are you speaking of, force?
I meant - Is it inherently right or wrong for anyone to defend babies with force? Is it, in and of itself, sinful or righteous to defend the unborn from being killed?
Quote:Defense is not vengeance. They are completely different words, concepts, motives, etc. The only thing they have in common is that they can both mean violence. That is probably why people confuse the two. The topic of this thread is not vengeance against murderers, it is about defending the helpless from being murdered. The bible says not to avenge yourselves (even in the "old" testament) but it never says not to defend others (even in the "new" testament).
If you are talking of hurting doctors or providers of abortions, then I would say that the pro-life tactics that you are talking about go completely against the Word of the Lord.
Deuteronomy 32:35 (NKJV)
35 Vengeance is Mine, and recompense;
Their foot shall slip in due time;
For the day of their calamity is at hand,
And the things to come hasten upon them.
Also, what if an abortion provider tried to kill your own already born child while the two of you were walking down the sidewalk? Would it be a sin to kill him to protect your child if you saw no other way? What is the difference between that and the babies at the clinics? It's not like they are able to run anywhere to get away.
Quote:It sounds like you think it is neither right nor wrong to defend someone with force. You are undecided?
As for the second part of your question, defense is not inherently morally right. I know many interpret the Bible to say this, but there are many who believe otherwise.
Quote:Did I ever say anything like that? I thought I just asking questions. I didn't mean to do anymore than just discuss whether it is right or wrong and deal with various objections. My intention has not been to promote anything except understanding the truth.
Are you absolutly positive that the Lord says to use force to defend the unborn?
Quote:That doesn't seem like something worth asking.
Are you willing to sin to achieve an objective?
Quote:It is either sin or it is not. It is not a question of whether it would "lead into" sin, only whether it is right or wrong to defend the born and unborn equally.
Because harming others could very well be leading you into sin.
Quote:That's not true at all. You can't rationally believe that. Perhaps you meant "The ends don't justify ANY AND ALL means."
Ends never justify the means.
Quote:That's out of context. Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, [u]that I should not be delivered to the Jews[/u]" The Lord intended to let them wrong him in order to redeem them from their sins by his death. You can't apply that to a helpless child who is being murdered against his or her will. You can't decide for them that they should be a martyr. You only (after God) have the right to decide that for yourself.
Even Jesus stated that if HIs kingdom was of earth, his disciples would fight. But it is not. He chose to suffer.
Quote:good. You seem undecided on the use of force however. You seemed to contradict yourself at times. I am not trying to convince you of anything though. I'm only trying to sift through people's objections.
I'm not sure if I helped or not. I am 100% against abortion.
Quote:Right. We should act rationally, not emotionally. Someone who acted emotionally might do a poor job of defending others anyway. Or they might unnecessarily harm innocent people. They would also be acting for the wrong reasons. Another danger of acting emotionally is to shy away from extreme action simply because it is scary sounding. If I were to obey the emotion of fear or anxiety then I would simply plug myself into some video game and get fat and die that way.
I just am not sure that force should be used. To much personal emotion involved, which in turn can cloud judgements.
Quote:You said a few things that sounded very much like a pacifistic argument.
Brother, I agree with you more then you may know. I am not a pacifist by any means.
Quote:I agree. Love is ALWAYS right. Other things are sometimes right and sometimes wrong. Depends on whether they are loving or not. Is defending the born and unborn equally, loving or unloving?
All I was trying to say is that we can NEVER go wrong by treating others with love, where as you may go wrong by treating others without love (ie. force).
Quote:You mixed up vengeance with self-sacrificial action again. Defense is taking a risk in order to protect another. Vengeance is entirely different. Do you get the difference now? It really has nothing to do with defending others at all.
As for "killing the monster"... Vengence is not yours, it is the Lords. You will be judged in the same measure that you judge others.
Quote:Another pacifistic objection? I've heard this before.
Please don't take this is a pass for abortionists. I believe that there is a special place in hell for them, but they ALSO need the Lord's mercy and grace. Who are any of us to deny the chance to change their ways and recieve grace from the Lord.
Quote:Here is my answer quoted from the same reply that I quoted above. I sent this to a friend in response to a study on pacifism he sent me.
Think about it. If you would harm someone and they would pass away, maybe you snuffed out their chance for mercy and grace. Is this in the Lord's will? Did you become their judge, or do we leave that up to the Lord?
[color=006699][b]3. It's wrong to kill someone because they might go to hell.[/b]
You wrote, [i]"We must realize that if we kill someone, then we have sent them into eternity, no matter how horrible the earthly deed/s they are committing."[/i]
a) This is not logical. I agree with what you said. Eternal life is more valuable than this life. Souls are more valuable than bodies. But to say that this difference in value will always make defensive killing the wrong choice may only be an assumption. This principle cannot be applied consistently to all circumstances. If this principle was valid, we could apply it to any circumstance. It is too easy to show that this principle is invalid. For instance, if one sinner tried to kill two sinners, my refusing to defend them would send two people into hell rather than one. This is not an uncommon situation.
Also, if we should be ready to let all victims die because their attackers might repent and go to heaven, should we also be ready to kill saints because they might repent of their holiness and go to hell? We could actively secure their salvation for a certainty. Would that be even better than securing the mere possibility of the attacker repenting? Obviously that's nonsense. Therefore, if I am consistent, it must not be that the morality of killing hinges simply on my estimation of who or how many people may or may not make it to heaven as an immediate result of my actions.[/color]
Quote:Doing what is wrong can be a stumbling block to others for sure. But you are assuming that it is wrong. This is circular reasoning. If defending the born and unborn equally is right then doing the right thing will convict others of their partiality or inaction and promote obedience rather than disobedience. It depends on whether it is right or wrong. It doesn't prove it to be either.
Also, the actions of using force, as a believer, may make another brother stumble. You may also be sinning in the process of using force.
Quote:"wanting" is nothing. It only matters what the truth is. What does God want? What is the loving thing to do? Those are the important questions and motivations.
Are any of these outcomes acceptable for you because of your wanting to use force?
Quote:I appreciate you sharing your opinion friend. I hope you will forgive my bluntness. This is a rather long reply for me and I didn't want to wait much longer to reply so I went through this rather quickly.
Brother, fight abortion, fight it long and hard. Fight it in prayer, protests, fasting, with judges, etc... but in my opinion, leave the force in the Lords hands.
| 2009/12/4 22:06|
| Re: MJ|
It seems like everything you said was right but none of it changes whether defending the born and unborn equally is right or not.
We teach that child molestation is wrong. But does that mean that we should not use force to prevent it if necessary? Of course not.
Just like in medicine you have treatment to deal with problems that currently are posing a threat AND preventative treatment to avoid problems in the first place.
| 2009/12/4 22:11|
| Re: Clarification|
For clarification: I have not been promoting using violence against abortionists as some people have assumed. If it seems that way, that only means that the questions I am asking make it seem like a logical thing to do in your own mind.
I think it is important to understand whether people in general should defend the born and unborn EQUALLY or not. If not, there must be some great reason for the difference.
Furthermore, if I believed it was right to defend the born and unborn equally and also believed it was my duty to promote that as being true, I would not necessarily choose sermonindex.net as the most appropriate place to do that.
I just wanted to clear that up before anyone else gets the impression that I'm trying to convince anyone to follow a certain course of action.
| 2009/12/4 22:21|
| Re: |
Your posts reminded me of some crazies who resorted to violence to 'protect the life of the unborn.' And this is the the idea I caught from reading your posts, hence my reaction.
I don't see any benefit in discussing this with people who hold to pacifism
How do you understand pacifism? do you equate it with Biblical non-resistance? (This really is a contradiction in terms but it is used to mean one does not resort to violence to protect.)
I do not understand your position on this issue as it relates to protecting the life of the unborn. Protecting the life of the unborn is Biblical non-resistance at its finest. To resort to violence to protect the life of the unborn is a contradiction of the worse sort.
I worked in the pro-life movement for 15 years.I was the only one who held to Biblical non-resistance and all the others believed in serving in the military - we had military wives working for us as well as an Air Force Lt. Col.! And we all agreed in our approach in saving babies. I do do not understand your sentiments at all.
| 2009/12/4 22:27||Profile|
| re: ginnyrose|
Quote:Why are you calling people "crazies"?
Your posts reminded me of some crazies who resorted to violence to 'protect the life of the unborn.'
"With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness."
In my mind: Pacifism = Nonviolence = what some call "biblical nonresistance"
Quote:Only from an extremely shallow pacifistic perspective. Here is what Hadley Arkes said in an article in First Things which was against using force to defend the unborn. The quote is referring to a man who killed an abortionist in order to save babies' lives.
To resort to violence to protect the life of the unborn is a contradiction of the worse sort.
Quote:[url=http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/killing-abortionists-a-symposium-31]First Things: Symposium Against Using Force to Defend the Unborn[/url]
Unless we dismantle moral reasoning altogether, or remove the gradations that are critical to moral judgment, it should be evident that these two acts of killing cannot stand on the same moral plane.
He is right. You have to shut both eyes in order to equate murder with defensive killing. But that's what so many pacifists reflexively do without ever stopping to question their dogmatic allegiance to nonviolence.
Twice you said you don't understand me. I don't get the impression that you are very interested in understanding me. Am I assuming the wrong thing?
I'm just asking a bunch of questions because I don't have all the answers. I've found that most people don't have all the answers.
| 2009/12/4 23:23|
| Re: |
you wrote:It seems like everything you said was right but none of it changes whether defending the born and unborn equally is right or not.
I don't have any answers for you concerning the questions you asked in your first post. I try not to imagine myself in situations where I would have to give answers to "what if" questions. I think for me it best to live my life unto the Lord and to trust that no matter what situation may come He will be there to guide me.
you wrote:We teach that child molestation is wrong. But does that mean that we should not use force to prevent it if necessary? Of course not.
I was molested as a little girl by a family member. I wish things were different, I wish that things had not happened in my life as they did, but I know in my heart I am very thankful that my family member was never harmed in any way. I pray for him to repent, to come to know the Lord and to be saved. He needs Jesus just as much as I do. I pray one day very soon he will come to see this.
You wrote:Just like in medicine you have treatment to deal with problems that currently are posing a threat AND preventative treatment to avoid problems in the first place.
I do not mean to be disrespectful to you but I have no clue what you mean by the last part of your post to me. Sorry I don't think I can be of any help to you in find the answers your looking for...
| 2009/12/4 23:50||Profile|
| Re: |
Thank you for replying to my posting. I do appreciate the time that you took to answer my replies.
Please show in scripture where our Lord Jesus commands us to use force against those who are hurting or killing the unborn.
| 2009/12/4 23:57||Profile|
| Re: Miccah|
Please show in scripture where our Lord Jesus commands us to use force against those who are hurting or killing the unborn.
| 2009/12/5 18:39|
| Re: |
IglueAsp, are you looking for Godly council, or do you want the opinions of men, or are you just wanting to find like minded individuals that will agree with your position? I truly am confussed on to what your intentions are.
You seem to hold to a "force IS allowed" defense for protecting the unborn. I am trying to figure out where [u]in scripture[/u] you are getting the idea that using force for protecting the unborn is allowed.
The quickest way to get me to shut up, is to quote some scripture, and show me what our Lord said on this matter. :-)
| 2009/12/5 21:17||Profile|