Pacifism on a Hot August Day


Date: August 02, 2000 07:51 PM Author: Ed Burley (burleybunch@reformed.com) Subject: Okay enough BS
Kevin, you are a self-proclaimed pacifist. You are also a self-proclaimed anarchist. Who then, pray tell, is going to stop this murder of whom Jet speaks? Jet made it very clear in his post, that you and Russ have chosen to ignore, that you would try to "convert" this murderer. But, the point is that God's Law allows for self-defense. You have decried it.	To Me belongeth vengeance, and recompense; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste. Deuteronomy 32:35 (More verses here.) God promises that their weapons won't work. God promises that He will send a second criminal to take out the first. God promises us that He will take care of us, one way or the other. God "allows" self-defense -- and divorce. I submit He hates both (Mal. 2:16). God allows lethal "self-defense" to go unpunished only at night. If it happens during the day, the "self-defender" must be executed.
There was no slander, just the logical outworkings of your illogical thought pattern. Stop the back-pedaling and admit that your "ideas" don't work in God's Real World.	I agree with Lurquer; there's nothing "real world" about the macho self-defender who claims he is always carrying and is always ready to blow away an attacker without hesitation.
ed
(http://freebooks.forums.commentary.net/forums/Index.cfm?Message_ID=44411)

Date: August 02, 2000 08:35 PM Author: Lurquer (comunicus@hotmail.com) Subject: this is stupid

Agree with him or disagree with him...
But don't live in a fantasy world where the only way to stop a murder from occuring is to kill someone.
You know better and we all know better.
What kind of idiot critices a position for 'not working in the real world' on the grounds that it may not account for the situation in which 'there is one murderer on a planet full of pacifists and he can't be stopped from his rampage excpet by killing him.'?
Grow-up.
(http://freebooks.forums.commentary.net/forums/Index.cfm?Message_ID=44414)

Date: August 02, 2000 11:11 PM Author: Tekton (tekton7@netzero.com) Subject: Any questions?

In fact I have some.
Anybody who's virtually been here for a while knows that we have some committed anarcho-pacifists hanging around. This issue has been hashed and rehashed with few converts on either side.
I want to do it again.
Everybody (just about) says that Kevin and Lurquer's position is simply to allow evil people to go about being evil. Hopefully, this is just a spiteful generalization. Anarcho-Kev wouldn't stand idly by, speaking Confucianisms in sugar-coated tones while bad guys went on being bad.
Most of the Macho guys around here have never had to slaughter a whole bunch of people, much less one little murderer. I may be wrong. There may be a Romans 13 God-Ordained and State-Licensed Executioner lurking about out there.
But come on. Anybody who says that they have read what Kevin has written on his website and STILL maintains that Kevin's position is to bombard slayers with platitudes is clearly wrong.
The way I see it, Kevin's position is to use everything BUT lethal force to prevent capital crimes, and not just leaving it up to a Romans 13 Executioner either, but everybody doing it.
The Macho (Statist, Holy, whatever) position of executiing offenders doesn't prevent that crime either. The murder's already done. That's why we're executing this other guy.
We could talk about deterents, and justice and all that, but I have a specific question that has been on my mind for quite some time It is for Kevin.
Kevin, as you know, I am a trained killer. That is I have been trained to kill. Many of us have. Part of that training is the idea that you never know when you might have to kill somebody, so it's important to be ready to kill at all times.	I don't believe anybody can follow Christ and "be ready to kill at all times." But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: 1 Peter 3:15 See also the Law-giving on the Mount (aka the "sermon" on the Mount).
You have mentioned using tranquilizer darts. Are you proficient in their use? Do you own a tranquilizer gun and do you keep it with you at all times, the way a cop would carry a gun even while off duty? Do you practice shooting people with tranquilizer darts until it becomes second nature to you? Do you keep it within easy reach even when you are not carrying it on your person?	Darts are hypothetical. Why kill when you can neutralize non-lethally? Why this defense of *killing*? Why are alternatives to killing excoriated so? I think Tekton's questions focus on the ridiculous folly of being prepared 24-7 to face a potential capital criminal with instinctive lethal force. The overwhelming majority of us will never face this event. Why change the character of your entire life over this non-eventuality? Why live your life primed to kill? Why not be prepared to love your enemy, to pray for the attacker and creatively engage him in non-lethal ways which might keep a crime from being committed and lead to his redemption?
I'm not trying to get smart with you (dumb carpenter, remember). But I was wondering if you knew what it took to do the thing you said was okay to do (tranquilize people). Because if you are going to arm yourself for the purpose of self/other defense, even if it is with a non-lethal tranquilizer gun, then you hve to be as committed to it's proficient use as a cop or a soldier is with his weapon.
Otherwise you're an accident waiting to happen.	I am many things waiting to happen. A conversion, a blessing, a prayer, but not "an accident." I don't believe in brute events. (I'm trying to be smart.) I train myself to respond to violence in a Christ-like manner. I spent the decade of the '90's living with recovering ex-felons, some of whom were unconvicted murderers, some of whom were trained by our government to kill and were suffering the delirious effects of their brutality. I have confronted potentially lethal violence and did so in as Christlike a manner as I could, and I trusted in God to change hearts (Prov. 16:7). I am more pleased with the results than if I had engaged in lethal force (even if vindicated by a jury of my "peers"). I do not see any reason to change my strategy. I would rather live life prepared to pray and trust God than prepared to kill. I am convinced that even in the worst neighborhoods perpetual preparation to kill is unChristian. I would rather witness to an attacker than kill him, even if it were the last thing I did.
IT may be that, yes, you really are Billy The Kid with a Tranq. OR it may be that while you have never personally handled (or seen?) one, its use is still something of which you approve. OR it may be that you are blowing smoke.	Living a life prepared to kill and continually packing heat is "blowing smoke" in my opinion. No Christian can psychologically live like that and still read the Words of Christ on a daily basis.
The first or second option are AOK. But I'll really be upset if yours is reason Three.	If I felt the risk of violent attack were statistically probable enough, I would consider buying a tranq gun, mastering it, keeping it close at hand, and being always ready to use it. So far in my life I have never have needed to use one (although some may say I should have, or would have been justified in using lethal force), and I question whether I would have enjoyed my life as much as I have if I had been always looking over my shoulder anticipating an attack and always been prepared for an unhesitating use of a dart gun (to say nothing of lethal force).
And once and for all (the rest of you) quit saying that Lurq and Kev, and maybe even Tekton, would just sit there eating bon-bons while you got violated . Speaking for myself, I would take some pretty extreme measures to ensure your safety (maybe too extreme for Kevin, I don't know). I'm pretty sure they would too.	I would risk my life and physically intervene to stop an attack. I believe a life of continual and prayerful pacifistic preparation for an attack will be honored by the LORD.
Not that they'll ever get the chance to prove it, since we're all just figments of Lisa's imagination anyway.
Sincerely,
Tekton, Beater of Dead Horses
(http://freebooks.forums.commentary.net/forums/Index.cfm?Message_ID=44417)

Date: August 03, 2000 08:50 AM Author: raptor2 (raptor2@gulftel.com) Subject: Tekton's question

Good morning beater of dead horses
Good questions and a needed reframing of our pacifist brothers' position. I too have been guilty of "extreming" their position in an attempt to dismiss it by ridicule.
But the question: What would I do and what lengths would I go. WELLLL, it all depends.
(1) To protect my wife and son I would use whatever force was available to protect them. If I had my pistol with me, that means I would use that. The problem with situations like you described is that when they happen you are reacting instinctively. And by the way, it is hard to even hit a perp with a pistol, much less aim to wound him only. (That's why God made shotguns).	I don't understand why it's hard to hit an attacker, and why one couldn't aim to wound. When I was stationed at McClellan AFB I had the top marksmanship ratings in my Flight, but I don't think I'm too cocky. Under what circumstances are you imagining it hard to hit the attacker? [And this reminds me of a point I've long wanted to make: in every hypothetical attack there are so many variables (time permitted, weapon used by attacker, distance from attacker, other people in the area, etc., etc.) that to utter blanket denunciations of all pacifistic approaches (of which there are an infinite number) is childish.]
(2) To protect others my stance is less dramatic. Hopefully I would stop the act by whatever force was necessary, even up to lethal force. The problem again is, you are under stress and reacting to physical harm. It is most difficult to "limit" force in those situations. Most men would be under extreme adrenalin and prone to use whatever means were available. My limiting thoughts on involvement would be "am I endangering myself so that my wife & kid are going to be without me?" I believe I have a higher duty to them than to recklessly endanger myself. Remember even the police do not have to risk their lives in order to stop a crime. (BTW most of the police do risk their lives. My brother-in-law is a cop. What they have to put up with is unbelievable)	Attempting to pacify an enemy is not "recklessly endangering" anyone. It is an attempt to defuse a tense situation and bring rational thought to a potentially irrational situation.
(3) I believe the men perpetrating any act that would warrant lethal force have forfeited any "right" of moderation on my part. I will not initiate but I will retaliate.	I don't believe in "rights," so maybe that's where a great deal of misunderstanding arises. No attacker has a "right" to life, so it can't be "forfeited." I don't have a "right" to life, so I have no "right" to defend my "right." I have a DUTY to protect my family with a judicious use of doors, locks and alarms. I have a DUTY to love, bless, do good and pray for those that do not respect my boundaries. I don't see a "right" to kill them, much less do I see a command to do so.
Overall thought: If someone were harming my little boy and one of my options (you provide the list) was to kill the other person, then I would do it. I would do whatever was available to me to protect him. Otherwise, if I did not and my son were harmed or killed I would/could not live with the conclusion that I should have done more. Implicit in this stance is the belief that my son's life is worth more than the guy I should have blown away. His life is worth more. He had not violated society or aggressed against anyone. The person who puts himself in the position to have his life taken because of his own illegal acts has voluntarily forfeited any rights to have me limit myself in my own response to his violence. If I go over the line and kill him then I will just have to learn to live with that.	If one of your options was to kill the attacker and the other option was to say "STOP THAT!" and pull your boy away, why would you kill rather than rescue? Your son does not have a RIGHT to live any more than the attacker. You have a DUTY to obey God's Law, including Christ's Law on the Mount. Stephen and other witnesses (martus) limited themselves in their response to violence. Are you saying that all Christian martyrs throughout history violated God's Law by not attacking their torturers and executioners?
Better to be judged by twelve than buried by six.
raptor2
(http://freebooks.forums.commentary.net/forums/Index.cfm?Message_ID=44421)

Date: August 03, 2000 11:16 AM Author: Lurquer (comunicus@hotmail.com) Subject: one clarification before we go on...

All of us would want to kill an aggressor hurting our family.	Not me. My desire is to see both saved and surrendered to Christ. I have had to think about this a lot. I have had daily contact with violent people I don't trust. I have had to learn to trust God in order to love my enemies. It is a spiritual discipline. Attackers are human beings created in the Image of God. God commands me not to kill them. I do not want to kill a human being created in the Image of God. I want to see that person converted and serving God.
Most of us, if the opportunity presented itself while we were thus enraged WOULD kill.	Rage is not my emotion. When I see Jones committing violence against Smith, I pray for both. Smith needs to be rescued from Jones, but Jones needs to be rescued from spiritual slavery. Attackers don't usually have "fun" while they attack. Their lives are miserable. The whole situation sucks. I am not God. Their offense is not against me (Psalm 51:4). I am not enraged. My immediate concern is to rescue the innocent and my second concern is to allow God to rescue the wretched attacker.
Even me. And maybe -- under the right circumstances -- Kevin.	It would be an accident. It would not be something I would spend my life preparing to do, or would want to do even in the midst of a physical brawl that develops in the attempt to disarm an attacker. (I've been there.)
What each of us might do, however, does not answer what each of us ought to do.	Excellent point.
I'll be the first to admit that under the right circumstances -- given the right temptations -- I would succumb to any given sin.
I hope, as I mature, I am getting stronger, but I'm far from perfect.
In short, would I blow away someone hurting my family? Probably.
That doesn't make it right. That just makes me a hypocrite.
Which we all are to some extent.	I agree. My goal is to become less of a hypocrite by continually disciplining my thoughts and being prepared to engage in spiritual warfare, where our weapons are not carnal (2 Cor 10:4).
I look forward to a day when I can fairly confidently say I wouldn't give in to the temptation to kill.
So, just let me say what we might do is never the standard. We must determine what we ought to do and then try to live it -- even if we know we currently can't live it perfectly.
(http://freebooks.forums.commentary.net/forums/Index.cfm?Message_ID=44422)

Date: August 03, 2000 11:42 AM Author: BFuenz (bfuenz@aol.com) Subject: Very Powerful thought!

'The person who puts himself in the position to have his life taken because of his own illegal acts has voluntarily forfeited any rights to have me limit myself in my own response to his violence'
The matter of personal self defense is serious. This brief but concise statement says it clearly. Those perpetrators, evildoers, criminals who prey on people, forfeit their right to life when they violate the life of another fellow man. The Gen 9:6 principle is at work here. The violation of the image of God in man is stolen, ripped away.	Another admission that the operating principle of lethal self-defense is that the penalty for attempted murder is execution. This is false. This is, at root, antinomian.
I have no problem in destroying any man who would harm or attempt to destroy the image of God in my family.
Interestingly enough this very principle leads me to respect and love all men. I pray for lost men & women because of the image that they bear.	"Interesting?" Totally confusing! How does having "no problem in destroying" someone lead you to respect them?
Could the pacifist's please lay down their position in 5 points so that we may have further understanding as to your beliefs and it's implications?	Thou shalt not kill, period. (Sorry -- I really don't know what those five points would be, or even what you are looking for.)
Thank You BF
(http://freebooks.forums.commentary.net/forums/Index.cfm?Message_ID=44424)

Date: August 03, 2000 01:00 PM Author: Robert Mahoney (RobertMahoney@yifan.net) Subject: Not all killing is sin.

You say that you would not want to give into sin a kill a person who was hurting your family. God said in his law that a thief who comes into your house in the day time you must do him no harm, but, to the one who comes in at night...his blood be apon his own head. As a correctional officer I can tell you what that law means. A thief who comes in to your house in the day time doesn't expect you to be home, and doesn't want to deal with you...thats why he came during the day. But a thief who comes in at night expects you to be home...is probably counting on you being home... and is going to deal with you. God in His wisdom didn't say " Well first try and figure out if his intentions are bad and if they are...just wound him...and if that doesn't work, than you can kill him " God said the thief's blood would be apon his own head, and the one killing him was not guilty of any sin and no punishment would be required.	This is not always true. A night thief could be expecting you to be asleep. This explanation consistently describes the intruder as a "thief." I think the fair -- if not universal -- interpretation of Ex 22:3 is that if you know the intruder is only a thief and you kill him anyway, you are a murderer, and his blood will be required of YOU!
So please, do not call sin what God Himself has not.	God calls for the execution of one who knowingly kills a thief during the day. Sounds like a sin to me.
Robert Mahoney
(http://freebooks.forums.commentary.net/forums/Index.cfm?Message_ID=44425)

Date: August 03, 2000 01:42 PM Author: raptor2 (raptor2@gulftel.com) Subject: Clarification

I guess I'm just reminded of some of the retribution sections in the O.T. Even viewing that we are under a more perfect revelation of Truth,vis a vis the N.T.,and that most pacifists seem to use the N.T. as a basis for their view, it is still a fact that the Lord's disciples had their short swords under their robes/tunics/blue jeans.	On O.T. retribution, I see the issue as one of God's command to shed the blood of capital criminals. We do not have evidence that all of the disciples carried a sword, only that Peter did (John 18:10). Peter also denied Christ seven verses later. Neither of these acts are worthy of Christian emulation.
Maybe I am looking at this simplistically but apparently this was not offensive to the Lord. From that, very simple, example I see nothing that would prohibit a 'self defense' teaching. And I believe the next logic step in a self defense teaching is the inherent opportunity of lethal force to be used.	Our Lord did not approve of Peter's use of the sword (John 18:11). Our Lord did not carry a sword. After his restoration, Peter commands us to follow Jesus, not the Christ-denying Peter (1 Peter 2:21).
As always, I give answers under the dread of (1) not even understanding the question in the first place or (2) being somewhat silly in my responses.
raptor2
(http://freebooks.forums.commentary.net/forums/Index.cfm?Message_ID=44426)

Date: August 03, 2000 02:27 PM Author: Lurquer (comunicus@hotmail.com) Subject: Good example

Without a doubt, one was not to be punished by the authorities in Israel for killing a night-time thief.	This indicates patience rather than approval, IMHO.
We still have a long way to go, however, before we conclude such a killing is something God wants us to do.
One was not to be punished for divorce either in Israel.
Neither was one to be punished for having adulterous thoughts.
Both, however, are against God's will as Jesus made very clear.
(As an aside, what would you do if a murderer intent on killing you entered your house during the day? Are you saying this verse prohibits you from killing him? Likewise, if you find an unarmed thief in your living room at 3:00 am and he drops to his knees and begs you to spare his life, would it be a sin to blow his head off anyway? In short, this verse may be one piece to the puzzle, but it doesn't solve anything...)
Regards...
(http://freebooks.forums.commentary.net/forums/Index.cfm?Message_ID=44427)

Date: August 03, 2000 05:13 PM Author: Jeff V. (v_jeff@hushmail.com) Subject: You need to throw away your NIV and look at another translation

Ex 22:2-3
NIV If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed. "A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft.	This verse supports the view that the issue is when the intruder breaks in, not when the evidence is reported.
KJV If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.	This verse supports the view that the issue is when the intruder breaks in, not when the evidence is reported.
NASB If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account. But if the sun has risen on him, there will be bloodguiltiness on his account. He shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.	This verse supports the view that the issue is when the intruder breaks in, not when the evidence is reported.
RSV If a thief is found breaking in, and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him; but if the sun has risen upon him, there shall be bloodguilt for him.	None of these translations are persuasive, Jeff, much less definitive.
My interpretation (as well as the method we have used on 3 different occasions, once during the day and twice at night):	Are you saying you have killed two intruders? If you didn't kill them did you sin by not doing so?
When a thief is discovered breaking in, God expects the man of the house to defend his household. Daytime or nighttime has nothing to do with it. If the thief dies, too bad, the killer is innocent. However if the dead thief is still lying there when the sun rises. That is, if the householder hides the death or tampers with the evidence, he's guilty of murder. If the thief survives, he can be sued.	I would need to read the arguments of the scholar who claims that the "If the sun has risen on him" language refers to the evidence, the corpus delicti, rather than the time of the break-in. John Calvin agrees with me, ands says that God "therefore justly condemns to death those who have avenged by murder a theft in open day." He does not view this passage as an evidentiary rule. I need something to weigh in the balance against Calvin. This verse does not prove that a householder who kills a mere thief is innocent, only that he need not be executed for murder if his killing is at night.
Clearly, God expects you to use deadly force against an intruder. If the thief backs down at the threat of force, he lives to steal another day.	I don't see that God "expects" us to kill, but that the Israelite who kills at night would not be executed. Under what circumstance would the thief "back down?" I thought this was the whole issue -- that the pacifist wants to persuade the thief to "back down," while the advocate of lethal self-defense says the thief must be instinctively and unhesitatingly blown away before he has a chance to blow you away! Or are you saying that execution is the appropriate way to prevent theft? (so that he won't live to steal another day)
If the thief doesn't back down, you kill him. Period. No if's, and's, or but's. When the thief quits resisting, you can quit killing him.	No if I had a tranquilizer gun and I knew how to use it I could put him to sleep? I MUST *kill* him? God forbids me to keep trying to get him to repent ("back down") and to preserve his life?
It is not in your best interest to continue killing the thief once the thief gives up, because if the thief lives you can collect damages.
Then you summon the "authorities" to report what happenned and, if necessary, for them to take the body away. Lurquer doesn't like it, but the Law requires an earthly judge to rule on the matter (for you and against the thief), this implies summoning the authorities.	This is a subtle transition from the subject of "pacifism" to the subject of "anarcho-capitalism." The O.T. required an earthly judge only in matters which were too hard for Lurquer, Kevin and Jeff to decide. The Law also required the participation of the Levites (Deut. 17:8-9). For Jeff to use this law to deny the option of a stateless society where (as a mere example) insurance companies or other voluntary associations assess guilt and innocence is to require Lurquer to find not only a judge, but also a Levite.
----
As for this whole idea that creeps who break in during the day are expecting to find an empty house, Hogwash. The daytime case we had, the creep knew my wife was home. He choose the time he did because I wasn't home. He was purposefully preying on women and children. What he wasn't expecting was that my wife could be as dangerous as any man.	The American suburban "nuclear family" is sub-Biblical. If we had extended families and domestic apprentices (did I say "slaves?") our women and children would be safer. I also believe that if we harbor amillennial violence in our hearts rather than postmillennial love, God sends violence to our homes as a chastisement.
(http://freebooks.forums.commentary.net/forums/Index.cfm?Message_ID=44431)

Date: August 03, 2000 05:33 PM Author: Lurquer (comunicus@hotmail.com) Subject: novel interpretation

I find it difficult to imagine the verse has to do with a timeframe in which one must report a death.	So do I. We need a footnote, Jeff.
It's inconsistent with the culture, the geography, and the way of life.
I would be more likely to consider your view if you could point us to a SINGLE commentator or Talmudic gloss written in the past 3000 years coming anywhere close to your interpretation.
Are there any?
It's not an issue of NIV vs. KJV. It's an issue of English vs. Hebrew. Do you know of any authors who know Hebrew who have put forth an interpretation consistent with yours?
Just wondering...
(http://freebooks.forums.commentary.net/forums/Index.cfm?Message_ID=44432)

Date: August 03, 2000 06:34 PM Author: Jeff V. (v_jeff@hushmail.com) Subject: I have several at home

I didn't make this stuff up. I read it someplace (actually several places).
Your interpretation is the ridiculous one. It has no basis in the text. Sunrise is attached to finding the thief not striking him. The thief was already stuck in vs. 2, yet for some reason no verdict has yet been delivered. Why?	It's not "ridiculous," Jeff. Enough of this tough-talk. Lurquer's interpretation is held by the overwhelming majority of interpreters throughout church history.
As for your claim of inconsistancy with "the culture, the geography, and the way of life," it is certainly not. The people received just a few acres per family. It was not a rural country. Approximately 1 man out of 8 was a judge (Ex 18:21).
Later in chapter 22, vss 8 & 12 require someone who is safekeeping your stuff to pay if it is stolen and the thief is not caught. The neighbor failed to do his duty and stop the thief. The neighbor has a duty to stop the thief day or night by whatever means are necessary. If he doesn't, he will pay.	Not quite. If no evidence of theft can be produced, the safekeeper is presumed to have stolen it. Under your interpretation, I can borrow your car, fence it, kill a stranger, produce his body ("Behold, the thief!")and pay you nothing for your car. If there are two or three witnesses to the theft of your car, but the thief flees and cannot be apprehended, I do not have to pay you for what I was safekeeping.
The authorities are supposed to enforce this lawsuit against the neighbor.
(http://freebooks.forums.commentary.net/forums/Index.cfm?Message_ID=44434)

Date: August 03, 2000 06:40 PM Author: Jeff V. (v_jeff@hushmail.com) Subject: There is nothing odd or unprecedented about "my"

reporting requirement. Read the rest of the chapter. A judge is required to judge the parties involved. To do that, the deed must be reported to a judge.
If my memory serves me, one of my references (it's titled something like "The Church and the Sword") says that Blackstone uses Ex. 22:3 as part of his condemnation of evidence tampering.	My search reveals that Blackstone is not on the Net. Is this true? Lurquer, does your edition of Bl.Comm. have a Scripture index?
(http://freebooks.forums.commentary.net/forums/Index.cfm?Message_ID=44435)