Eagerness to take out some Muslims

Right & Wrong
steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Eagerness to take out some Muslims

Post by steve7150 » Tue Dec 08, 2015 7:14 am

and as a result the man shoots his innocent victim to death, would the deputy have sinned by failing to act?











As James said, if we know to do good and don't it's sinful, so is killing the criminal and thereby saving the innocent victim "doing good"?

User avatar
jaydam
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:29 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Eagerness to take out some Muslims

Post by jaydam » Tue Dec 08, 2015 8:18 pm

Homer wrote:So let us examine the scenario as though the deputy, even though he was God's agent (Roman's 13:3-4) said to himself "If I shoot the man holding the hostage, even though I will save her life, it will be a sin so I will just hope for the best" and as a result the man shoots his innocent victim to death, would the deputy have sinned by failing to act?
Know that what follows is my tentative beliefs. I am not solid in them, and not certain how well I will spell them out, but here is my understanding as it stands right now.

I believe you are asking the wrong question. The question should be, "What is the believers responsibility to God?" If the deputy is a Christian, does he not first have a responsibility to God and the example of Christ before the state or mankind (in this case the hostage)?

We would think the deputy sins in letting the undeserving hostage be killed by the evil criminal, so has God sinned and continues to do so by allowing his people to be killed while God could prevent their death? Obviously God does not sin by letting an innocent person be killed by an evil one, and neither do I think the deputy sins if being godly means the woman dies when the deputy could have otherwise prevented her death by ungodly means.

*And this is assuming that we are ok with the deputy acting, on the assumption the criminal will kill the woman, not the assumption. Many hostage situations end with the hostages being released, so would we have the deputy judge the man guilty of an action the man has not taken yet anyway? But that digresses into its own discussion...

**Also, this assumes the woman is innocent. Perhaps she is only taken hostage because she was in that area to meet a man she was cheating on her husband with. If she hadn't been involved in adultery, then she would not have been taken hostage. Or she could have any other number of sinful reasons she got wrapped up as a hostage which leaves her not so innocent.

Anyway, we are left with what is godly...

So what is it to act godly in the deputy's situation? It could be that, the deputy offers himself as a noncombatant in the woman's place. Willingly replacing the woman's life with his while at the same time acting peacefully to the evildoer. This is the example of Christ. Replacing himself for us, and not lifting a hand against his persecutors but dying for their understanding also.

If you allow the death of an innocent to dictate what is sin, then you fall into a moral grey area.

Lets replace the deputy with a drone pilot. He has his sights on a major leader for ISIS, but the leader is housed among "innocents". Does the drone pilot take the shot because he will kill less innocents now, than the leader might kill in the future through attacks?

Can the Christian choose the lesser of two evils? Or must the Christian choose no evil at all?

There are a lot of thoughts here, but I would first say that one does not sin by allowing an innocent to die, as long as one acts in a godly manner. Since God can allow innocents to die, and still be God, then I would say that to act godly does not necessitate the saving of innocent life through violence.

So, the necessity of HAVING to act to save the innocent is at least not an absolute requirement for acting godly.

So, if acting godly does not necessitate the innocent always be saved from physical death, then what is acting godly?

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: Eagerness to take out some Muslims

Post by thrombomodulin » Tue Dec 08, 2015 9:43 pm

Jaydam

Thank you for the book recommendation you made in a previous post. i have ordered a copy and look forward to reading it. I would like to ask if you would extend the same type analysis as given in the previos post to situations where ethics are not an issue in taking the life of an attacker. the example i have in mind is that of where a wild animal attacks a "innocent" person (e.g. lions, tigers and bears - or in my neck of the woods, more likely a pitbull). i think your analysis implies there would be no sin in watching someone fall victim to an animals power and doing nothing to help them - since God himself holds sole responsibility for their circumstances and chose not to rescue them. The parallel could be made to the adultury case you mentioned that maybe the victim was involved in some wrongdoing and so the attack was simply God's punishment - there was an OT prophet killed for by a wild animal for his disobedience.

my understanding is that genesis 9:6 offers a basis for men to take the life of a murderer, and inference from this that doing so to stop an immediate threat of murder using lethal force is justified. i am not an expert on this issue, and would like to learn more. thanks for starting this discussion

pete

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: Eagerness to take out some Muslims

Post by robbyyoung » Tue Dec 08, 2015 10:22 pm

jaydam wrote:Robby, as I was thinking about what I wrote earlier about the infamous "if" in Romans 12:18 which all my friends use as the exemption for Christian violence, I believe I perhaps boiled it down better. Here is my concise thought on it, although the previous post still holds more aspects:
To use the "if" of Romans 12:18 as an excuse for reciprocatory violence is no different than the original eye for an eye idea which I believe is spoken against in the New Testament. Harm would be met with harm in the name of justice and/or dissuasion on behalf of the victim of the initial violence in both understandings of the Old Testament allowance, and the interpretation for such allowance in Romans 12:18. Therefore, the "if" exemption interpretation really brings nothing new to the table, when we understand from the gist of the New Testament that there should be. I believe this would mean that the "if" exemption understanding is therefore necessarily wrong since it states: I don't pick a fight, but I get to respond to violence with violence when the other party starts it. This is no different that the eye for an eye understanding: I don't go around gouging out eyes, but I get to gouge one out if the other party gouges mine out first.

Thus, to make a split from the old idea, "if" must mean something else other than an exemption because it ultimately is no different than the way it used to be.

I believe "if" is simply a recognition that despite ones best effort, the other party might still get violent. If this happens, it is no fault of yours. The "if" merely acknowledges that you will not be able to prevent all violence from breaking out from the other side.

So, what happens if this violence breaks out? The next verses tell us and directly refute the right to respond violently: Do not seek vengeance, but feed and water your enemies and let God deal with the response.
Maybe this is clearer than what I wrote last time.
Hi Jaydam,

Even if what you are saying is true, Romans 13:1-5 remains to be a contentious aspect of total passivity. Let's specifically take a look at verse 4:

"for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer."

But didn't we just read in Romans 12:19 "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord."

Now doesn't this give us of the answer how God takes out vengeance or repays?

God uses MAN to do it, and yes, righteous men can be servants of God in this capacity. Not because I say so, because scripture says so. So brother, I do accept passivity in the lives of believers, however passivity is not the end all in the conversation.

God Bless.

User avatar
jaydam
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:29 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Eagerness to take out some Muslims

Post by jaydam » Wed Dec 09, 2015 1:39 am

thrombomodulin wrote:Jaydam

Thank you for the book recommendation you made in a previous post. i have ordered a copy and look forward to reading it. I would like to ask if you would extend the same type analysis as given in the previos post to situations where ethics are not an issue in taking the life of an attacker. the example i have in mind is that of where a wild animal attacks a "innocent" person (e.g. lions, tigers and bears - or in my neck of the woods, more likely a pitbull). i think your analysis implies there would be no sin in watching someone fall victim to an animals power and doing nothing to help them - since God himself holds sole responsibility for their circumstances and chose not to rescue them. The parallel could be made to the adultury case you mentioned that maybe the victim was involved in some wrongdoing and so the attack was simply God's punishment - there was an OT prophet killed for by a wild animal for his disobedience.

my understanding is that genesis 9:6 offers a basis for men to take the life of a murderer, and inference from this that doing so to stop an immediate threat of murder using lethal force is justified. i am not an expert on this issue, and would like to learn more. thanks for starting this discussion

pete
I am no expert, by far.

I don't believe it comes down to leaving someone to suffer their circumstances, but it is about being a Christian to all parties involved.

In the case of the animal vs. human, I have no qualms killing an animal to protect a human. The same might be applied to todays world and say I would likely have no issue with shooting down a drone to save a person.

However, when it is human and human I believe it is different.

We are to be a Christian to both the victim and the evildoer is my point. And being a Christian to them is not as easy IMO as kill the bad guy to save the "innocent" victim.

I believe our godly requirements are to love the victim and the evildoer, and killing one to save the other is not supported in scripture. Therefore, I perform my duty as best I can, if one kills the other it is an independent issue form my duty. In the performance of my duty though I will do my best to place myself in protection of the victim and to express love to the evildoer. This might mean that I die as well.

Again, I have heard the objections:

If you had a chance to take out the bad guy and save the "innocent" victim, but you didn't, then the victim's blood is really on your hands. As in the previous post, I would refute that idea by the understanding that God could certainly stop all killings of "innocent" victims himself, but he does not, yet we do not say the blood of the victims is on God's hands.

Or, what if the victim is not prepared to meet their maker? Well, if I can or cannot kill someone is a separate issue from their preparedness to meet God. Their lack of preparedness is not excuse for me to act differently than I should, IF I believe I am not supposed to kill.

Anyway, this brings us back to, what is our godly duty to both the victim and the evildoer?

If my responsibility to the evildoer is to exemplify the love and mercy God showed me while I was yet God's enemy, and God did not strike me dead, then that is what I must do, even if it costs other lives.

I really do not have an eloquent answer yet, but just more rambling thoughts as I am posting here.

User avatar
jaydam
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:29 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Eagerness to take out some Muslims

Post by jaydam » Wed Dec 09, 2015 1:54 am

robbyyoung wrote:...and yes, righteous men can be servants of God in this capacity. Not because I say so, because scripture says so.
Where does it say so? (Not to be dense or obstinate - I really want to know where you see this clarified in scripture)

I see spelled out in Romans 12 the duty of the believer. Then I see in Romans 13 God's explanation of how he uses nations. Between the two, I do not see how a believer can act in the state role in a manner that would violate his Christian role.

Nowhere in Romans 13 does it tell that a Christian should, or even can, participate actively in the state's role as God's tool for vengeance. It says to be subject to, but it does not say to assist in an armed manner.

In fact, Romans 13:4 speaks of the state bearing the sword, but not the Christian participating in bearing the sword in any way. Actually, the state is spoken of as a separate entity from the Christian, not one the Christian is or can be joined to.

Due to this, I believe there are separate roles shown here. The Christian's life as an individual (loving and submissive to the state), the state's role and God's pawn.

Just because God uses the state, it does not mean the state is godly in any manner. Look to his use of Babylon, Persia, Rome as pawns to balance the world and punish other evil nations including Israel.

It seems telling to me that the first 300 years of Christianity show no attempt by the Christians to use arms to protect themselves or other innocent victims. Nor is there historical records of Christian's serving in the Roman military. Actually, the early church statements of faith I have looked at require one to leave or refuse armed service to the state.

Obviously this changed when the church married Rome, then one had to profess Christianity as a participant of the state. But I would call the marriage of church and state a mistake the church made at that point.

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: Eagerness to take out some Muslims

Post by robbyyoung » Wed Dec 09, 2015 9:17 am

jaydam wrote:
robbyyoung wrote:...and yes, righteous men can be servants of God in this capacity. Not because I say so, because scripture says so.
Where does it say so? (Not to be dense or obstinate - I really want to know where you see this clarified in scripture)
Hi Jaydam,

Let's read Romans 13:3 "For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval"

Brother, without controversy, God established believers as rulers in Paul's past and Paul's present. He is getting this information from the Hebrew historical record "The O.T." Paul and every other Jew or gentile during his ministry knew full well of this truth. I know you are not willing to contend that God will never have any ruling believers in the world after Yeshua's ministry, are you? If not, then Romans 13:3 applies to future rulers who are believers. We know that there will be future rulers in the world after Yeshua's ministry because of what we read in Revelations 21:24. Either way, it is extremely unreasonable to believe God will NEVER have believing rulers, who by default, serve as his minister of justice. I hope you can see that believers can and will operate in the state's role when necessary. If God can use an unbeliever for His righteous judgments, He most definitely can use a believer as well, especially one who understands Romans 13. However, believers outside this God ordained capacity should live passively, this we agree on.

Your thoughts and God Bless.
Last edited by robbyyoung on Wed Dec 09, 2015 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: Eagerness to take out some Muslims

Post by thrombomodulin » Wed Dec 09, 2015 10:15 am

jaydam wrote: it is about being a Christian to all parties involved ... We are to be a Christian to both the victim and the evildoer is my point.
I agree.
jaydam wrote: In the case of the animal vs. human, I have no qualms killing an animal to protect a human. The same might be applied to todays world and say I would likely have no issue with shooting down a drone to save a person.
However, when it is human and human I believe it is different.
...
I would refute that idea by the understanding that God could certainly stop all killings of "innocent" victims himself, but he does not
I do not think refutation works. The point I am trying to make from the animal example isn't whether we should have qualms about killing them, but rather to identify if we have obligations towards helping victims. I understood this and the previous post to be affirming that our behavior should emulate that which we observe God himself doing. Thus as God refrains from helping victims, then we can be like him in that regard and feel no obligation to help victims ourselves. Thus it would seem applying this idea proves too much for we could use the same logic to conclude that we should not feel obliged to help victims of animal attacks. I am thinking that a passage like Genesis 9:6 is an indication that this is an incorrect idea. For here is an example of where God has apparently delegated a duty to human beings that he could carried out himself, but is choosing not to do so. Likewise, in many ways the church acts to fulfill duties as the body of Christ, that Jesus could simply do himself - but chooses not to as he acts through us.
jaydam wrote: And being a Christian to them is not as easy IMO as kill the bad guy to save the "innocent" victim.
I think it must be that there are at least some circumstances, however infrequent it might be, that killing the bad guy may be a means necessary to the end of saving the life of a victim. In those cases, If what I propose above is true, then we have clearly conflicting obligations and the question I think must proceed to whether to prefer the life of the offender to the victim. I don't see taking a life in these circumstances as wrong, but perhaps I am mistaken.
jaydam wrote: I really do not have an eloquent answer yet, but just more rambling thoughts as I am posting here.
Same here.
Last edited by thrombomodulin on Wed Dec 09, 2015 1:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Eagerness to take out some Muslims

Post by Homer » Wed Dec 09, 2015 10:41 am

Can the Christian choose the lesser of two evils? Or must the Christian choose no evil at all?
There can be cases where the Christian must choose the lesser evil. Situations can arise in life where the only choices you face are acts that would normally be a sinful. A classic case in ethics is that of the USS Pueblo where the ship had been seized in 1968 as a spy ship by North Korea while in international waters. The ship's captain, Lloyd Bucher, signed a false confession to save his crew from execution.

As an aside, his confession is a hoot, he pulled one over on the North Koreans. Excerpts can be read here, very funny:

http://www.usspueblo.org/Prisoners/Pete ... ssion.html

User avatar
jaydam
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:29 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Eagerness to take out some Muslims

Post by jaydam » Wed Dec 09, 2015 4:19 pm

robbyyoung wrote:Brother, without controversy, God established believers as rulers in Paul's past and Paul's present. He is getting this information from the Hebrew historical record "The O.T." Paul and every other Jew or gentile during his ministry knew full well of this truth.
The OT was involved in the creation and maintenance of a physical nation, which the NT is not. Wouldn't the old style political leaders of a physical nation now be found as spiritual leaders of a spiritual nation?
robbyyoung wrote:I know you are not willing to contend that God will never have any ruling believers in the world after Yeshua's ministry, are you? If not...
We could debate the topic of rulers another day, but pertinent to the direct this discussion has gone, would it not so much be service to the state in any capacity, but specifically armed service to the state. It is this armed service that I would question.
robbyyoung wrote:However, believers outside this God ordained capacity should live passively, this we agree on.
I have run into many Christians who believe this way. The Christian is to live passively, but that Christian lifestyle can be set on a shelf, so to speak, if one volunteers to serve the state. In which case, one is free to live differently because serving an instrument of God allows one to live a different lifestyle. Somehow, state service trumps personal Christian life.

I can't see that. I see it the other way around. Personal Christian life must come first, then if any position in state can be found, the Christian can serve in that capacity.

I appreciate you thoughts, please keep conversing and don't think me difficult on purpose. Maybe a little too thick-headed to pick up on what you are saying, but not intentionally so.

Post Reply

Return to “Ethics”