no gun=no protection?

Right & Wrong
Post Reply
User avatar
21centpilgrim
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:17 pm

no gun=no protection?

Post by 21centpilgrim » Mon Dec 28, 2015 2:30 am

In recent discussions about Christians and gun control, the issue of whether or not to kill and assailant who was in one's house and attacking one's spouse was raised.

Here is a portion of the article-

the simple question, “Can I shoot my wife’s assailant?” My answer would be, “Love God and do what you want”—and I want to shoot my wife’s assailant because I love her too much to let her be abused and because I love him too much to let him abuse her. If not providing for my family is a denial of the faith (1 Tim 5:8), how much worse is not protecting them if I am able?

I think this is dangerous. I think it is twisting and reading into scripture. I think this is accusing fellow Christians of being worse than an unbeliever for having different convictions on the matter of killing a human being.

Your thoughts?

Thanks
Then those who feared the LORD spoke with each other, and the LORD listened to what they said. In his presence, a scroll of remembrance was written to record the names of those who feared him and loved to think about him.

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

Re: no gun=no protection?

Post by robbyyoung » Mon Dec 28, 2015 8:55 am

Hi Brother,

I agree that the poster crossed-the-line on being too judgmental or critical towards believers who choose to be passive. Believers who are convicted and convinced, by scripture, that they should be passive while themselves and their family are being slaughter, raped, tortured or whatever, should have the support of their brethren. Conversely, believers who are convicted by scripture in favoring self-defense/protection should likewise be supported; without judgment. I believe either action is acceptable. What I find suspect is the judgmental attitudes of so-called christians in the wake of such events.

God Bless.
Last edited by robbyyoung on Mon Dec 28, 2015 9:06 am, edited 2 times in total.

crgfstr1
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 8:55 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA

Re: no gun=no protection?

Post by crgfstr1 » Mon Dec 28, 2015 8:56 am

I doubt that if you had a gun and the assailant didn't that you would need to kill them in order to get them to stop their assault. You could threaten, attempt to wound, etc. first. If they did die however in your attempts to stop them I believe that Exodus 22:2 would apply. Not doing anything whether you had a gun or not would be worse I believe. Even if they had a gun and you didn't. That may only be talking to them or it may require physical action.

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

Re: no gun=no protection?

Post by thrombomodulin » Mon Dec 28, 2015 10:32 am

21centpilgrim,

I think that the inference of an obligation to protect one's family from this verse, in a prima facie sense, is reasonable. The difficulty is that equally reasonable inferences could be made from other scriptures that lead to the opposite conclusion. I have been unable to find any conclusion, about when the use of forcible resistance may be justified, that is satisfactory when all scripture data relevant to this topic is considered. As such, I am unable to follow through with inferencing from 1 Tim 5:8 that it would be worse than a denial of the faith if one chooses not to protect their family from an assailant.

Steve's article on the use of forcible resistance is an excellent summary of the scriptural data. There are two points that strike me as impossible to reconcile. Steve writes:
Steve wrote: Though, in the law, a close relative of the victim -- or even the whole community -- conducted the execution, the enforcement of this penalty is assigned in the New Testament to agents of the state, rather than private citizens (Rom.13:1-7/1 Pet.2:13-14).
Steve wrote: In addition to the law enforcement authorities, God's law (Ex.22:2-3) permits the homeowner's use of lethal force against a burglar, if the burglar is killed in the act of committing the crime ("while breaking in"), though, if he gets away with the loot ("if the sun has risen on him") and is later apprehended, he is not to be killed for his theft, but is required to make restitution. This legislation seems to teach one or both of the following: either 1) it gives the homeowner a special jurisdiction as the protector of his home and family, to act in the place of law enforcement officers, and/or 2) it gives the private citizen (the homeowner in this case) the right to act in the place of the law enforcement officer in situations where he sees a crime in progress and no duly appointed magistrate is nearby (as in the case of a "citizen's arrest").
This depends on the idea of being able to categorize oneself as being, or not being, an agent of the State. There are several difficulties in making this distinction. First, it is unclear which category one should consider themselves as belonging to in the circumstances when a State affirms that its citizens may use lethal force in self defense. Second, it muddies the waters that representative governments place citizens in the role, at least in a theoretical sense, of directing when and how the State ought to punish crime (e.g. voting upon ballot propositions, voting for rulers with more or less resolve to punish crime, service in jury duty, etc,.). Third, it is sometimes not possible to resolve if the coercive force imposed by one or more men over others suffices to deserve being labeled or categorized as a "State". In biblical times this was often made clear by a prophet who anointed a ruler to show the divine appointment to that position. I am not aware of a modern ruler who can make such a claim as the basis for his authority. If that is not it, then what is? These problems would be particularly acute if an anarchocapitalist structure to society should ever be realized. This will probably never occur, and I do not expect that it will occur during my lifetime. The application of forcible resistance to that scenario remains only a theoretical consideration, but nonetheless it is one that provides assistance in gaining a recognition of the severity of these difficulties.
Steve wrote: 10. Every passage in Scripture about doing good to enemies and not resisting the evil man (e.g. Matt.5:38-42) envisages a case where the Christian is alone threatened. There is no specific teaching which forbids the forcible defense of other helpless victims.
Steve wrote: We might also feel that it is more virtuous to simply "trust the Lord," rather than to fight for our own defense (I can appreciate this), though the moral issues are different where the obligation to defend another is a factor.
The idea that one can defend others, but not themselves, becomes awkward in a case where two individuals encounter an assailant. Suppose the situation where one of the two friends has a weapon, and further that the use of force with that weapon has a reasonable chance of success against the assailant. If the armed person is assailed, it would be unethical for him to allow the weapon to enter the hands of his unarmed friend - for that would defending himself. Yet, the unarmed man has an ethical obligation to obtain and use the weapon in defense of his friend - for that would be defending another person. I am thinking, perhaps incorrectly, that this implies a physical struggle ought to then ensue between the two friends over the possession and use of the weapon against the assailant. If this is so, this strikes me as an unsatisfactory position. However, all other options I am aware of have problems as well.

Pete

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

Re: no gun=no protection?

Post by Homer » Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:19 am

Steve wrote:
10. Every passage in Scripture about doing good to enemies and not resisting the evil man (e.g. Matt.5:38-42) envisages a case where the Christian is alone threatened. There is no specific teaching which forbids the forcible defense of other helpless victims.
Not only that but Joachim Jeremias stated that the context in every case in Jesus' teaching on this matter was that of being persecuted for the person's faith.
Steve wrote:
We might also feel that it is more virtuous to simply "trust the Lord," rather than to fight for our own defense (I can appreciate this), though the moral issues are different where the obligation to defend another is a factor.
As Christians we have a duty to look after the needs of the poor and afflicted, to feed the hungry and cloth the poor. It would be absurd for us to say " 'go in peace', I will pray for you". As James warned; we must act. So when the poor and afflicted are about to be raped and murdered we stand by and let it happen?

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: no gun=no protection?

Post by Paidion » Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:34 pm

The instructions of Jesus:
You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. (Matthew 5:48-42 ESV)
I don't think there is the slightest indication that Jesus was talking here about a circumstance in which you are being persecuted. He is giving instructions for general practice.Also, I don't think he is suggesting passivity. For example, you would have to be pretty active to go two miles when you are required to go only one. It does seem however, that his instructions are meant for you alone. I am not aware of Jesus ever having said that you should avoid protecting someone else from an aggressor. However, in the general spirit of Jesus' instructions, I think you should do no more than is absolutely necessary to prevent that "someone else" from being hurt or killed, and to make every effort to avoid killing the aggressor.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

Post Reply

Return to “Ethics”