schoel wrote:Sean - Great post!
Well I'm just trying to post my thoughts on the issue. I've thought about it a lot, listened to both sides debate the issue, and wonder myself what I would or should do in these situations.
Do what Jesus and all the early followers did. Commit yourself to God. Let Him protect you. This seems to be the right answer, but even Jesus sweat great drops of blood over what seems to be a very similar issue. Just to be clear, I'm not saying you can't stop someone. I'm saying I don't know if we should kill to stop someone.schoel wrote: In bringing up the "love Jesus spoke about", it begs the question - Love for whom? I have a responsibility to love my wife and a responsibility to love the attacker. When in a situation where acting on my love for one results in harm or violence for the other, how do I choose?
#1 Yet we are called to take up our cross and walk as Jesus did. Jesus warned us that people would treat us the way He was treated. Well, not if we can help it I guess. Do we really deserve better than Jesus? Did He suffer so we did not have to. Paul said: "for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus". I know, I know. This was Paul speaking about himself. But this is Paul following in Jesus footsteps. He didn't expect to get out of seeing himself or his friends suffer. Unless protecting your family to the point of killing someone is in fact a higher calling. I'm just not so sure.schoel wrote: Jesus refusal to act in his own defense (calling the angels) and his halting the violence of Peter, differ from the above scenario you describe in 2 ways -
1) Jesus was certain of his calling to go to the cross, based on revelations given him over the course of his life, especially his Gethsemane prayer. Any defense against that was to disobey God's calling.
2) Jesus was the object of the aggression. He chose to not defend himself. He convinces the aggressive party of soldiers to let the disciples go (even though a good number of them had already run out on him). While he didn't employ violence, he did actively work to let them escape.
#2 Seems to have been a great non-violent solution to the problem.
I'm not sure any sort of self defense killing is biblical. Can someone just provide one verse that gives a command that goes in this direction? Calling it love seems desperate, since all violence can fall into this category, and politically speaking usually does. Were invading other countries to bring those poor oppressed people democracy, because that's the loving thing to do, isn't it? Why don't people go and kill abortion doctors? Don't they love the unborn? Aren't we going to be judged for not protecting them? Don't we love them? James said those who know the good they ought to do but don't do it is sin. Or do we only defend our family? Where do we draw the line?schoel wrote: The apostles were murdered by the state, or mobs in circumstances that seemed to offer no hope of escape from any sort of self defense. In Steve's article (linked above), he makes a case that when confronted with an aggressive situation where the only outcome of self defense is to "kill as many as possible before killed", this sort of self defense isn't biblical, moral or even reasonable.
I thought the loving thing to do is bring the lost the gospel? This is the unique role for the church. The unique role for the state is to bear the sword.
Romans 13:10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
The kind of love Paul spoke of does no harm to his neighbor. Does killing an aggressor and sending him to "hell" cause him any harm?
If someone kills my wife, how has she suffered any worse a fate that many who have come before her? Does she deserve better?
Romans 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 As it is written:
“ For Your sake we are killed all day long;
We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.”
Tough words, but true words. Didn't Paul think of the situation we are discussing? Or does this passage answer the question.
I'm not sure I agree. To repay evil for evil or insult for insult is exactly what is being done when an aggressor invades the home and you react in kind. Your repaying an act of aggression with another act of aggression. It seems technically valid, but I can see how someone would say it's not what was meant in this context, etc. Yet I can't find a place that grants permission to act violently against an aggressor. All we read about is the opposite, so I'm having a hard time believing it's acceptable. Even in Israel's past, there were times when (Jeremiah, I believe) told Israel to surrender without fighting to protect their own families & nation. The right thing in this case was not to fight. Was that then an example of not loving their families if they did surrender?schoel wrote: Vengeance is different from self defense.
Self defense - An aggressor is coming for your family member. If you do nothing, he will cause harm to them in a matter of seconds.
Vengeance - Tracking down an aggressor later and shooting him or an aggressor is no longer a threat to your family but you choose to harm him anyway.
And this is why a non-lethal view of self defense seems best. Otherwise you might also be part of "God's plan" to save all the unborn babies using violent means as well. I don't ever see a time when the sheep should be worried about the Shepherd's job. Either our Husband (Jesus) knows what's best for His bride and can protect her or He has abandoned us to fend for ourselves until He returns.schoel wrote:I swapped the order because this makes your best argument.Fifth, couldn't Jesus have sent 12 legions of angels down to save the apostles and other righteous people who were killed? It certainly seems Jesus could have protected His apostles but instead He let them die. Does this mean Jesus didn't "love" them because He could have protected them from harm but did not? Yet we are told Christ loves the church. She is His bride. Apparently this does not mean love equates to killing aggressors who seek to take your life or the life of your loved ones.
It presents the question - "If God doesn't save them, am I interfering with his plan by coming to their defense?"
An issue surfaces - How would I ever know if God wants to save them or not? Perhaps, I'm there as the plan of God to save them?
This is commonly brought up. To do nothing. Are you really thinking that there are only two options? Shoot or do nothing? How about talking to and trying to figure out a way to disarm the person? How about trying to take the weapon when they are distracted? There are many ways to try and protect loved ones without resorting to killing the person for whom Christ died. He may not get a second chance.schoel wrote: Bottom line for me so far -
While disciples of Christ are required to entrust everything to God, we are also called to act on our and other's behalf. For instance, I know that God is the ultimate provider for myself and my family, I don't just wait around for money and food to fall from the sky.
When faced with an aggressor that threatens my family, is it trust in God to do nothing, or is it negligence?
[/quote]schoel wrote: All this issue wrestling is tough...
And so am I. I'm trying to make the best points I can so I can get the best feedback I can. That way I'm not just wrestling with myself about this.