I have really appreciated my ongoing discussion with Preston on the question of nonviolence and the Christian. Preston is engaging, funny, quick, and a pleasure to interact with. He is right that I have been busy and that is why this is a belated response. I do need to play a little catch up. I am responding to this here, and realize that I am one behind.
The first point to make is one that I made during our interactions at Q as well. The question of nonviolence and the question of militarism are two distinct questions. They are not the same thing at all. Whether lethal force is ever lawful and/or required and whether indiscriminate militarism is lawful are very different questions.
A man who believes in carpet bombing a thousand men in order to kill one guilty man is someone who of course agrees with me on the propriety of killing that one guilty man. That is what political theorists might call common ground. But I would agree with Preston on the 999 men. That’s common ground also.
Militarism is an idol. Nationalism is an idol. Overweening patriotism is an idol. So non-pacifists can be anti-war, but there is an important qualifier. It depends on the war. We do not know a priori whether it is lawful.
And so this distinction is why I think Preston’s move is actually a dodge. He says this:
“I want to point out up front that the stuff Doug and I keep discussing — violence in self defense — lives at the fringes of the main topic.”
That’s not quite right. Suppose Preston committed himself to another universal negative and said that “there is no gold in Alaska.” And suppose further that I went and found some. He cannot object and say that this particular gold that I found is peripheral to the main topic. If it is gold and if it is in Alaska, then what it actually would be is a counterexample demonstrating the falsity of the thesis, or perhaps a lesson in how not to commit yourself to universal negatives. It would not do to say that the gold I found doesn’t count because it was found “on the fringes of” Alaska. It was within fifty miles of the border, too close to Canada. No. If it is gold and if it is in Alaska, then the thesis must be modified.
If taking the life of another is ever lawful and/or required, then the position of universal nonviolence is simply false. I am more than prepared to join with Preston in a hearty condemnation of most violence. But is that the topic? I don’t think so.
Preston concludes with a (very funny) dialog, which begins this way:
NRA: Okay, so say a guy with a gun is breaking into your house trying to kill your family. What are you going to do?
Me: I’ll use nonviolence to stop him.
He writes the dialog in which he shows that the average gun-owning homeowner is not Annie Oakley. Read all the way through it — lotsa fun. But how hard do you think it would be for me to write a similar dialog with certain key reversals? In which I demonstrate that, during a midnight break-in, the average homeowner does not have the presence of Mother Teresa, the serenity of the Buddha, and the gravity of the burglar’s sainted mother?
Most people can’t shoot a gun out of a burglar’s hand. Sure. Neither can they make the burglar drop the gun by using a 2 am NPR voice.
At 2:00am I’m not aiming at the intruders hand but the dinner plate size area on his chest. Ammo is expensive and so is house repair.
Speaking of the NPR voice I often wonder if one day we are going to hear a thud and then silence on All Things Considered while Diane Rehm is hosting. She sounds like she has one foot in the grave already.
You do realize her voice sounds that way because she has a neurological voice disorder?
Nina Totenberg was the one whose voice always bothered me. Maybe she can’t help it, but it just oozes “I’m a superior East Coast liberal…just shut up and learn from the best and brightest…and support NPR.”
And exactly how many rocks does Carl Kasell have in his mouth?
Years ago, Michael Kelly referred to an NPR announcer by descriptor only (though I think he was referring to Robert Segal) as “The Perfectly Modulated Voice of Reason”.
It seems like something broke when we lost Michael Kelly. Maybe just a harbinger, not a cause, but still.
I can’t think of her name right now, but there’s a woman staff reporter who has the most irritating, nasal, drawly twang. Not an accent, or a voice quality, but a speech pattern. I really don’t see how a broadcast professional isn’t better trained than that.
If you are talking about Diane Rehm, she has an actual neurological condition.
Edit: Oops, I guess I should have read the entire thread. I bet Dunsworth did, and so she must be talking about someone else.
I did read the thread, and I assumed it wasn’t her, because I think the person I have in mind is just a staff correspondent. I went and listened to a bit of the Diane Rehm show, and it’s not her.
My take: as long as they know when to sound condescending, the irritating/nasal qualities don’t matter.
*Chipper voice* “In a big win for transgender Americans today, ….”
*Switch to a tone you’d use on a disobedient dog with mange* “but some Evangelical Christians opposed the ruling…”:
And here I always thought that NPR was Radio Free Europe run by communists.
Shhh. It’s how we keep an eye on them. They actually broadcast their intentions over the airwaves.
It seems that statists are never reticent to say what they intend to do, but somehow it is difficult to convince others that yes, that is what they really intend.
There is some quality they all share that has a visceral effect on me. I would rather listen to one-hit wonders from the worst years in rock and roll than to have to endure those measured cadences. I think I resent them so much because they confirm my secret suspicion that, deep down, I am really shallow!
I finally figured it out. It’s Eleanor Beardsley.
If you want to hear a sample, the story about the French police in this link is a good illustration of what I mean.
http://www.npr.org/people/17796129/eleanor-beardsley
I always get a chuckle at her sign off — “Eleanor Beardsley, NPR News, Paris”. She sounds like a disgruntled teenager and her parents are making her say it. It wouldn’t surprise me if she let out a big sigh right before and rolled her eyes. I kind of get the feeling that she just likes hanging out in Paris and hates being disturbed by having to do her job.
Do you realize that *all* the female voices on NPR have the same sound?
Maybe it’s a male/female thing — I definitely think the women sound different, but all the men sound the same to me, except the obviously older ones like Robert Siegel and Karl Kassel.
NPR speak is built upon the pattern of wave STRUCture.
Each phrase commences with a quieter, measureded tone, then pulls the listener into a more pronounced and slightly louder conCLUsion, with emphasis on one of the last SYLables.
The thought is that the first part of these steady waves conveys a well-thought-out and intelligent VIEWpoint, while the penultimate punch demonstrates authORity.
Wow PH that’s pretty good
Yes, it’s not her fault at all. But why in the world she’s still on the air is a mystery to me.
Although it would be funny to hear her do a debate with James White.
My primary problem with non-violence types is that they make their points sitting astride the horse of peace. Live for a few days in a place and time when you are in danger and then tell me about your non-violence. That being said, Preston is making some good points and I look forward to more of his and Doug’s discussion.
I’m not a pacifist, but there have been more than a few who have lived dangerous lives. Lasserre and Trocmé come to mind immediately. I do think many of them a solid slap away from ditching their principles, but consistency of application isn’t a fair measure of the truth of the principle, anyway.
“…consistency of application isn’t a fair measure of the truth of the principle…” Correct. But what is not understood (or at least admitted) is that the very umbrella of safety that they enjoy, and the liberty that they luxuriate in, has been provided by those who have placed their lives in play to “bind up the strong man”. Mr. Taylor’s “Live for a few days in a place and time when you are in danger and then tell me about your non-violence.” is an apt description. There are places, and not that rare, where they would not get a chance… Read more »
I think that pro-violence advocates within Christianity are as or more likely to be living under that “umbrella of safety” as non-violence advocates.
And living in situations of violence seems to me to be at least as likely to push someone towards non-violence than living in situations of ease.
Can you please point me to a “pro-violence advocate within Christianity?” I don’t doubt they exist, as there are oddballs in every group. But I’ve never actually heard of a Christian who is in favor of violence.
The Army of God has advocated violence against abortion providers, and has been responsible for at least one kidnaping and several bombings. But they are unusual to say the least.
There’s the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda. There’s Lakwena’s Holy Spirit Mobile Force. There are people the world over who use scripture to try to justify, violence, mutilation, and murder. They are as convinced of the righteousness of their acts as some of us are about our imaginary burglars and Nazis.
What an extraordinarily offensive remark, ME. I could only wish that the Nazis who killed so many people had been as imaginary as you seem to believe.
Jilly, you were just discussing killing Nazis in order to protect the imaginary children in your basement. Unless you are actually in your late 80’s and survived the holocaust, I assume the Nazis were as metaphorical as the thief in the night.
Or if you prefer, I guess you could just take offense and proceed to blame me for the entire holocaust.
ME, why would I blame you for the holocaust? I was not using the Nazis as metaphor; I was using them as evidence of the genuine evil in the world that Christians are sometimes called to confront. Your argument, as I understood it, was that any killing is sinful, no matter who it is, and that killing does not cease to be sinful because it might protect children from unimaginable evil. I found your comment offensive because, as I told you, I married into a family which lost people, including children, in the holocaust. There is something very un-hypothetical about… Read more »
Jilly, why in the world would you think the worst of me? You have more rhetoric and emotionalism going on in that comment than even I employ. We were discussing gun rights, killing, and sin, not you personally, not your family, not how you feel about the holocaust. Those are all personal triggers I cannot possibly be aware you have, therefore I could not deliberately trivialize them just to hurt you. You are assigning things to me that I never even said.
I don’t think we are going to be successful in understanding each other here, so for the sake of mutual charity, I think we should let this go.
Burglars and Nazis are imaginary?
In this thread, burglars and nazis are imaginary, a metaphorical example being used to make a point. I assume neither of us are currently facing a burglar or a nazi? Therefore they are not real right now, they are an imagined potential enemy.
True enough. But I don’t think people like that are all Jonathan has in mind — I think he thinks that countless Christians on this board and elsewhere who hope and pray they never have to pull a trigger on anyone and earnestly wish lethal force were not a matter we had to think through, are “pro-violence advocates.” I daresay everyone commenting on this thread is “anti-violence.” I was more making a point, or trying to draw Jonathan out, than asking a question in pure ignorance.
I know. Please step on my petunia patch so I can blow you into kingdom come. Try ringing my doorbell after 9 pm and you’ll be meeting my friends Messrs. Smith and Wesson. Real men stand their ground and have enough fire power to take out a small village. I think this is how some people like to picture anyone who disagrees with absolute pacifism.
I speak of that the same manner in which one would speak of a pro-abortion advocate within Christianity. At least many of the pro-abortion advocates claim that they themselves don’t agree with the act, want to have far less of it, and would never do it themselves. When I see posts on here advocating for war, advocating for the bombing of civilians, saying that the time for armed revolution against the government may be close, claiming that someone who isn’t willing to violently wield a gun against another human being isn’t a good father, advocating for the death penalty even… Read more »
Yes, there are certainly many modern, suburban, armchair pacifists whose taste (one can hardly call it a conviction) against violence is born out of their luxurious distance from the harsh realities of history and the world. But those like the anabaptists absolutely did pay for their convictions with their lives, their property, their homes, and their families. They remained firm, not because the doctrine of non-resistance was convenient, not because they knew nonimmenant risk of life and limb, but because they believed it was right. Concervative Mennonites believe this still today for the same reasons. Theirs is a position worthy… Read more »
A consistent theology would preclude a pacifist from seeking shelter in a country that would use force to defend them. For example, if group A says “no violence, not ever”, then it is a violation of said conviction to seek shelter in a “neutral” country, thereby covering themselves with an alternative force umbrella.
Absolute non-resistance means complete acquiescence, otherwise you are resisting. Passive resistance is still resistance.
With all due respect, this over simplification shows that you simply don’t know what the classical Anabaptist doctrine of Christian non-resistance is and how it’s intimately connected to the rest of their theology in a manner that does not at all imply what you are saying. This sort of straw man argumentation rather than engaging with one another’s actual positions is exactly why these conversations rarely get anywhere.
It is no straw man to understand that we can have these conversations without risk of life and limb by virtue of those who are not pacifists.
What you call oversimplification I call a reduction.
Actually, they were having these conversations while the full weight of legal force was being used to destroy them, not protect them. The context wasn’t one of safety and security in the protection of state arms. It was very much the opposite. Actually go read Sattler, Simmons, Riedemann, Marpeck, and Hubmairr, and tell me that their discussion on this reduce to the formula you offer. I think you will find otherwise. You will still disagree with them, but you will find a position worth interacting with. A position that raises real questions and offers a coherent system of real world… Read more »
I am operating upon the premise of the understanding of the term non-resistance.
I understand non-resistance to mean just that. None, by any means. Not hiding, not running, not resisting in any fashion. Full compliance. If I told you to do “X”, and you do anything but “X”, that is resistance.
How do you mean it?
Words often have both a common and a doctrinal use. “justification”, “sanctification”, “adoption”, “Election”, ect. The meaning of the word itself is relevant, but not sufficient to understand the content of the doctrine. It is the same with the doctrine of “Christian non-resistance.” This is what I meant when I said you don’t know what the doctrine is, and that is why you are is representing it. You are making the kind of errors someone might make if they looked up the word “election” in the dictionary and then started posting about the problems with the Christian doctrine of election.… Read more »
Would this be like relying on the Mounties to use force against anyone who came to Canada in 1967 for the purpose of of arresting and returning American draft dodgers?
Tyrone, I feel your statement is true from both sides, perhaps even more true from the other side. Go to a quiet wealthy suburb or any low-crime residential area, and as a whole most of the American Christians you meet will likely be pro-gun-use-in-violence. Go to a more violent inner-city neighborhood, and most of the American Christians you meet, both those from the neighborhood and those who relocated, are much more likely to be pro-gun-control and somewhat more likely than the norm to profess nonviolence. Go even further, to the American Christians who have chosen to relocate into war zones… Read more »
Nationalism can be an idol, but it’s not necessarily one. From dictionary.com: “nationalism definition. The strong belief that the interests of a particular nation-state are of primary importance. Also, the belief that a people who share a common language, history, and culture should constitute an independent nation, free of foreign domination.” America needs more, not less, of that kind of nationalism. I know that’s not primarily what this topic is about. But it’s important because one of the major subtexts of our current political situation is nationalism vs. globalism. I side unashamedly with the nationalists. I pay my taxes to… Read more »
I should probably listen to the other side of the conversation but judging from this side, DW seems incredibly patient. Imagine having to explain about universal negatives.
Anti-gunners (and pro-gunners for that matter) often have unrealistic ideas about guns that can be dispelled with a little direct experience. The problem, and I hate to be the one to break it to you, is that Hollywood lies. Almost everything they teach us about guns is wrong. Here’s one of their favorite lies: guns are super powerful death rays. They are tools for making holes in things.
“…little direct experience.”
I often called that syndrome as someone having “alligator lips and a parakeet butt”.
I havent read Preston’s book. I may do so. I bet its pretty good… There were some Egyptians who died, some of them quite young. And then there was the whole conquest thing. And that guy Goliath who David killed in the name of the Lord and he didnt seem to get disciplined for it, though he certainly was disciplined for other things…
Anyone know what Preston does with that? I was in his camp for a while after reading Les Mis a few years ago… but then I had kids and the grizzly bear in me grew.
Not to mention Dave killed lions and bears too!
Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!
I guess there’s 1 Chronicles 28:3.
Not really disciplined, though, I think that was more a matter of appropriateness. The wars David engaged in were the continuation of the conquest of the land specifically ordered by God and not yet complete.
I have a great deal of respect for Doug Wilson and appreciate reading his ideas very much, the vast majority of which I support. I have to say however, Preston continues to win me over in this debate. I share these sentiments, “My main problem is with the underlying spirit, which believes that power and violence is the way that evil is overcome.” A bit ironic, but it is actually my gun toting, somewhat bombastic husband that has had to sit me down and explain that you can not just toss all the bad people off our planet, that power… Read more »
Memi, as a friendly discussion point, I’ll play the military family card here. ;-) I don’t agree at all that there is an eagerness among Christians to think that violence is the best way to deal with evil. Most military people, and law enforcement people , Christian or not , view force as the last resort to stop evil, after other means have failed. To me, the tipping point for use of force is a lot like making the decision to spank an unruly child. Even the motivations and goals can be similar. Not to mention, that discipline, properly administered,… Read more »
Good points, A dad. You win that argument, hands down. Also, it is comforting to know that many people really do get it.
As a culture at large however, I think we’re losing that, so where as you use the military, law enforcement, as an example, I see the ghetto, Chicago, DC, Hollywood, even here in the rural boonies with our ever increasing suicide rates. The absence of fathers doesn’t help either because so many now have no idea what authority used properly even looks like.
No dispute on the Hollywood part either. I don’t have cable tv, and never have. For some reason, I have been watching cable show shoot outs on YouTube recently.
They are gratuitous rage and horror fantasies that are a disservice to any proper, albeit grave use of force.
Well said by “A” dad. But if Dr. Sprinkle acknowledges that there are many who see violent force as a last resort, and that it can be a righteous last resort, he loses all of his provocative edgieness. I think “A” dad is also onto something by raising the issue of spanking an unruly child. Wilson should follow up with Sprinkle on this topic. What does Dr Sprinkle say about the use of the rod, and of pain, to discipline children? Is this a righteous authority for parents to exercise, in love? Or is it always sinful to bear the… Read more »
Proverbs 3:12, “… For The Lord chastens whom He loves and delights in, even as a father to his son…”
“A” dad, I agree with what you say being true of many people. However, a LARGE number of people don’t think like you. In the earlier conversations, people say things like “ONLY a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun”, or they start mocking me when I suggest other options. It was clear in many parts of the conversation that the very existence of other options was either unknown or completely dismissed. I can see someone mocking Preston in that way just a couple comments below this one. For those people, the gun isn’t… Read more »
J’, thanks again for your actual thought here! An issue with this topic is apples vs. oranges. An “apple” being the San Bernandino shooters, who could only be stopped with force / guns, vs. an armed junkie in ones house, who hardly knows where he is. The gung-ho gun people are right in the first scenario, the no violence folks could be right in the second scenario. The same can be said of the conflicting statistics. I conclude by saying, The Word tells us “as much as is possible with you, be at peace with all men”. The peace possible… Read more »
I don’t agree with everything in your comment (mainly because I don’t put any limits to how God could have worked miraculously inside or outside the San Bernardino shooters), but you get an “Amen!” from me nonetheless. :)
I am always aiming for what I hope to be “ideal” Christianity, but I also recognize that people living much more holy lives than me often believe very different things on some subjects. We will always have more to learn and grow in!
Mrs. Me, First, do away with sentiments. They are out of place when reasoning about such issues Life and death struggles come with an entire package of them so you will not need to add your own. When faced with one, you will have the rest of your life to decide how to handle the immediate situation. How long that is depends upon what one does right now. Second, the goal of self-defense, a specific instance of force at microcosm levels, is not to ” toss all the bad people off our planet”. The sole and immediate goal is to… Read more »
Brilliant statement ME, and something I agree with strongly.
“I will hypnotize them with the power of interpretive dance.” -Preston… probably.
Since I haven’t heard Dr. Sprinkle’s presentation from the Q conference, or read his book, it’s taken me some time to figure out where he wants to stand. So I appreciate his continued interaction with Wilson. Here’s my impression at this point. It seems that Dr. Sprinkle has appropriated all of the rhetoric of peace and non-violence. This makes his position come across as very edgy and provocative. However, when the conversation gets anywhere outside of the Alaskan interior, we see him saying such things like: You want to use violence to defend your family in the rare (yet real)… Read more »
Jesus:
“..be as shrewd as snakes, and as innocent as doves.”????
Ali:
“Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee!”????
“I consider myself blessed. I consider you blessed. We’ve all been blessed with God-given talents. Mine just happens to be beating people up.”
Sugar Ray Leonard
Strangely enough, temple cleansing and pharisee silencing,
if they happen to be your gifts,
can get you in more trouble than Sugar Ray’s gift,
no matter how shrewd and innocent one might be! ; – )
R’, thanks, in general, for your comments!
Along with all the other folks with sincere things to say!
(You know who you are!)
“The attitude described by Sprinkle is that we live in a fallen, evil
world, and sometimes you gotta play along with some evil things that you
really don’t want to do.”
Yes, that’s a good description of what he is saying. I tend to share his beliefs there.
But this is like saying, “I know there is no righteous way to execute force, but I’m going to do it, or call upon it, anyway, because I live in a fallen world.”
Such an attitude betrays a lack of principle. At least a lack of any principle that would allow for consistency of belief and action.
I Corinthians 10:13 — we never HAVE to sin as a result of circumstance.
Thanks for the reference. Dr Sprinkle’s hermeneutic diverges at a very basic level. If he is right, it opens up a whole chain reaction of contradictions and misrepresentations in Scripture itself.
I Corinthians 10:13 speaks of temptation, but temptation is not sin. Christ Himself was tempted and we know He was sin free.
In a way we really do “have to sin because of circumstances,” simply being born makes us sinners and there are none righteous, not one. So simply by virtue of being descended from Adam and Eve, we have sin due to our circumstances.
The point is that if we can always find a way of escape from temptation, then we never have to sin. To sin is always a product of being tempted.
Having to sin because of circumstances is not quite the same thing as being prone to sin because we are sinners. There is no circumstance in which we have to sin, period. That’s precisely what I Corinthians 10:13 is about — we will always be able to escape temptation, and therefore, not sin.
“The point is that if we can always find a way of escape from temptation, then we never have to sin”
Okay, but the desire to kill someone could certainly be called a temptation, too. Even Doug admitted that, “during a midnight break-in, the average homeowner does not have the presence of Mother Teresa, the serenity of the Buddha, and the gravity of the burglar’s sainted mother.”
If God said to someone ” “…Behold, I give to him my covenant of peace, and it shall be to him and to his descendants after him the covenant of a perpetual priesthood…”
do you think that God was commending him for sinning?
“do you think that God was commending him for sinning?”
No, I think God was commending him for being zealous and forgiving him for sinning. That’s a covenant of peace and priesthood God hands them, not a commandment to go forth and hang people’s heads out in the sun before the Lord.
“I know there is no righteous way to execute force, but I’m going to do it, or call upon it, anyway, because I live in a fallen world.” Yes, I think that is accurate. Rather than expressing a lack of principle, it is an acknowledgment that we are fallen creatures living in a broken world. The consistency lies in our being able to make the best possible decision in spite of our sin and our sin nature. There is non righteous, not one, so we cannot kill in a righteous way that does not involve sin, that is somehow God… Read more »
No. God never forces us to act unrighteously. That would violate His holiness. God does not tempt us; therefore, He would never place us in a situation where sin is the only possibility.
“God does not tempt us; therefore, He would never place us in a situation where sin is the only possibility.”
We do that. We often place ourselves in situations where sin is the only possibility.
God is sovereign. We cannot put ourselves in any situation that overcomes His promise to “provide a way of escape” from temptation.
The temptation to kill a person *can* be a sin, but it is not a sin, if the circumstances justify it. If you are going to dispute that, you are actually going to have to take the trouble to establish your “killing is always sin” premise biblically instead of just continuing to assert it.
…so we cannot kill in a righteous way that does not involve sin.”
Can you support that with Scripture?
Yes, I can support that with scripture, but than we will simply be tossing disembodied and out of context scriptures at one another. Can one drive in rush hour traffic without sin? Can one get through a single day without a white lie, a harmless bit of gossip, a harsh word unjustified? I suggest not, I declare we all sinners, that there are “none righteous, not one,” therefore the very idea that killing could somehow now occur in a sin free zone that does not exist in any other aspect of life, seems rather flawed to me. I don’t expect… Read more »
“Can one drive in rush hour traffic without sin?” Of course. One can even do it driving Code 3. What sin is in view? If you are speaking of a lack of emotional control, that is for adolescents. Having a sin nature does not inherently make every act an act of sin. That is unsupportable by any weight of Scripture. “…yet some people seem to believe that having a gun suddenly makes them righteous and grants them full grace should they ever need to shoot someone.” It would be better if you speak of your own proclivities than assume about… Read more »
“Taking action to save a life is not inherently evil or sinful even with the use of lethal force.” Okay. Then you won’t mind if women have abortions since they are only protecting themselves and their stuff and therefore saving their own lives? Is that not what women are doing, taking action to save their lives? So when we follow scripture down this path that suggests that killing is somehow sin free, righteous, God endorsed even, that is where we arrive. Either life has value or it doesn’t, either killing is sin or it isn’t. You aren’t “taking action to… Read more »
Hi MW, I’m struggling with your reasoning here. For the abortion case to be parallel, we need to assume that the unborn child growing inside the woman is absolutely going to cause her death. I don’t think I have ever met a pro-lifer who would prefer the death of the mother to the death of the child. Even then, in a Catholic hospital, nothing is done directly to procure the death of the unborn child. The child may die as a result of action taken to save the mother’s life. I expect that a morally healthy obstetrician feels sorry about… Read more »
Did you ever watch Sophie’s Choice, Jilly? That’s the kind of moral conundrums I am speaking of. So which child does a mother in Africa kill when the others are all starving? Is it morally wrong for a woman who fears being murdered if her pregnancy is discovered, to have an abortion? So what makes it okay to kill a burglar who is stealing your stuff, who perhaps has no intention of harming you or your family? Isn’t it nearly impossible to divine intent in the middle of the night? Our hands are never clean Jilly, that’s what I’m trying… Read more »
ME, how do you view God’s instructing his people to kill (whether pagan nations as a whole e.g. the Canaanites, or individual lawbreakers) in his good and holy Law? Was God commanding his people to sin? Were those commands not sin then, but things have changed and now all killing is sin?
We have a conundrum here because in the first three examples you give, I do think the person was wrong to kill. I say this compassionately and with a prayer that I never find myself in so terrible a situation. But my Catholic ethics say that each of those killings are wrong. Both of Sophie’s children are innocent victims. She can’t morally choose one over the other. Arguably, better that they should all die at the hand of the Nazis than for the little girl to realize that her mother chose her for death and her brother for life. The… Read more »
God is gracious, and I think that you would be forgiven for shooting the SS officer. But are you willing to believe that it might not be the best route? You don’t “know” that shooting the officer is the only way to save the children. And it could easily backfire – won’t his death lead to a search of the whole area? Perhaps they find your Jews and kill them and you…and in the meanwhile find all the Jews your neighbors are hiding as well. Perhaps these is a final plea that you could make that could change his heart.… Read more »
Jonathan, of course all those good outcomes could happen. I could invite my SS officer in and appeal to his better nature with coffee and cookies. I could offer to pray with him. And while I droned on through the 153 Hail Marys that make up a rosary, my Jewish children could have managed to escape. How likely is that? How much more likely, if I put down my gun and stand aside, that the children will be on the next train to Dachau? I think it goes without saying that if there were a safer, non-violent method of protection,… Read more »
Before I reply to everything here, I want to emphasize once again. A utilitarian response to imaginary hypothetical scenarios does not determine our obedience. The teachings of Christ do. If we believe the teachings of Christ point in this direction, then we are to follow His teachings and put faith in His power despite the direction that worldly logic about hypothetical scenarios takes us. The wisdom of Christ is foolishness to the world. That being said, I do believe that there are comprehensible answers to your objections. Jonathan, of course all those good outcomes could happen. I could invite my… Read more »
“Arguably, better that they should all die at the hand of the Nazis than for the little girl to realize that her mother chose her for death and her brother for life” Put God in the role of parent here and you’ve just made a moral argument for complete pacifism. That’s what killing is, choosing one of God’s children for death so that others might live. We can comfort our self by labeling the thief or the Nazi bad, or by declaring we’re making the best choice we can, but the truth remains that we are still killing one of… Read more »
Are you saying that I should not kill the SS officer to save the Jews I am hiding, or are you saying it is okay to kill him as long as I feel guilty about it? If I allow my guilt feelings to prevail above all else, should I feel guilty about letting him kill the Jews I promised to save?
When you say we comfort ourselves by labeling the Nazi bad, you are glossing over the fact that the SS officer, who has come to send innocent children to the death camps, is in fact bad. Yes, he was created in God’s image. Yet he chose to defile that image. He has gone over to the dark side about as thoroughly as a human being can go. You are speaking as if both the victim and the criminal are morally neutral, like the children in Sophie’s Choice. My objection to the mother choosing which child would die is that both… Read more »
You just abandoned all pretense to reason when you equated “not inherently evil” with “never evil.”
Equivocation and obfuscation is the name of the game, my good RFB. Person “A”: “Can someone kill someone else without having committed sin by the act of killing?” Person “Illogical”: “NO!! You can’t even bake cookies for your grandchildren without sinning!!” Person “A”: “But that’s not what we’re talking about. Is killing inherently evil and opposed by God?” Person “Illogical”: “Can a woman who’s the victim of the unborn child within her kill that child and still be righteous?!?” Person “A”: “….uh…hmm…Okay. Different line of argument: Does Scripture say that God absolutely and without exception oppose all killing? Did God,… Read more »
ME asks: Can one drive in rush hour traffic without sin? Can one get through a single day without a white lie, a harmless bit of gossip, a harsh word unjustified? ME is continuing to use very sloppy logic here. Don’t her questions depend on *who* the “one” is? What if it is Jesus? Can Jesus drive in rush hour traffic without sin? If He can, and if we have Christ in us, then it is possible to do so. Now if the argument is that man is tainted with sin in everything we do, even if only in our… Read more »
“Yes, I can support that with scripture, but than we will simply be tossing disembodied and out of context scriptures at one another. There’s a certain lack of appeal in tossing disembodied scriptures, it’s true, but if your entire argument is based on the premise that we cannot kill in a righteous way, it might be helpful if something other than assertion and circumlocutions about how of course we sin in everything we do (which could equally be adduced to prove that mowing your lawn is a sin) were used as the basis for your argument. IOW, if you won’t… Read more »
“therefore the very idea that killing could somehow now occur in a sin free zone that does not exist in any other aspect of life, seems rather flawed to me.”
I think we all agree that if there were no sin there would be no killing, but that is a long way off from saying that killing is always a sinfull response.
I like Psalm 51, “Against You, You only, I have sinned And done what is evil in Your sight, So that You are justified when You speak And blameless when You judge.” Later we have, “Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, the God of my salvation; Then my tongue will joyfully sing of Your righteousness.” When David is in the cave and manages to not kill Saul he says, “Moreover, my father, see, yea, see the skirt of thy robe in my hand: for in that I cut off the skirt of thy robe, and killed thee not, know thou… Read more »
No, David would NOT have been justified killing Saul, and killing a sleeping man (who is your king) is not a justified act of self-defense.
He didn’t refrain from killing Saul because all killing is sin, but because killing Saul in that circumstance would have been sin, as was killing Uriah.
Well, I have far more respect for David’s opinion than for yours Dunsworth, on account of the fact that David was familiar with multiple forms of killing, “the good, the bad and the ugly,” so to speak.
I find it completely baffling why you would be so invested in trying to convince people that killing is some kind of righteous, sin free act, but I find that rather appalling and morally wrong.
To prove your position you also have to show that David was sinning by killing Goliath.
“To prove your position…” Well actually, I think God won there, because David is clearly a murderer, as in that is what is in his heart. You could say he wasn’t a murderer at the precise time he slayed Goliath, but the story is carefully preserved for us for a reason, and David’s heart is revealed to us for a reason. David is a murderer who wrote us beautiful psalms about his sin state, about desiring to regain his salvation, his favor. God takes the whole person however, our full character, not one moment in time, not one specific set… Read more »
“You could say he wasn’t a murderer at the precise time he slayed Goliath”
Isn’t this contrary to what you’ve been saying this whole convetsation? Or are you saying killing Goliath was a sin other than murder?
No. She’s been asked to do that very thing innumerable times.
There is a serious hermeneutical error that is being run. It is two-fold. First, it is the idea that, because God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, that therefore killing the wicked is a detestable failure of character. The hermeneutical error is to say that if something is unpleasant, it must be unrighteous. This is false. God says, “vengeance is Mine, I will repay”, and also we read this about the exalted Christ: And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness… Read more »
In speaking with my bride today (prior to seeing your post), I mentioned to her of the penchant of modern evangelicals trying to act like Roman Catholics by keeping Christ nailed to the cross. They seemingly fixate upon the Suffering Servant, and lose sight of the fact that He did it once, it is finished, and He now owns The Name above all names to the Glory of God the Father. What would they say about a guy that God says regarding him: “…Behold, I give to him my covenant of peace, and it shall be to him and to… Read more »
I share your sentiment.
There is a view that lends credence to the Catholic view; it is this.
God (Jesus) is eternal; He is all places and all times simultaneously. It follows that He is fully risen and fully suffering on the cross.
I do agree with you; it is finished.
Roman Catholics make an appeal to God’s timelessness in order to defend their position on the mass. If you believe that Jesus continues to suffer on the cross in a perpetual and timeless fashion, then it is easier to defend their priestly act of re-sacrifice of the freshly broken real body of Christ in the mass every week.
This is Barnhardt’s view.
If that is the RC view (not disputing you on that, I am just unaware of it) then I do not think that adheres to Scripture. The Man Christ Jesus is corporeal, and sits at the right hand of God the Father, and will until all of His enemies are a foot stool. He ascended physically, and will return in the same way. The Spirit on the other hand is not corporeal, and is not and was not nailed to the cross. It was the Second Person of the Trinity, the Son. He was physically removed and physically buried, and… Read more »
I’ll say his hypothetical conversation with the NRA (but seriously.. the NRA?) is interesting (though it gets a little nauseating by the end.. I mean, get to the point). But robbing someone at gunpoint is illegal. It isnt as bad as murder but its still illegal. Its like the Godfather’s offer you can’t refuse. Now sometimes you can get away with robbery or murder, which is what the would-be 2 am assailant is almost definitely counting on. But if you move into the house you stole at gunpoint, you probably aren’t going to get away with it for very long.… Read more »
Yeah, The whole thing was over the top, but they part was just too much. He REALLY seemed to think he was making a really good point on that one
That is how it works if one has never or rarely ventured into the alternate reality of violent criminal assailants. Its one thing to fantasize what it is like and how one will react; it is entirely different in living color.
But I do like the story about a Canadian family who came home to find an intruder in their household. They sat the would-be thief down for a long and serious discussion about life choices.
Good because it turned out that way.
As a wise practice it is ill-advised. A man has an inviolate obligation to his own that is God commanded. God says that “if anyone does not provide…especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
Since this is in the context of shelter, food and clothing, how much more so the very living breath of those under his responsibility and care.
I agree, and when I picture this story, it is set in some sort of Canadian Mayberry with Wallie and Eddy Haskell as the felons.
Aunt Bea, of course, would be the force, the heavy and force of nature in that equation!
; – )
I have no doubt Jilly, that you, in your own way, are a benevolent force as well! ; – )
Seriously though, RFB, if you were in that situation would you actually be at risk of not providing for your household? I’ve found this “I NEED TO PROVIDE!” excuse for all sorts of things to ring extremely false when talking to fellow Americans and other people from rich countries. We all know that from some combination of insurance, brief family/church assistance, and our continued employment, we wouldn’t actually be at risk of being unable to provide at all. At worst, we would in the short-term only be sorta rich (globally and historically) rather than obscenely rich. No serious need would… Read more »
That’s a rather blithe response to the scenario of giving away one’s (probably still mortgaged) home, all its contents, and any cash reserves, and still somehow having to pay rent or another mortgage with no down payment on a home with no furnishings and no food in the cupboards, and no way to get to the “continued employment” because you also gave away all your vehicles. Were anyone on the other side of the argument convinced that self-defense actually is sinful, and just trying to justify it on a cost-benefit analysis, then of course such a cost would be worth… Read more »
It’s a blithe response to a silly scenario. But there was an element of truth to it. We are so deeply connected to our possessions that the idea of giving away everything is not worth another man’s life to us. I don’t think give up all your possessions would put your family at risk at all. As in, not one bit. In fact, it might save them. So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions.Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow… Read more »
“I don’t think give up all your possessions would put your family at risk at all. As in, not one bit. In fact, it might save them.”
In that statement, you are entrusting the safety of you and your loved ones to the judgement of a person who already has demonstrably evil judgment. That type of thinking is either naive or foolish. In fact, it might get your entire family murdered.
No kidding. Tex Watson told Sharon Tate not to worry, they were just there to steal. Right before they tied her up and killed her and her unborn child. Charles Manson told the LaBiancas they were being tied up just so the thieves could get away. His killers left a fork in his body and his blood on the walls. The In Cold Blood killers said exactly the same thing before slaughtering an entire family. But heaven knows we would not want to value our possessions, which includes our very lives, over some armed innocent who might not have murderous… Read more »
Mrs. Bean, It often takes a Herculean effort to avoid going to personal experience as part of the argument. My entire family has been both military and public safety for generations, and in all facets of it. My side came over too late for the War for Independence, but have been up to there necks ever since (to this very second), domestic and foreign, with a MoH among some of the deeds. My bride’s side goes all the way back to the Crusades. Outside of the military, it has been LE, Fire and EMS, with some doing all three at… Read more »
jillybean I love that you are up on your Manson. Did you read the most recent bio? A fascinating companion to Helter Skelter. Supposedly an acquaintance of mine was invited by Frykowski’s brother (whom he knew) to go party with them that night. He declined.
Lucky for him! I think I have read most of the books about him. My favorite was the Ed Sanders bio
Was that the most recent? Called Manson? I just read that- a good companion to HSkelter. You really get a sense of the timeline and how the whole dynamic unfolded. Much less a whodunnit like the Bugliosi book but as riveting.. His particular insanity, desire to control and why is laid out pretty well. Less race war and more megalomaniacal desire to be a rock star. Stunted artist/musician turned messianic preacher death orchestrator murderer.
Edit: just looked it up. It’s the Jeff Guin book. You should check it out. Definitive.
I never believed the whole race war thing. I thought it was a story Manson spun for his followers. I think it really was as simple as that he burned some Panthers over a drug deal and was terrified after he shot one of them. And I think the crazed assassins were sent to the house on Cielo Drive because Melcher had lived there and it represented Manson’s failure ever to break into the rock music scene. I have listened to a couple of his tapes, and they are seriously bad! Commentators thought he had a mystical hold over the… Read more »
There is also Dennis wilsons house on sunset. Directly across the street from will Rogers park right at the light. That was where Manson and his party squatted until Wilson was forced essentially to flee. It is a nice property. Totally right, Manson wanted to be a famous musician. I think the race war thing may have been real for Manson to the extent that it was the product of a life in prison and a paranoid, drug fueled reality once out including that he killed that dealer. My intuition is that van houten is genuinely sorry for her participation… Read more »
I think one of his songs ended up on the B side of a Beach Boys single. It is strange, looking back, how repressiveness coexisted with a degree of permissiveness we would probably now find intolerable. Some underaged girls carried signed letters from their parents giving Charlie Manson custody even though there were obvious sexual relationships taking place. I don’t think that would happen now. I often take the train through the area where the Spahn movie ranch was. It is really pretty scenery, and seems totally empty now. It gives you a weird feeling as the place where the… Read more »
It is strange, looking back, how repressiveness coexisted with a degree of permissiveness we would probably now find intolerable I read somewhere that back in the early 70s, the parents of Steven Tyler’s 13 year old girlfriend made him her legal guardian so she could travel and have sex with him when Aerosmith went on tour. Wasn’t Priscilla about 14 when Elvis started banging her with her parents’s permission? (Looking it up, which I should’ve done before I wrote this comment, this article says she was 16, not 13, and her dad was out of the picture, so only her… Read more »
jilly, you might get a kick out of some of these books:
http://www.amazon.com/Sinister-Forces%C2%97-Manson-Secret-Witchcraft/dp/0984185836/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1462660455&sr=8-8&keywords=peter+levenda
http://www.amazon.com/Weird-Scenes-Inside-Canyon-Laurel/dp/1909394122/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1462660322&sr=8-1&keywords=dave+mcgowan
http://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Evil-Investigation-Americas-Dangerous/dp/038523452X/ref=sr_1_2_twi_har_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1462660520&sr=8-2&keywords=ultimate+evil
Yes I think so, it is also my understanding that Dennis Wilson re-wrote some of Charlie’s lyrics and recorded the track without letting him know… and that made CM mad- one of the reasons Wilson feared him. I have never had the urge to drive up to Spahn… I have never driven on Sunset west by Will Rogers without thinking about that property. More trivia: Modern goth Trent Reznor (Nine Inch Nails) in a macabre move rented the Tate house to make one of his records when he moved from NO. A colleague wired it for him and didn’t have… Read more »
Thinking further about colorful scenes of murder and mayhem, I had dinner tonight at the place where Robert Blake and Bonnie had their last plate of pasta together. They sold the booth because everyone was always asking to sit in it.
Vitellos! I used to see jazz upstairs once in a while during my time there… I have never eaten their food. Like all of LA, it seems so incongruous that such a benign, tiny parking lot in the suburbs would be a planned murder scene by a known actor. So unlikely.
Be careful–he was found not guilty after all! It is so hard to convict a celebrity here that I am amazed Phil Spector could not dream-team his way out of a guilty verdict.
True, Blake was found not guilty. I personally think that he did it. As far as Spector goes, too many true stories of him pulling a gun on clients and others.
Still… the Mayan temple-esque Franklin house is the one that creeps me out the most. Even more than the former Tate or Labianca residence:
http://dujour.com/news/uncovering-the-secrets-of-the-black-dahlia-murder/
http://www.sowdenhouse.com
I’ve never been there but the location looks more like Los Feliz than Hollywood. The picture certainly looks creepy, as if decadence is dripping from the very walls. Mr. Hodel looks pretty creepy himself.
Many years ago my husband had a client visiting from Australia, and he was ours to wine and dine for the weekend. We asked him where he would like to go: Catalina? Disneyland? Santa Monica? He hesitated for a moment, and we said, go ahead. You name it, we’ll take you there. “Can I go see all the Manson murder locations” he asked.
I forgot to add: The Pyrenees Castle where Spector killed that poor girl is also pretty scary. You would almost think it is full of spectres!
Once I learned the location, I was surprised that she went over there after nightclub closing time- it was a long way from the Club on the sunset strip…
He had promised to send her home in a cab after one drink. It was a dumb thing to do, but she probably hoped it would help her career. I know from my own daughter and her friends in the industry that they will take terrible chances in the hope of making that one valuable connection. Fortunately my daughter has me sitting outside every audition or shoot that I don’t feel good about.
Is there a better city for true crime than LA? Black Dahlia Avenger is another great one. I am fairly satisfied that the author Steve Hodel’s brilliant corrupt surgeon father was the killer… So was the LA PD at the time. The Hodel’s F Lloyd Wright Jr. House on Franklin gives me the chills every time.
LOL Half of Hollywood was supposed to have been at that party that night. Just like, up until recently, about half the people in politics claimed that they had “marched with Dr. King.” It got so ludicrous that in 2010 Tea Party leader Mark Williams was claiming that “I was in the streets marching for civil rights while a**hole southern sheriffs were swinging nail studded baseball bats at black’s heads.” In 2010, Mark Williams was 48 years old, meaning he was born in 1962. So he’s claiming that when he was an infant of one and two years, he was… Read more »
By absolutely no means. At all times, before, during, and after such scenarios, I entrust the safety of myself and my loved ones to God. “Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And which of… Read more »
Jonathan, The obligation to protect your family is squarely within the premise of trusting God. The context of of my use of the word entrusting was regarding the decision making process. That is, good judgement versus evil judgement, and the fact that in a such a situation, you will be forced to make a decision. You will either decide in favor of the defense of the lives of the victims, or you will decide to allow the perpetrator of evil to do as he pleases. You will make a decision, because even doing nothing is still a decision. It is… Read more »
You will either decide in favor of the defense of the lives of the victims, or you will decide to allow the perpetrator of evil to do as he pleases. You will make a decision, because even doing nothing is still a decision. I think we’re at an impasse here, because you simply haven’t heard what I’ve been saying at all. This is exactly the phenomena I was pointing out to Jillybean. No matter how many times I point out that there are myriad other options, no many how many times that I point out I’d give my very life… Read more »
The only violence that I am focused upon is the violence of the perpetrator. Since he has already demonstrated evil intent, as I mentioned, then I will not grant him the decision making authority regarding the outcome of the situation. I will dictate the terms of it. I will not grant someone perpetrating evil to be in the drivers seat of the decision process. If possible, and it is my hope, then surrender is sincerely offered in the hope that he accepts it. Any further act of violence on his part (and I do define him entering my residence at… Read more »
Jonathan, it is easy for someone else to decide that I would be better off without my possessions. Have you, in fact, ever been in a situation where you can’t afford meat and medicine for your child? I have. There were many days when my child ate only because I did not. Don’t tell me how spiritually rewarding they were.
Jillybean, I sympathize with you how difficult and trying those times would be. We can also agree that being willing to give up your possessions in service to God is not what puts people in such a situation. I think you can agree that Americans in general, especially the ones that post here, could give up all their things and still easily avoid such times. But we never know what the future holds and of course it’s possible that at some point in the future, trying times will come. In the scenario discussed, the only person who would decide that… Read more »
Hi Jonathan, I thought that before we continued, it would be helpful for me to summarize what I have inferred about your opinions. Otherwise, I may well find myself arguing with positions that you don’t in fact hold. So, please, set me straight where I am not doing you justice. You believe that we live in a society so much dominated by violence that force is the first, and often the only, response we have to situations where we feel endangered. You believe that it is inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus to respond with violence rather than to search… Read more »
I have to start out by saying, that when someone tries so completely and honestly to check their own understanding of another person’s views, there is NO need to apologize for any mischaracterization. You haven’t gotten me perfect, but the way you asked was beautiful. But say so many things about me, and you’re going to get a doozy of a response. :) You believe that we live in a society so much dominated by violence that force is the first, and often the only, response we have to situations where we feel endangered. You believe that it is inconsistent… Read more »
I’ll add one thing to my long response – far outside of the practical concerns for what happens in that immediate moment, my much larger concern is what happens in all the rest of our moments due to fear of that moment. Due to the huge cultural support of DGU in the conservative Christian community…. How much have we elevated misplaced fear in our hearts, specifically misplaced fear of someone who can kill the body, but cannot touch the soul? How much have we shifted our reliance for safety on our ability to hold power over another person, specifically deadly… Read more »
I responded already to the “possessions” part of your comment with what I hope was a strongly Christ-centered argument, but I forgot about your second paragraph. I completely agree – THAT part of the argument, the part where we try to follow Jesus irrespective of humanist utilitarianism, has to come first. And once it’s made, this second “cost-benefit analysis” part of the argument is irrelevant -no “cost-benefit analysis” trumps obeying Christ. That was part of the point of Preston’s post – we don’t live in these theoretical worlds, but a world that really has been turned upside down by Jesus… Read more »
Jonathan,
Maybe you misunderstood my point. Copied from another post that I wrote, it is reasonable logic that “since God commands that a man provide all of the physical protections and provisions of shelter, clothing, and food, to also comprehend that a man is also therefore obligated to protect the very lives of those that he is sheltering and feeding. To presume less would be either silliness or duplicitous reasoning.
But, to segue from your point of losing the ability to provide, being seriously injured or killed can do that very thing.
Angie O’Gorman has a very good story on that too. Look her up.
Agreed. Dr. Sprinkle needs to redo the conversation, only this time, instead of an intruder threatening his own life (which he is free to spend and lay down as he wishes), the situation would be that he has just come home to find his wife dead in the kitchen, and there is a man raping his child on the couch in the living room. Is Dr. Sprinkle going to non-violently pray beside the attacker and ask that God might miraculously send a (non-violent) deliverer? Will he call and wait for the police to arrive? Is Dr. Sprinkle going to “love… Read more »
That right there is why I quickly depart from conversations with people who advocate using those types of arguments. At its very core it is disingenuous. And the premise of owning a gun is not some sort of talisman the grants additional street cred to his argument. Owning a piano does not make one a pianist. I am not advocating pragmatism. Nonetheless, very few of the people who advocate the position of non-violence have ever really experienced real violence up close at bad-breath distance. They do not like how even thinking about it it makes them feel, so they reflexively… Read more »
I hate to say out loud that I agree with Douglas Wilson on something. So I won’t. I will type it however. Gun ownership, training, frequent practice and availability as an option in the course of self-defense is mere common sense in a country with 300 million guns on the street.
I appreciate your words Randman, but that is also why I am such an annoying disputant in this debate. Christians are called to be set apart, to have higher selves, to not always answer to what appears to be “mere common sense.” That is why I lean more towards Preston’s side of the debate,” because he acknowledges that important part. I would try to explain the difference to non believers, but all in good humor here, I cannot even get most Christians to understand. I will say however, that I think you make a far more moral choice. To blame… Read more »
Appreciated. As far as I am concerned I would wish for a gun free/violence free world. But that is not what we have. I suspect that it is not going to change anytime soon. But maybe? There are many paths to a higher self. I am not a christian and practice a non-metaphysical vipassana. I seek to be free of delusion and use skillful means in my life. It is a daily practice. While I appreciate the sentiment behind your position and sympathize with it personally, is not the reality of our world. As far a rationalization using scripture goes,… Read more »
But of course… God did say that. He inspired Moses to write it down: Exodus 2:22. Was that a lie? It’s possible to think that Jesus abrogated that part of the law, but you’ll need to mount an argument to that effect.
Zipporah gave birth to a son?? What do expect me to do with that?
I think he meant Exodus 22:2
Sorry – misplaced the colon. Exodus 22:2, which specifically permits killing housebreakers.
“If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.”
In other words, it is not a capital crime that we would execute people over. How anyone could take that and translate it to mean, “I can now kill sin free with complete impunity,” is beyond me.
This passage is a call to show mercy to those who kill in self defense in the middle of the night, not permission to kill housebreakers as if killing can be righteous and sin free.
There’s no punishment listed in Scripture, the same Scripture that makes manslaying a capital offense. The passage doesn’t say “don’t kill the guy who killed the thief, but he has to make a sacrifice.” You’re just imposing your opinion on the passage. Might as well argue that the village elders had to serve the successful home defender an ice cream sundae with manna-flavored syrup on top – both are equally supported by the text.
I am not imposing my opinion on that passage. The passage does not declare that killing is a sin free act nor does it declare that the village elders must serve cream.
It simply says that if you kill thief “no blood be shed for him,” meaning the law will show you mercy. As it should! Still that is a far cry from declaring that killing is a sin free act endorsed by God Himself. That really is called imposing your opinion on a passage of scripture.
You are arguing that the act described in the verse, and declared innocent by the law, is sinful. The passage contains no support for that view. Ergo, your reading is eisegetical.
To be innocent under the law does not mean we are sin free. One cannot simply obey the law and justify one’s own self, now claiming to be righteous. My reading is not eisegetical, because there is nothing in that passage declaring us to be able to kill sin free, which appears to be the point you are arguing. Therefore it is your reading that is eisegetical. I have no need or desire to declare my shooting of a burglar to be a sin free act, I am completely comfortable with the law showing me mercy and Christ redeeming us… Read more »
Nonsense. Not everything a human does is necessarily sin: for whatever is not from faith is sin. Ergo, things that Christians do in faith are not sinful, as per Scripture. You, on the other hand, are asserting on your own authority that a particular act (killing) is always necessarily sinful; passages that tell against that reading you have (thus far) tended to ignore. Bad form.
LOL! Bad form? Fine, I’ll wear “bad form” long before I’ll wear anything that states God approves of killing and grants us the ability to do it sin free.
“God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.”
“Thus says the Lord of hosts: ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'”
One form of conversation that I have used with people is first asking them: “Is there anything that I could say that would change your mind?” or alternatively: “Are there any facts that would change your mind?”
The subsequent answer often reveals the true tenor of the debate.
R’, are you still around? check in some time!
See, of the two of us, I’m the one who actually believes that. Which is why I go to the trouble of presenting actual Bible passages to make my case, rather than just insisting on my private dogma.
It is your own private dogma that seems to demand a sin free killing zone. I’m just fine with appealing for mercy under the law and forgiveness from Jesus Christ.
You’re making my point for me. Look, it’s been real, but I’m out. Ciao.
“Most people can’t shoot a gun out of a burglar’s hand. Sure. Neither can they make the burglar drop the gun by using a 2 am NPR voice.”
Chipotle pepper spray, the godly,….and tasty, alternative!
Why am I not invited to speak at these conferences? ; – )
More cheating Doug…waiting for your enablers to discredit in 3…2…1…
https://adaughterofthereformation.wordpress.com/2016/05/05/plagiarism-wilson-and-the-omnibus/?utm_content=buffer0f261&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Awwwwww, mini-me, who knew that US law was a Wilson “enabler”? fair use, noun (in US copyright law) the doctrine that brief excerpts of copyright material may, under certain circumstances, be quoted verbatim for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research, without the need for permission from or payment to the copyright holder. 17 U.S. Code § 107 – Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Well, not you and Rachel Miller anyway. : – ( This must be some secret deal between Wilson and Ted Cruz right? Did you notice in Rachel’s “research” that the public domain theorems… Read more »
Yes, but a proffer of facts only works in a world where facts matter. The past is another country; they do things differently there.
Our new improved model, with fresh minty breath, is all about feels. It is so common (and I think it became more so during the 60’s) that it has permeated the vernacular. (That’s no vernacular, that’s a doiby.) Think of how many people, when asked for a position regarding a specific issue, answer with: “Well I feel….”.
Again, thanks for your comments, and commitment to fact.
In fact, you probably deserve your own personal troll, far more than I do!????
If you do, at some point, find yourself “graced” with a dedicated personal troll, feel free to nick name your troll “mini-me” as well!
No attribution needed!
Props to the Three Stooges reference, which I know only through the influence of every single male in my family.
I thought for sure the #dougiewriggle would have pasted… (OOPS, silly me!) I mean posted today.
I’m curious to see what happens when Rachel Miller points her software at wikipedia itself. As in her previous labors of love, Rachel Miller doesn’t seem to vet the results of her commercial plagiarism software very well. For example, under the very first graphical image (the one of the pyramids) that she claims as an example of plagiarism, she says: The source material comes from Ancient Times, a History of the Early World: An Introduction to the Study of Ancient History and the Career of Early Man by James Henry Breasted However, Breasted says in his own footnote that the… Read more »
Do you suppose Rachel Miller will change the name of her site to:
“Daughter of the Defamation”. ? ????
Again, if so, no attribution needed!????
At this point it seems that Miller is simply trying to earn the title of Citation Nazi. Clearly, Miller’s target is Wilson, but once more she seems to fall short of that particular mark. Given the mountains of citations in the Omnibus, she has failed, once again, to demonstrate any malicious intent to steal other people’s work. What she has shown is the need for improved citations, but also a need to reexamine the relationship between fair use and plagiarism. For example, there are only so many ways to say that Daniel Whittle was born on November 22, 1840, in… Read more »
“Love does not insist on its’ own way, but rejoices in the Truth.” Rachel’s position is untenable, absent her own, highly enforced ignorance. Prove it on her blog and she will block you. “Historical overviews When multiple sources provide the same information about historic events, you may provide a summary of these events without a reference. However, you found the information in just one source, be sure to cite it.” http://davidson.libguides.com/c.php?g=349327&p=2361764 “Plagiarism, Attribution, and the Public Domain If you copy from a public domain writing, do you have to credit the author? The United States Supreme Court has answered, “No,”… Read more »
You ought to provide this research on Mrs Miller’s blog.
If I write 2 + 2 = 4, am I required to cite mom and dad?
Of course I agree with you, Katecho, except when you say there are only so many ways to present the most basic data about Daniel Whittle. How’s this? A cold New England wind blew off the Connecticut River, shaking the few remaining dry leaves that clung, as if for warmth, to the stark and bare branches on the morning of November 22, 1840. Over the sound of the rustling leaves, the waterfall in its endless cascading roar, and the clipclop of the milkman’s horse making its rounds there suddenly could be heard the faint cry of a newborn babe. How… Read more »
Very good Jilly! On a similar note, you missed my birth by 56 years.
Still, if your wrote me an Obit. like the above, I’d take it! ; – )
I think I would be too sad, “A” Dad. I would miss your unfailing kindness and encouragement.
Very nicely done. But I hope I was clear in distinguishing a statement of raw historical facts from embellished narrative accounts.
I think there are some things to be addressed in Miller’s post. Though I think the conflation of plagiarism and copyright infringement is unhelpful. The later issue is a minefield and acknowledged as such.
For a hoot, see my analysis of Miller’s very first Omnibus page. You can’t make this stuff up.
I may be late in coming but Id love to chime in. I am a veteran. I have an enemy marksmanship badge (purple heart) that was awarded to me outside of Baghdad because a convoy commander would not listen to the sickening feeling that persisted in a young E4’s stomach. I was a turret gunner and the IED Blew out my ear and knocked me unconscious. I had been called into the ministry before I left for Iraq. After that I became a corrections officer for 5 years at a county jail. I fought inmates on almost a daily basis.… Read more »
“Enemy marksmanship badge”–too funny. Thanks for your service, both using violence and eschewing it.
What a coward https://dougwils.com/controversy
What’s cowardly about addressing controversy openly?
Says who? Anonymous Internet guy. Oh him.
Comically enough,
your accusation / defamation,
is as weak as your punctuation! ; – )