File Name: 3153.txt Ä Area: A_THEIST: A_T ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Msg#: 75 Date: 05-23-95 21:02 From: Randy Edwards Read: Yes Replied: No To: All Mark: Subj: Re: [2 of 7] Know Thy Ene ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ * Original Message Posted via ANEWS * Date: 22 May 95 17:17:48 * From: Randy Edwards @ 1:325/805 * To: All * Forwarded by: Christopher Baker @ 1:374/14 * Message text was not edited! @MSGID: 1:325/805 019b6ba8 @SPLIT: 22 May 95 17:17:48 @325/805 29760 02/07 +++++++++++ Surely Rahab protected the innocent lives of her neighbors when she hid the Israelite spies, Joshua 2:1-24. The Hebrew midwives also defended the lives of the Jewish boys, Exodus 1:15-22. The disciples protected the innocent life of Paul from imminent death in Acts 9:23-25. They helped him escape Damascus by lowering him in a basket through an opening in the wall. In each of the situations referred to above, whatever action was necessary to protect life was taken. In Exodus 22:2 deadly force is justified when used in defense of the innocent. In the case of the midwives, deadly force was not necessary. Therefore, the Scriptures clearly teach that we should take whatever action is necessary to protect innocent life. The second question that must be asked is, "May we use force to protect unborn children from imminent death even if the government forbids us to do so?" The answer to this question is found in Acts 5:29b. When the State or any other authority requires one to do what is contrary to God's law, the child of God "must obey God rather than men." This was clearly the opinion and practice of Peter and the Apostles. The Hebrew midwives were greatly blessed by God for defending innocent life though the civil authorities forbade them to do so. Moses also illegally used deadly force to defend the innocent, "and when he saw one of them being treated unjustly, he defended him and took vengeance for the oppressed by striking down the Egyptian", Acts 7:24. He did so even though no one had appointed him a ruler or judge, Acts 7:27. In this context Stephen clearly extols Moses for delivering the oppressed Hebrew from the Egyptian. His point is to condemn the Jews for rejecting the deliverance of Moses and Christ. Hebrews 11:25-26 clearly refers to the act of Moses as an act of self-denial. Acts 9:23-25 and II Cor. 11:32-33 tell us the Jews joined with local civil authorities in seeking the death of Paul in Damascus. The disciples certainly broke common local laws forbidding individuals to breach the walls of a city when they let Paul down in a basket. Clearly such laws forbidding the breach of the walls were designed to prevent robbery and murder. In breaking these laws Paul and his disciples were actually protecting innocent life from imminent death. Thus, laws designed to protect life may be violated if the violation does in fact protect innocent life. Individuals may, therefore, use force to deter a mass murderer who wantonly begins to kill innocent school children. Using the same logic, we may also use force against mass murderers who wantonly kill preschool and preborn children. We should do so even if some horribly unjust law presumes to declare it to be wrong to do so. If we should defend born children, we should also defend unborn children. If we should defend born and unborn children from harm, we should also do so if our government forbids us to do so. As Rahab, Moses, the Hebrew midwives and Paul all broke the law to do whatever was necessary to protect innocent life, so may we. There is no question that deadly force should be used to protect innocent life. The question is, whose life is innocent - those who kill our children or the children who are being killed? The government believes those who kill our children should be protected. We believe the unborn should be protected. The question then for us is, should we protect innocent life from harm if the government forbids us to do so? The Golden Rule clearly and irrefutably answers the question in this way; "Therefore whatever you want others to do for you, do so for them; for this is the Law and the Prophets", Matthew 7:12. If someone was about to tear your limbs from your body, what would you do? If you could defend yourself with force, would you? If you couldn't defend yourself with effective force, would you want someone else to? If so, Christ teaches that you should treat others similarly. If you dispute this clear teaching of the Bible you will have assumed the unbearable burden of having to prove the justice of using force to protect the born, but not the unborn. You can no more deny your responsibility to defend the unborn with force than you can deny the good Samaritan's responsibility to aid the wounded and dying traveler. The priest and the Levite must have tried to justify their neglect of the dying traveler. Has human nature changed so drastically that we are no longer in danger of justifying our neglect of our neighbors? Ethical Basis For Defensive Action In addition to defending the innocent from a brutal death there are other reasons for using force in the abortion controversy. One of these reasons is found in Numbers 35:33, "So you shall not pollute the land in which you are; for blood pollutes the land and no expiation can be made for the land for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it." Numbers 25 makes a similar point through the example of Phinehas. Phinehas violently took the life of two immoral persons in order to turn God's wrath away from the people. Numbers 25 tells us that the Israelites were playing the harlot with Moabite women. God's wrath in the form of a plague, therefore, turned against the people. As a result of the sins committed, Moses and the Judges were weeping before the tabernacle. As Moses and the leaders looked on, Zimri, the son of Salu, brazenly brought a Moabite woman named Cozbi by the weeping leaders. He led her past them and into a tent for immoral purposes. When Phinehas realized what was happening he was filled with zealous jealousy. He then followed them to the tent and checked the plague by driving a spear through them both. The startling truth is that this violent act was not done by a civil leader or after due legal process. Yet, this violently zealous act by an individual "made atonement for the sons of Israel." Though sin had fanned God's righteous anger to a searing blaze, the shedding of guilty blood had cooled the flame and saved the people from destruction. The commentators essentially agree on the factors necessary in order for zeal such as Phinehas' to be ethically just. Such an act must first arise from a pure motive. It must also be according to the legal standard found in the Bible and summarized in the Ten Commandments. Lastly, all such actions must ultimately seek the glory of God in order to be ethically justifiable. All true defensive action, therefore, must arise from the motive of love for God and our little neighbors. It must also be according to the objective law of God and seek the ultimate glory of God. -- MPost/2 v1.1 @ Origin: Spartacus Lives! * Home of ANEWS * Venceremos! * (1:325/805) *PATH: 325/805 3615/50 374/1 98 14 -!- GenMsg [0002] (cbak.rights@opus.global.org) ! Origin: Rights On!-A_THEIST Echo Mod/Host-Titusville_FL_USA (1:374/14)