File Name: 3155.txt Ä Area: A_THEIST: A_T ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Msg#: 77 Date: 05-23-95 21:02 From: Randy Edwards Read: Yes Replied: No To: All Mark: Subj: Re: [4 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 019b6bab @SPLIT: 22 May 95 17:17:48 @325/805 29760 04/07 +++++++++++ afflicted brethren..." The principles advocated in this pamphlet are, therefore, not only true but commonly accepted truths of the historic Christian church. Who Was The Real Aggressor? Before considering common objections to this historic position let us pause to consider a helpful distinction made by Barry Sindlinger in his paper "Is It Just...?" The distinction is made by identifying the aggressor and the defender in this case. Rather than accepting the common portrayal of a gentle hardworking doctor being chased down and shot in the back by a murderous lunatic, consider the facts. A brutal paid killer of hundreds upon hundreds of innocent unborn children was deterred by a deadly force as he approached his latest victims. The man who killed Dr. Gunn took the defensive posture and with apparent self-sacrifice killed the guilty to defend the innocent from a horrid death. The fact that the government describes what Dr. Gunn was about to do as abortion does not change the fact that it was the bloody slaughter of people made in God's image. The fact that Dr. Gunn killed the innocent in the white garb of the doctor with government approval does not justify his killing. His killing was no more justified than a man entering a school and personally killing school age children. Dr. Gunn was the violent aggressor. The man who killed him was defending your neighbor's children at great personal cost. Ten Objections Resolved Having given many clear and certain proofs of the truth that we may take all action necessary to protect innocent life, let us proceed to consider ten common objections to this biblical truth. Objection 1: Isn't A Government Leader Required For Forceful Civil Disobedience? To respond to this objection, one must consider an important distinction. The distinction is between a private citizen defending his neighbors from another private citizen who is seeking to kill them, and a group of men taking up arms against the established government. In the first instance, a magistrate would not be required; in the second instance, a magistrate ordinarily would be. Biblical proof has already been presented to substantiate the validity of a private citizen taking all just action necessary to protect innocent life. Dr. Gunn's death was the result of one individual trying to stop another individual from taking innocent life. This action does not require the authority of a civil leader. Many who affirm that a government official is necessary for forceful civil disobedience also assert that a government official is not necessary for nonviolent civil disobedience. There is no biblical evidence for this distinction. It should not be considered valid until proven. The biblical evidence used to support nonviolent civil disobedience also logically supports violent civil disobedience. If we say that one may justly trespass upon clinic property, upon what consistent biblical principle may we say that destroying clinic property requires a civil official? Objection 2: Only Peaceful Civil Disobedience Is Justified Someone might object to the use of force to protect life and point to the "peaceful" civil disobedience of Martin Luther King, Jr. or Gandhi. Limiting civil disobedience to pacifism does not reflect consistent Christianity. Pure pacifism more closely reflects the teachings of the Hindu religion than those of Christianity. The Bible does not endorse militarism in which deadly force is used regardless of whether a cause is just or not. Nor does the Bible advocate pacifism in which all violence (even in a just cause) is considered to be wrong. The Bible does teach, however, that just force may be used to protect innocent life. Our undying gratitude is due to all who have and continue to use peaceful civil disobedience. Such persons should also consider the justice of taking all action necessary to protect innocent life. If we consistently neglect the truth, the soldiers of an oppressive government could come into every home in its domain to rape, kill and steal. They could do this without fear of anyone using deadly force to protect innocent life as long as no lower opposing civil ruler were properly constituted. If you do not believe it to be our responsibility to take all just actions necessary (including deadly force) to protect the lives of the unborn, please ask yourself a question. At what point do you think it would be just to use force to protect innocent life? How old does a helpless child have to be before we defend him with force? Objection 3: Use Of Deadly Force Some might question the use of deadly force in protecting innocent life by suggesting that merely wounding the oppressor would be just, but killing him would not. In some circumstances this is true, but not in this one. The principles considered earlier in this paper under "Ethical Basis For Defensive Action" clearly speak to this question. In addition to these principles, experts in self-defense hold that in life and death situations you often need to seek to use deadly force in defending yourself or another. If you seek to simply wound the one seeking to harm the innocent you may not harm him at all. Even if you do wound him, he may still succeed in killing his victim or you, the one protecting his intended victim. In conditions where the government is just, merely wounding an unjust aggressor might be sufficient as he would be arrested and prevented from doing further harm. It might not be wise to merely wound an unjust aggressor if you had reason to believe that he would return to kill the ones you were protecting. Mistaken sympathy for an aggressive killer could result in the death of the ones who should have our ultimate sympathy. Objection 4: The Example Of Christ And Christian Piety Someone may object and say, "Christ is to be our example and He did not resist the government that put him to death." Christ had a direct command from God that he should offer His life as an atoning sacrifice. His case was unique. We have no such command. We have the God-given responsibility to take defensive action to protect life. Many people will say, "Rather than taking such decisive and possibly violent action, should we not prefer the more "spiritual" approach of prayer and fasting?" Any thinking Christian will soon see the biblical inconsistency of this objection. True faith shows itself by good works. Common sense clearly condemns the "piety" that would respond to the mugging of a helpless victim with prayer without taking defensive action. Objection 5: Defensive Action Is Not Loving -- 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)