Posted on 06/02/2005 7:12:19 PM PDT by rudy45
I have found that Mr. Grabbe is for the most part correct in one of arguments: I have found only one few bible verse that hints at self-defense killing, apart from Exodus 22:2,3. That verse is Genesis 4:23,24 (Lamech's killing of a man for wounding him, an action that seems to incur no wrath or displeasure of God).
I can understand our need to depend on and respect God's sovererignty. On the other hand, the bible does seem to teach that we are responsible for using responsibly what God has given us (and God gave man the ability to invent firearms), and that we ARE responsible for defending innocent lives (namely, the life of the person being attacked).
ping
Christianity only exists because good men took up arms to defend the fail against the paynim.
To believe otherwise is to be confident in the expectation of a miracle on demand. That is the heresy of "special providence" that G-d will send a miracle because you are a believer, and really really want one.
The G-ds help those who help themselves.
faith. defend the faith. preview is my friend.....
I would suggest that he read Ester. Therin the Jews were permitted to defend themselves from the evil of Haman.
I haven't read Esther in awhile, but yes your statement makes sense.
The other point I would make is that when shooting in self-defense, aren't we supposed to be shooting to STOP THE ATTACK rather than to KILL THE ATTACKER?
Therefore, there would be no argument or conflict with Mr. Grabbe, because I had no INTENT to KILL the attacker. If he died, it was UNINTENTIONAL.
What do you think?
God instructed Israel about what to do when a man was killed. Numbers 35:9-28 shows that God recognizes only two classifications of killing: accidental and intentional. "Self-defense" is not even listed as a possibility!
Although, as I recall, there were a couple of "safe" cities designated where a person could run to for safety against revenge killings. Not that I'm advocating killing someone in revenge, if he wishes to rely on OT texts related to the taking of life of another human then he is incorrect here when he claims there are only 2 classifications of killing. Scripture did not talk against the revenge killing but rather provided places of safe haven if a person was able to reach there. I believe his error, as far as I've read so far, is centered on looking to OT law for Christian behavior (and again, not to say there is no value in the OT, but we are not under the law, so to seek to utilize the law without applying the whole law seems to be questionable).
Hmmmm....what about "an eye for an eye?"
you don't shoot to kill. You shoot to stay alive. When the threat is stopped, you stop shooting (as soon as you can. no-one can stop a bullet in flight, and reaction times are a real human limitation). After a shooting you have the responsibility to call 911 both to apprehend any minions and to provide aid to the wounded. You wouldn't go back to the hospital to give the guy a "finisher". That would be wrong.
Yes, cities of refuge: Deut 19: 1-7
They applied only to those people who UNINTENTIONALLY killed someone.. That person (the killer) could try to get to the city of refuge before the "avenger of blood" (I guess a relative of the victim) caught up with him/her.
What I don't know is, is the revenge killing "murder"?
Christians are clearly required to protect the innocent.
But the point of the author was that there was only 2 categories of KILLING (not murder), and in that he excluded revenge, and is therefore incorrect. That doesn't prove one conclusion or the other, simply that the author is Biblically inaccurate in one of his claims.
I agree with you, and intuitively I believe that God does NOT condemn self defense killing.
I'll play "devil's advocate" though, because I think Mr. Grabbe would argue the same thing: yes, we defend the innocent, but shouldn't we do it without taking the life of the person who is threatening? ( I don't necessarily hold this view, but I am interested in people's reaction).
Yes, Judaism chooses life over death. All the laws and commandments may be suspended if a human life is at stake. A doctor may work to save a life on the Sabbath. The elevators may run on the Sabbath because the infirm may threaten their lives by taking the stairs. The infirm are required to forgo fasting on a fast day if it would hurt their health. It is quite easy to conclude that one has an obligation to defend ones self and ones family against that which would threaten life and this article is full of you know what.
Yes, death would be unintentional, but still you shoot at the threat's high chest because that has the highest likelihood of stopping the threat, and your coordination under the effect of adrenalin is not the best. The old "Lone Ranger" plot line of "shooting the gun out of his hand" is dangerous fantasy if brought into the real world.
Generally you rack the shotgun, and either the bad guy jumps out the window to get away, or if on PCP or himself on adrenalin, heads right for you. In one case you stand down, in the other Number 1 buckshot with the "many bullets" technique of engagement is recommended.
Now, once the perp is under control, say in a jail, there is no NEED to kill him. He only gets out if the State lets him out. You as a private citizen don't have the leisure of time to think of a bunch of options, you probably don't have an protective vest, and you are very likely alone against a gang. Of course you can't act with the precision or forbearance of the Government. It is more reason for the thugs to be careful of private citizens.
If they are not, then it may very well be their funeral.
I think it's an exercise in semantics and word parsing. Here is what the law will say: Use of a firearm even in a DISPLAY mode is use of DEADLY FORCE. If you are shooting to stop the attack and aim for and hit an extremity like a leg, the judge is going to nail you by saying:
Well, let's see, you used deadly force when you fired your gun. But deep down inside you must not have felt the need for deadly force because you shot him in the leg.... See?
Myself, I'm a bit more practical. I have this motto:
Up the CREEK? Use Mozambique! AKA: Two to the chest and one to the head makes 'em dead.
For the record, I'm a born again Christian that believes that the right of self defense is God given and has been exercised by the people of God with his blessing throughout the course of human history.
I agree that if you can save a life without causing a death you should.
I think that the government should not have a death penalty, but that if a private citizen in self defense, in reasonable cases kills someone as he tries to defend himself or others from assault, the reasonable approach is to understand that it was not evil intention on his part, but rather a limitation of his resources.
Not sure what they'd cost, but probably pretty close to the price of a new laptop PC.
Are we ever jsutified in intentionally killing another person? Yep, its called survival. oldest law ever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.