I think the issue here is whether Christians can participate in the administration of the sword/rule of the state and whether the state can have a death penalty for some offenses as part of its mandate of using evil means to constrain human evilness.
I believe Xtn participation in the right administration of the sword of the state can be done in ways consistent with our mandate to overcome evil ultimately with good, though there is risk to it.
As for the death-penalty, it is only justified if it deters deaths and that is an empirical question that we oftentimes do not have the proper evidence to decide. See here for my pragmatic proposal for anti-death penalty advocates.
dlw
dlw
· 3 years ago
I think the issue here is whether Christians can participate in the administration of the sword/rule of the state and whether the state can have a death penalty for some offenses as part of its mandate of using evil means to constrain human evilness.
I believe Xtn participation in the right administration of the sword of the state can be done in ways consistent with our mandate to overcome evil ultimately with good, though there is risk to it.
As for the death-penalty, it is only justified if it deters deaths and that is an empirical question that we oftentimes do not have the proper evidence to decide. See here for my pragmatic proposal for anti-death penalty advocates.
dlw
Luke
· 3 years ago
That is an interesting argument, and one I don't recall hearing before. I'll definitely have to test it with prayer and Scripture. Thanks for responding.
Luke
· 3 years ago
That is an interesting argument, and one I don't recall hearing before. I'll definitely have to test it with prayer and Scripture. Thanks for responding.
Luke
· 3 years ago
After some more thought, I realize that your argument that "If Jesus took the evil of humanity upon himself on the Cross, then there is no longer a need for God to punish the wicked with the Israeli Army" does not ring true for me in my current understanding of Scripture or of God. It does not agree with more standard atonement theology (which indicates why I don't understand your argument, not why it might be wrong).
It appears you are saying that post-Calvary, God does not need to punish wickedness with violence (killing people through the Israeli army or direct means), because he relates instead through the redemption of Jesus. I don't want to take too much of your time, and of course will manage your own time in responding, but will you elaborate your argument for me, provide supporting Scriptures, or especially point me to Christian literature that makes the same argument you are making, please?
In your lesser point about the madman, it sounds like you are leaving room for "restraint killing", as long as the purpose was to restrain and not to destroy. This I can understand. And we could all trade in our personal defense firearms for rubber-bullet guns. But there are some cases where there are probably no non-lethal ways to stop a destructive person (for example, a madman in a bunker with his fingers on nuclear missile launch buttons).
Surly Dave
· 3 years ago
Yes...How does a pacifist deal with a madman whose got his fingers on nuclear missle launch buttons? How do you deal with someone who believes it is their obligation, their religious duty, to destroy nations? Do we choose to love them more than their potential millions of victims?
Perhaps "to love them more" is the wrong way of stating it. Are the sacrifice of millions (believers and non) worth it?
Luke
· 3 years ago
After some more thought, I realize that your argument that "If Jesus took the evil of humanity upon himself on the Cross, then there is no longer a need for God to punish the wicked with the Israeli Army" does not ring true for me in my current understanding of Scripture or of God. It does not agree with more standard atonement theology (which indicates why I don't understand your argument, not why it might be wrong).
It appears you are saying that post-Calvary, God does not need to punish wickedness with violence (killing people through the Israeli army or direct means), because he relates instead through the redemption of Jesus. I don't want to take too much of your time, and of course will manage your own time in responding, but will you elaborate your argument for me, provide supporting Scriptures, or especially point me to Christian literature that makes the same argument you are making, please?
In your lesser point about the madman, it sounds like you are leaving room for "restraint killing", as long as the purpose was to restrain and not to destroy. This I can understand. And we could all trade in our personal defense firearms for rubber-bullet guns. But there are some cases where there are probably no non-lethal ways to stop a destructive person (for example, a madman in a bunker with his fingers on nuclear missile launch buttons).
Surly Dave
· 3 years ago
Yes...How does a pacifist deal with a madman whose got his fingers on nuclear missle launch buttons? How do you deal with someone who believes it is their obligation, their religious duty, to destroy nations? Do we choose to love them more than their potential millions of victims?
Perhaps "to love them more" is the wrong way of stating it. Are the sacrifice of millions (believers and non) worth it?
Luke
· 3 years ago
And, Mark: is there a comments feed for this blog?
Luke
· 3 years ago
And, Mark: is there a comments feed for this blog?
Van S
· 3 years ago
I've added the link to the bottom of the "Recent Comments" section to the right.
Van S
· 3 years ago
I've added the link to the bottom of the "Recent Comments" section to the right.
dlw
· 3 years ago
I'm sorry Luke decided not to interact with my comment as well...
dlw
dlw
· 3 years ago
I'm sorry Luke decided not to interact with my comment as well...
dlw
Van S
· 3 years ago
I don't know if there has ever been a scenario where there has been a madman with his fingers on a nuclear missile launch button that could swiftly be killed without another person to take his place. The situation is absurd. The only madmen with nukes are surrounded by institutional madmen who would gladly take their place in the event of assassination.
However, let me just humor the scenario and say what should be done. If he can't be reasoned with and he can't be restrained then I see no reason not to use non-lethal force (like knockout gas or a tazer gun). I'm not convinced that a bullet is a more effective way of neutralizing threat than knockout gas or tazer guns.
Here's the thing: Christians are a different sort of people than other people. Let the dead defend the dead. We are called to lay down our lives before killing others. Jesus suffered and died for the sake of others, even though he could have called the Nation of Israel up in revolt against Rome. Jesus has the power to take down the oppressive power of Rome. I'm not sure it is our job, as the People of God to protect people, but it is instead to suffer for people. We, like Jesus, are to turn the other cheek, even if it means our death.
David, your question about dealing with folks who believe it is their religious obligation to destroy nations leads down the dark path of preemptive violence. It is the same rationale that we use to justify the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One must believe that the ends justify the means with such a coarse of action. To vaporize many innocent men, women, and children for the greater good seems to be the sort of issues that rulers must grapple with for the sake of power, but I don't see why the People of God should consider such options.
If Jesus had the power to stop systemic violence, yet didn't, what does it tell us? For some reason, Jesus' response to violence was to embrace it as a cosmic victim, rather than to meet it with force. The question is: Did Jesus only do that to secure our eternal place in heaven, or is it a way of life we ought to embrace as well?
Luke, I'm still thinking about your latest comment. When I can, I will write a new post specifically about the issues you raise.
Van S
· 3 years ago
I don't know if there has ever been a scenario where there has been a madman with his fingers on a nuclear missile launch button that could swiftly be killed without another person to take his place. The situation is absurd. The only madmen with nukes are surrounded by institutional madmen who would gladly take their place in the event of assassination.
However, let me just humor the scenario and say what should be done. If he can't be reasoned with and he can't be restrained then I see no reason not to use non-lethal force (like knockout gas or a tazer gun). I'm not convinced that a bullet is a more effective way of neutralizing threat than knockout gas or tazer guns.
Here's the thing: Christians are a different sort of people than other people. Let the dead defend the dead. We are called to lay down our lives before killing others. Jesus suffered and died for the sake of others, even though he could have called the Nation of Israel up in revolt against Rome. Jesus has the power to take down the oppressive power of Rome. I'm not sure it is our job, as the People of God to protect people, but it is instead to suffer for people. We, like Jesus, are to turn the other cheek, even if it means our death.
David, your question about dealing with folks who believe it is their religious obligation to destroy nations leads down the dark path of preemptive violence. It is the same rationale that we use to justify the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One must believe that the ends justify the means with such a coarse of action. To vaporize many innocent men, women, and children for the greater good seems to be the sort of issues that rulers must grapple with for the sake of power, but I don't see why the People of God should consider such options.
If Jesus had the power to stop systemic violence, yet didn't, what does it tell us? For some reason, Jesus' response to violence was to embrace it as a cosmic victim, rather than to meet it with force. The question is: Did Jesus only do that to secure our eternal place in heaven, or is it a way of life we ought to embrace as well?
Luke, I'm still thinking about your latest comment. When I can, I will write a new post specifically about the issues you raise.
All Comments
I believe Xtn participation in the right administration of the sword of the state can be done in ways consistent with our mandate to overcome evil ultimately with good, though there is risk to it.
As for the death-penalty, it is only justified if it deters deaths and that is an empirical question that we oftentimes do not have the proper evidence to decide. See here for my pragmatic proposal for anti-death penalty advocates.
dlw
I believe Xtn participation in the right administration of the sword of the state can be done in ways consistent with our mandate to overcome evil ultimately with good, though there is risk to it.
As for the death-penalty, it is only justified if it deters deaths and that is an empirical question that we oftentimes do not have the proper evidence to decide. See here for my pragmatic proposal for anti-death penalty advocates.
dlw
It appears you are saying that post-Calvary, God does not need to punish wickedness with violence (killing people through the Israeli army or direct means), because he relates instead through the redemption of Jesus. I don't want to take too much of your time, and of course will manage your own time in responding, but will you elaborate your argument for me, provide supporting Scriptures, or especially point me to Christian literature that makes the same argument you are making, please?
In your lesser point about the madman, it sounds like you are leaving room for "restraint killing", as long as the purpose was to restrain and not to destroy. This I can understand. And we could all trade in our personal defense firearms for rubber-bullet guns. But there are some cases where there are probably no non-lethal ways to stop a destructive person (for example, a madman in a bunker with his fingers on nuclear missile launch buttons).
Perhaps "to love them more" is the wrong way of stating it. Are the sacrifice of millions (believers and non) worth it?
It appears you are saying that post-Calvary, God does not need to punish wickedness with violence (killing people through the Israeli army or direct means), because he relates instead through the redemption of Jesus. I don't want to take too much of your time, and of course will manage your own time in responding, but will you elaborate your argument for me, provide supporting Scriptures, or especially point me to Christian literature that makes the same argument you are making, please?
In your lesser point about the madman, it sounds like you are leaving room for "restraint killing", as long as the purpose was to restrain and not to destroy. This I can understand. And we could all trade in our personal defense firearms for rubber-bullet guns. But there are some cases where there are probably no non-lethal ways to stop a destructive person (for example, a madman in a bunker with his fingers on nuclear missile launch buttons).
Perhaps "to love them more" is the wrong way of stating it. Are the sacrifice of millions (believers and non) worth it?
dlw
dlw
However, let me just humor the scenario and say what should be done. If he can't be reasoned with and he can't be restrained then I see no reason not to use non-lethal force (like knockout gas or a tazer gun). I'm not convinced that a bullet is a more effective way of neutralizing threat than knockout gas or tazer guns.
Here's the thing: Christians are a different sort of people than other people. Let the dead defend the dead. We are called to lay down our lives before killing others. Jesus suffered and died for the sake of others, even though he could have called the Nation of Israel up in revolt against Rome. Jesus has the power to take down the oppressive power of Rome. I'm not sure it is our job, as the People of God to protect people, but it is instead to suffer for people. We, like Jesus, are to turn the other cheek, even if it means our death.
David, your question about dealing with folks who believe it is their religious obligation to destroy nations leads down the dark path of preemptive violence. It is the same rationale that we use to justify the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One must believe that the ends justify the means with such a coarse of action. To vaporize many innocent men, women, and children for the greater good seems to be the sort of issues that rulers must grapple with for the sake of power, but I don't see why the People of God should consider such options.
If Jesus had the power to stop systemic violence, yet didn't, what does it tell us? For some reason, Jesus' response to violence was to embrace it as a cosmic victim, rather than to meet it with force. The question is: Did Jesus only do that to secure our eternal place in heaven, or is it a way of life we ought to embrace as well?
Luke, I'm still thinking about your latest comment. When I can, I will write a new post specifically about the issues you raise.
However, let me just humor the scenario and say what should be done. If he can't be reasoned with and he can't be restrained then I see no reason not to use non-lethal force (like knockout gas or a tazer gun). I'm not convinced that a bullet is a more effective way of neutralizing threat than knockout gas or tazer guns.
Here's the thing: Christians are a different sort of people than other people. Let the dead defend the dead. We are called to lay down our lives before killing others. Jesus suffered and died for the sake of others, even though he could have called the Nation of Israel up in revolt against Rome. Jesus has the power to take down the oppressive power of Rome. I'm not sure it is our job, as the People of God to protect people, but it is instead to suffer for people. We, like Jesus, are to turn the other cheek, even if it means our death.
David, your question about dealing with folks who believe it is their religious obligation to destroy nations leads down the dark path of preemptive violence. It is the same rationale that we use to justify the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One must believe that the ends justify the means with such a coarse of action. To vaporize many innocent men, women, and children for the greater good seems to be the sort of issues that rulers must grapple with for the sake of power, but I don't see why the People of God should consider such options.
If Jesus had the power to stop systemic violence, yet didn't, what does it tell us? For some reason, Jesus' response to violence was to embrace it as a cosmic victim, rather than to meet it with force. The question is: Did Jesus only do that to secure our eternal place in heaven, or is it a way of life we ought to embrace as well?
Luke, I'm still thinking about your latest comment. When I can, I will write a new post specifically about the issues you raise.