Quote:
Originally Posted by Pliny
Bologna. There is a world of difference between religious persecution and someone breaking and entering.
|
There isn't a world of difference between obedience and disobedience. In my opinion, and I could be wrong, the idea of a difference sounds like situational ethics. We're to do harm to no man, turn the other cheek, not fear those who can kill the body, never render evil for evil, or even resist evil... unless it's a doped up kid breaking into our house at 2am.
Doesn't make much sense to me.
Please understand, I dont' advocate sitting idily by and doing nothing if one's family is in danger. If at all possible I believe that it is perfectly ethical for a Christian to employ non-lethal measures to protect self and family. It seems like when we talk self-defense... we instantly think of guns and blowing somebody away. Maybe that's a symptom of our culture. But a Christian can ethically resort to the following:
*divine intervention - Depending on God to deliver miraculously.
*escape - Fleeing from the source of danger.
*ruse - Out smarting or using trickery to escape or to be released without injury.
*nonlethal force - Using non-lethal physical force to subdue an attacker to prevent injury to others including the attacker themselves.
*moral disarming - Speaking to the attacker with an appeal to conscience securing safety and release.
*martyrdom - Dying with the word of Jesus on your lips without inflicting injury or harm to the attacker.
And on the flip side of the subject... I'd not criminalize guns. I believe in gun rights. In addition, I'd not agree with prosecuting someone who did use lethal force to protect their family. One has the right to use lethal force. But to me... as a Christian... I believe we should strive for a higher, more Christlike, ethic.