- Joined
- Feb 4, 2013
- Messages
- 28,659
- Reaction score
- 18,803
- Location
- Charleston, South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
For, since one man is a part of the community, each man in all that he is and has, belongs to the community;... so that on this account, such laws as these, which impose proportionate burdens, are just and binding in conscience, and are legal laws.
...
Laws framed by man are either just or unjust. If they be just, they have the power of binding in conscience, from the eternal law whence they are derive...
"A law that is not just seems to be no law at all." (De Lib. Arb. i, 5)
On the other hand laws may be unjust in two ways: first by being contrary to human good... or in respect of the author, as when a man makes a law that goes beyond the power committed to him...
...
Secondly, laws may be unjust through being opposed to the Divine good:... and laws of this kind must nowise be observed
Wherefore such (unjust) laws do not bind in conscience, except perhaps to avoid scandal or disturbance, for which cause a man should yield even his right...
Nevertheless it must be noted, that if the observance of the law according to the letter does not involve any sudden risk needing instant remedy, it is not competent for everyone to expound what is useful and what is not useful to the state: those alone can do this who are in authority, and who, on account of such like cases, have the power to dispense from the laws.
Consequently there is no sedition in disturbing a (unjust or tyrannical) government of this kind, unless indeed the tyrant's rule be disturbed so inordinately, that his subjects suffer greater harm from the consequent disturbance than from the tyrant's government.
First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior.
...
Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault.
...
Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil.
"The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war." (Contra Faust. xxii, 74)
Conclusion
In short, terrorism against abortion clinics really cannot be viewed as being justifiable in a Christian context.
Abortion is the law of our society, which Christians are morally obligated to obey if just. While that law is presently unjust, and Christians can disregard and try to change unjust laws, they must primarily do so in a manner which does not cause unnecessary societal harm and discord. Our present society has near limitless methods by which such change might be pursued.
This renders justifiable violence against Abortion providers a non-starter almost from the very start. There is no lawful authority to command or supervise this violence, and really no end game in sight for what that violence is meant to achieve. Terrorism targeted against abortion clinics is simply hateful violence and chaos for its own sake. That is explicitly against both Christ's teachings, and the traditional theology put forward by the Christian religion for the last 2000 years.
Render unto Ceaser is NOT about following the law of the country or the land, it is a sarcastic remark by Jesus that is criticizing the Pharisees for butt kissing Ceaser and trying to force him to do the same thing.
Like abortion, one cannot easily defend slavery on moral grounds, yet that too was seen as a law of man best left alone by the church. The biggest fault of the bible is the inability to amend it or to correct its many moral contradictions.
What the New Testament says about slavery
That is a very interesting approach to the theme. I am not sure that I think it generally applicable. But I liked the treatise.
But what do you think. How would it be if you were forced to help pay for or otherwise assist in the abortions? Would that mean violence was more justified? Or would it make a difference, if it weren't preborn but Jews or challenged persons?
Conclusion
In short, terrorism against abortion clinics really cannot be viewed as being justifiable in a Christian context.
Abortion is the law of our society, which Christians are morally obligated to obey if just. While that law is presently unjust, and Christians can disregard and try to change unjust laws, they must primarily do so in a manner which does not cause unnecessary societal harm and discord. Our present society has near limitless methods by which such change might be pursued.
This renders justifiable violence against Abortion providers a non-starter almost from the very start. There is no lawful authority to command or supervise this violence, and really no end game in sight for what that violence is meant to achieve. Terrorism targeted against abortion clinics is simply hateful violence and chaos for its own sake. That is explicitly against both Christ's teachings, and the traditional theology put forward by the Christian religion for the last 2000 years.
That's actually a fairly decent example of what I'm talking about here as well.
By what I elaborated upon above, the Civil War was undeniably a "just war" in its aim of ending slavery. The various acts of terrorism engaged in by extremist Abolitionist groups before the war, however, were not.
They had no legitimate backing or real "end game." They ultimately aimed only to create violent chaos.
I think Christians would certainly be justified in refusing to pay, and in substantially stepping up their efforts to have the laws supporting abortion revoked.
Resorting to violence, however, would be a bit more tricky. To be morally right, they would have to form a legitimate organization, and a clear set of demands, reasonably capable of actually effecting positive change. There would also have to be no better alternative available.
Preface
First off, in the interests of full disclosure, let me come right out and say that I do not support legalized abortion, and find its practitioners to be some of the least sympathetic people on the planet. They are, at best, misguided persons unwittingly enabling institutionalized acts of evil. At worst, they are actively evil individuals themselves, working to spread their evil in the world.
As such, from a purely emotional perspective, I find it hard to particularly care when they are killed. I am tempted to even say that they "deserve" it.
However, that is not the way of Christ, nor the way of the religion he founded. After all, were we not explicitly told in scripture to "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," or that "vengeance is mine, saith the Lord?" Were we not also told to pay respect to even secular law with the famous statement "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's?"
This is not to say that violence can not be justifiable under certain circumstances, of course. Nor is it to say that laws, and governments, cannot be resisted. However, certain circumstances and pre-requisites must first be met before such an undertaking can be attempted. Simply speaking, the current acts of petty terrorism we are seeing targeted against Planned Parenthood and abortion providers really meet none of them.
The following posts will explain why.
*Ahem*
"Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right" - (Peter 2: 13-14)
"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established" - (Romans 13: 1-7)
So why didn't everyone just butt out during either of the WWars? I mean it was the law of the land, Germany and it's acquisitions, to kill jews. Why didn't all Christians across the globe just honor those laws in Germany?
You folks are cherry picking nutters trying to make sense of myths and fables.
Render unto Ceaser is NOT about following the law of the country or the land, it is a sarcastic remark by Jesus that is criticizing the Pharisees for butt kissing Ceaser and trying to force him to do the same thing.
You're also forgetting one thing.
Your god kills babies and endorses abortions too.
You can cherry pick all the verses you like, but you pro lifers ALWAYS ignore this aspect of the Bible.
So, to call it moral would be ignoring this aspect. Which is entirely dishonest.
Oh, and God calls it moral to kill babies too.
I have no more to say on the matter.
Germany was aggressively attacking other countries, they had a right to defend themselves.
You seem to have forgotten what forum you're in. :roll:
Presumably, or I hope, you would have come to my and my peoples assistance as Jews under the thrall of the Third Reich. What lawful authority would there be to command or supervise that resistance? All that existed were sporadic terrorist groups, underground political movements, a few radical churches, and the like. What is the primary difference? Your explanation demonstrates great intelligence but it seems to me that it is more of an artful apologetic for pushing away an uncomfortable truth which is that if you really believe that abortion is murder than violence to prevent those murders should be justified.
The emphasis you place on 'legitimate' organizations is disconcerting. The vast majority of resistance groups have lacked the benefit of a legitimizing government body. I'm not sure why this should render them illegitimate or immoral. It's much easier, and arguably better, to acknowledge that unique circumstances and will yield unique evaluations rather than attempting to graft an ironclad rule across the entire spectrum of violence.
So the "lawful" killing of jews had nothing to do with it and those countries now that kill certain groups of people should be honored so long as they keep it within their own borders? So killing of those that turn away from Islam in the ME is perfectly okay, even if they are jews or christians, as opposed to atheists, which I have no doubt you'd be pleased to see eliminated.
The American Revolution, for example, is a good example of this.
It doesn't matter what forum one is in, in order to be objective and level headed, you explore all pros and cons about the stance you take.
You don't pick and choose what you like and don't like.
For many reasons, including that if you ignore the faults of the position that you take, then it will eventually be your undoing.
I'm sure this won't make any sense to your though, because when people become too emotionally invested in their stance, then nothing else matters.
So why didn't everyone just butt out during either of the WWars? I mean it was the law of the land, Germany and it's acquisitions, to kill jews. Why didn't all Christians across the globe just honor those laws in Germany?
You folks are cherry picking trying to make sense of myths and fables.
It doesn't matter what forum one is in, in order to be objective and level headed, you explore all pros and cons about the stance you take.
You don't pick and choose what you like and don't like.
For many reasons, including that if you ignore the faults of the position that you take, then it will eventually be your undoing.
I'm sure this won't make any sense to your though, because when people become too emotionally invested in their stance, then nothing else matters.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?