Fighting Back?

[Shao Feng-Li]

Deuteronomy 22

23. If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
24. Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not,
25. But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
26. But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
27. For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

[Solid Ronin]

Pardon if this is off topic however,

I don't think its wise to compare our own conforttations with Christ. You see He died for the sins of mankind.

When your problems consist of some fool who doesn't know any better.

As Christian we are called to love our enemies but I don't remember anyone saying that we should let everyone walk all over us.

[Shao Feng-Li]

Good point.

[GhostontheNet]

I will echo everyone's advice excepting UC's.

A sex-offender automatically forfits any rights he may have had to his own safety the second that he makes his move. Also you would most likely be saving other girls perhaps more vulnerable than yourself, if you either turn the guy in, break his legs, or sever his worthless soul from his equally worthless body.


Below is my response to your inquiry about the need for mercy. It's perhaps not perfectly phrased, but I hope to get my meaning across:


It would be sentencing the wretched soul to an even greater condemnation from God himself, if you would let some 'sex-crazed compilation of filth' abuse you when you could have prevented it.

You see, if the man is allowed to follow his own wicked ambitions, God will certainly unleash His almighty wrath on the contemptible soul when the day of judgment comes. Then the miserable excuse for a living being will wish a million times over that he hadn't abused one who God loves.

It's actually more merciful to break someone's legs, than to allow them to condemn themselves so much further in the eyes of our Lord. (Meaning that since God is our father, how unfathomable will his anger be upon anyone who succeeds in abusing his children, especially in the aforementioned way, and ESPECIALLY his daughters.)

The point that I'm trying to get across here, is that there's a time and a place for physical mercy, but dealing with a sex-offender isn't one of them.


I'll be praying for God to bless you with His wisdom on this subject!
God bless!

I think you're on the ball here, for such a concept much like John Locke's is the most moral justification for why governments can kill criminals and the like - that they had forfeited their natural rights in the process of endangering others. It is true that Christ died for all, but I apply my priorities to the whole society and then to the individual - while it is possible that such an individual could be saved and from then go on do wonderful deeds, it is also possible that their living another day would cause much greater harm all in all than if they died then, and the times I gamble on the "they might get better" decisions are if they already have kernels for the positive change. I am not recommending killing them if they end up reliably subdued and certainly not playing 'possum, the authorities make a good choice at that point. What if our sex-offender turns to murder and kills a number of the unsaved and never does in fact improve - is it worth the risk? No, those that violate the natural rights of others forfeit their rights in the process.

[Slater]

lol, Shao Feng-Li... about 2 pages too late with that passage

also, someone said about "turning the other cheek" in the previous page. In cultural context, if someone smote you on the cheek back then, that was an insult, not a fight. They have nothing in common. That verse is often used to say that Christians should just let people beat them up, but thats 100% wrong and not what that verse was saying. What it was saying is that if someone's yelling obscene things at you, don't yell obscene things back at them.

[lionheart]

Thank you, Ghostonthenet! You've explained things much better than I could have done!

If you do good only to those who do good to you, what good is it? Do not even the pagans do that? I disagree with your statement in the extreme]
When someone tries to seriously hurt you, you can't spend too much time worrying about their safety. An innocent non-combatant would have a reasonable right to safety in my opinion, but as soon as they try to kill/rape you, then that right to safety vanishes. Especially since a sex-offender is not likely to mend his ways, they must be stopped before they have a chance to repeat their crime. (Though, Gostonthenet has already explained my way of thinking on this, far better than I could have hoped to.)

In response to my saying that a sex-offender is 'worthless', I honestly intended it more as belittlement than anything else, seeing as how they have taken the gift of free choice that was given to them by God, and perverted it to such a whacked-out degree. I thought that the title of 'worthless' suited them quite well. After reading UC's post though, I now see that I was in err, and that only God can be judge over a person's worth. I never intend it to mean anything other than disdain though, and am grateful for the correction.

The Bible is pretty clear on the fact that sin is sin. Whether it's rape or petty theft, even a single sin seperates man from God and makes him imperfect. However, that does not mean we should deal with all sins the same way here on Earth. Both Deuteronomic and modern civil law reflect the need to deal with different crimes in different ways. In answering this question we need to concentrate more on sexual assault as a crime rather than sexual assault as a sin.

Exactly! Cap'n just pointed out what I was driving at. Sexual assault is both a crime and a sin. When I referenced sexual assault, I thought of it mainly as a crime. Using the word 'sin' to replace the word 'crime' was an incredibly stupid mistake on my part.

I was a little confused about what UC meant by his first post on this topic. Though his explanation has cleared most of it up. Apparently we agree that the loving thing to do would be to prevent them from sinning.
Where I would disagree though, is that it's more effective to incapacitate an attacker, than it is to flee from one. My belief, is that whenever it's possible, it is safer to have an opponent writhing in pain on the floor, than it is to have one right on your heels.

Why? I don't mean that abrasively, I'm asking for your reasoning.

I have a deep-rooted conviction that capital punishment administers justice in the way that God had intended. As Cap'n Crack pointed out, we are discussing criminal acts, more than we are discussing sin. Therefor if I had had the wisdom to write that statement differently, It would have read.

But certain crimes impact others more severally than do other crimes, and therefor the penalty for the crime of sexual assault should be death. As a sex-offender has a high risk of repeating his crimes.
That is my personal conviction, and I will not stray from it.

Sorry guys, I'm kind of maxed out on this topic for like a week or so, staying up till 6am looking for bible verses is kind of hard on a person, ya know? (Located on my previous post in this topic.)

[termyt]

I think you're on the ball here, for such a concept much like John Locke's is the most moral justification for why governments can kill criminals and the like - that they had forfeited their natural rights in the process of endangering others.

The key word in this statement is governments. The government has the right to capture, confine, imprison, and even kill the members of its society. Individual members of the society do not. I do not believe any single person has the right to terminate anyone else's life.

As to the matter of self defense:

The examples used of Christ are not valid counter examples to the examples of sexual misconduct listed here. Christ was being confined and persecuted by the leaders of His country - the government. As stated, the government has the right to detain and persecute citizens. We all hope that any government will merciful and just and its prosecution, but there are no guarantees. Being persecuted by the government for the sake of Christ is a great honor and I would accept it willingly. The passage about the women from the DC Talk book falls under this category as well.

These other matters have nothing to do with any noble cause whatsoever. These other examples all involve the misconduct of individuals against other individuals. In these cases, law and, more importantly, God are on the side of the victim. It is your right to use appropriate force to protect yourself from harm. I personally do not believe I could harm another to protect myself, but I have little doubt I would harm another to protect someone else.

Appropriate force is defined by your government, but here are some guidelines for you:

1) Avoid. Do not place yourself in situations likely to get you into trouble. If a situation starts to develop that makes you uncomfortable, leave. Don’t walk down dark allies in strange towns. Do not sit next to a guy who is likely to attempt inappropriate contact with you. Most problems you encounter can be avoided if you think about what you are doing, where you need to go, and how you are going to get there ahead of time.

2) Flee. When a situation you could not avoid pops up, run. Yelling is good, too – someone may come to help you. Avoid physically assaulting your assailant, if possible. You do not want to get into a physical confrontation that you may not be able to win.

3) If you can flee, you ought to do that (and the law in most places in the US requires you to flee in most situations, if able). If you can not flee, then you must make a choice. You can either accept what’s coming to you or you can fight. Only fight if you have a reasonable expectation of winning or if your life is in immanent danger. If a creep wants your money, give it to him. If he wants your life, then fight him with everything you have.

[uc pseudonym]

There are times, such as the time when my dad came to pick my sister and I (both very young at the time) up from my grandma's house at night. A man broke into his car and started taking his stuff. My dad, thinking it was just one of his brother-in-laws checking his car out, went up and started joking around with him, but when he realized that it was someone he didn't know and that he was trying to steal stuff, that's when the fight was on. My sister's life and my own were endangered in my dad's eyes at the time as long as that man was around, so my dad caught him cornered in the car and started attacking the man, trying to kill him. The thief pulled out a knife and stabbed my dad.

In the man's possition, he had that option: kill or be killed. No, my dad didn't die, but it was close. But there are times when you need to choose.

Initially, I'll point out that this situation is very dissimilar to our original scenario, but I'll accept that for the time being.

But looking over this post, it seems as though you say the thief was in a life or death situation. This was caused by his act of stealing. Furthermore, I don't feel the thief was likely to pull a gun and begin shooting. Though in such situations people do not think logically, most people know that murder is a significantly more criminal action than stealing. His primary goal (until he was cornered, which was caused by the actions of others) was simply to escape, not to actually harm anyone.

However, this is all beside the point, as it is merely an example.

You see He died for the sins of mankind. When your problems consist of some fool who doesn't know any better.

Isn't mankind in essence a collection of fools who don't know any better?

I think you're on the ball here, for such a concept much like John Locke's is the most moral justification for why governments can kill criminals and the like - that they had forfeited their natural rights in the process of endangering others. It is true that Christ died for all, but I apply my priorities to the whole society and then to the individual - while it is possible that such an individual could be saved and from then go on do wonderful deeds, it is also possible that their living another day would cause much greater harm all in all than if they died then, and the times I gamble on the "they might get better" decisions are if they already have kernels for the positive change. I am not recommending killing them if they end up reliably subdued and certainly not playing 'possum, the authorities make a good choice at that point. What if our sex-offender turns to murder and kills a number of the unsaved and never does in fact improve - is it worth the risk? No, those that violate the natural rights of others forfeit their rights in the process.

This post is difficult for me to respond to, as I feel you mix Locke's concept of "natural rights" with the morality of such a situation (by that statement, you can discern that I feel those are seperate). Also, I feel that "natural rights" implies that the system of the world is essentially fair, when in fact it is not and we should be grateful.

If God operated by such a system, all of us would be instantly destroyed. Not only is there a high probability that we will continue to sin, there is essentially a certainty. All of us have forfeited our rights, and it is only by the grace of God that we are alive.

Is God's response foolish? I believe it is, in a manner of speaking. Our existence will only cause massive amounts of pain and suffering. The vast majority of us will live and die without ever honoring Him. But this is about love, not logic. I believe that as Christians we are called to do more than that which simply benefits us.

When someone tries to seriously hurt you, you can't spend too much time worrying about their safety. An innocent non-combatant would have a reasonable right to safety in my opinion, but as soon as they try to kill/rape you, then that right to safety vanishes. Especially since a sex-offender is not likely to mend his ways, they must be stopped before they have a chance to repeat their crime. (Though, Gostonthenet has already explained my way of thinking on this, far better than I could have hoped to.)

I don't feel that responds to what I said earlier. As Jesus pointed out, even the worst of religions generally believes in loving your friends and hating your enemies. However, if you speak solely in a legalistic sense, this may not be relevant.

In response to my saying that a sex-offender is 'worthless', I honestly intended it more as belittlement than anything else, seeing as how they have taken the gift of free choice that was given to them by God, and perverted it to such a whacked-out degree. I thought that the title of 'worthless' suited them quite well. After reading UC's post though, I now see that I was in err, and that only God can be judge over a person's worth. I never intend it to mean anything other than disdain though, and am grateful for the correction.

That is acceptable, and thank you for clarifying.

Exactly! Cap'n just pointed out what I was driving at. Sexual assault is both a crime and a sin. When I referenced sexual assault, I thought of it mainly as a crime. Using the word 'sin' to replace the word 'crime' was an incredibly stupid mistake on my part.

That does significantly change the focus of the discussion, yes. I do not feel I have much to say on the subject of sexual assault as a crime.

[GhostontheNet]

The key word in this statement is governments. The government has the right to capture, confine, imprison, and even kill the members of its society. Individual members of the society do not. I do not believe any single person has the right to terminate anyone else's life.

Therein is one difference between us, for as I see it me and every other citizen is also a part of the government, formed by social compact, which carries with it rights and responsibilities, but among those rights always retained is the right to protect your natural rights, even if it means killing another if necessary.

Appropriate force is defined by your government, but here are some guidelines for you:

1) Avoid. Do not place yourself in situations likely to get you into trouble. If a situation starts to develop that makes you uncomfortable, leave. Don’t walk down dark allies in strange towns. Do not sit next to a guy who is likely to attempt inappropriate contact with you. Most problems you encounter can be avoided if you think about what you are doing, where you need to go, and how you are going to get there ahead of time.

2) Flee. When a situation you could not avoid pops up, run. Yelling is good, too – someone may come to help you. Avoid physically assaulting your assailant, if possible. You do not want to get into a physical confrontation that you may not be able to win.

3) If you can flee, you ought to do that (and the law in most places in the US requires you to flee in most situations, if able). If you can not flee, then you must make a choice. You can either accept what’s coming to you or you can fight. Only fight if you have a reasonable expectation of winning or if your life is in immanent danger. If a creep wants your money, give it to him. If he wants your life, then fight him with everything you have.

A good set of guidelines.

This post is difficult for me to respond to, as I feel you mix Locke's concept of "natural rights" with the morality of such a situation (by that statement, you can discern that I feel those are seperate). Also, I feel that "natural rights" implies that the system of the world is essentially fair, when in fact it is not and we should be grateful.

If God operated by such a system, all of us would be instantly destroyed. Not only is there a high probability that we will continue to sin, there is essentially a certainty. All of us have forfeited our rights, and it is only by the grace of God that we are alive.

It would be perverse to be greatful for injustice. Your comments overall don't really injure me on the grounds that anyone reasonably discussing natural rights will say that they are a gift of God anyway (it's unsuprising that most of the U.S. founding fathers were Christians or Deists), and also the wishes and will of God.

Is God's response foolish? I believe it is, in a manner of speaking. Our existence will only cause massive amounts of pain and suffering. The vast majority of us will live and die without ever honoring Him. But this is about love, not logic. I believe that as Christians we are called to do more than that which simply benefits us.

At the risk of dragging (molinist postmillenialism) eschatology into this a little (though answering in the negative already has dragged it in) - I ask the rhetorical question]I don't feel that responds to what I said earlier. As Jesus pointed out, even the worst of religions generally believes in loving your friends and hating your enemies. However, if you speak solely in a legalistic sense, this may not be relevant.[/QUOTE] If loving my enemy comes at the expense of the 2nd great commandment to love my neighbor as myself, indeed, quite possibly several of them, I will not spare them from justice. The Law of YHWH also seems to operate on this notion - "Thus shall you purge evil from your midst". Indeed, it will execute people for far more reasons than would happen in American society (which doesn't really care for purging evil from its midst).

[Yojimbo]

What if your dad hadnt even attempted to prevent the theif from stealoing anything and just watched it happen? Your dads life was only in danger when he actually tried to stop the theif from doing what he was doing. If you dont fight back in a rape case when is your life ever in any danger? The theif that tried to steal your stuff wasnt planning on killing your dad when he decided to attempt the robbery and its the same with rapists. It is only if you fight back that your life may be in danger.

That is not true. When women or children get kidnapped in this country Kura almost all of the time they do not come back alive... Those kind of people don't think rationally like you and me they put themselves in desperate situations and they will hurt you.

[termyt]

Therein is one difference between us, for as I see it me and every other citizen is also a part of the government, formed by social compact, which carries with it rights and responsibilities, but among those rights always retained is the right to protect your natural rights, even if it means killing another if necessary.

Indeed. Since we belong to a republic, we are all equal members of our society. That does not, however, grant any individual citizen the right to prosecute laws and enact punishments.

Part of the social contract requires you to forfeit your rights to protect yourself in favor of society’s protection. This protection is given by licensed deputies of the state – the police.

Our society has, in return, granted each of us with limited liberty to protect ourselves. Even still, if you take the life of another for any reason you can be held criminally liable unless you can prove your situation met the legal requirements for self-defense. The key here is the burden of proof falls on you, not the government.

[kaji]

Our society has, in return, granted each of us with limited liberty to protect ourselves. Even still, if you take the life of another for any reason you can be held criminally liable unless you can prove your situation met the legal requirements for self-defense. The key here is the burden of proof falls on you, not the government.

Just a side note, but taking the life of another, whether they are actually trying to do you harm or not, is not always legal. Even if you can prove a life-or-death situation. In New Hampshire, leathal force is never view as nessisary. Basically the states legislation (run by the people) laws that there is always a measure of restraint availible to you. You can either run, or damage the assailant to the point of 'minimal threat' but not death.

In other words, give them what they want or break their legs. But dont endanger your own life for somthing other then another life and dont shoot to kill, just to mame... I guess. But thats is just one state.

-kaji

[Yojimbo]

Just a side note, but taking the life of another, whether they are actually trying to do you harm or not, is not always legal. Even if you can prove a life-or-death situation. In New Hampshire, leathal force is never view as nessisary. Basically the states legislation (run by the people) laws that there is always a measure of restraint availible to you. You can either run, or damage the assailant to the point of 'minimal threat' but not death.

In other words, give them what they want or break their legs. But dont endanger your own life for somthing other then another life and dont shoot to kill, just to mame... I guess. But thats is just one state.

-kaji

Well that's New Hampshire for ya... And the stupid loopholes in the justice system that puts the rights of criminals before the innocent victims. I think it's disgusting what some criminals can get away with. Like if a thief breaks in your house falls out the window then sues you for it.

My dads friend has carried a gun at his hip for 15 years ever since he and his wife were almost killed by a gang of petty thugs, my dad used to as well. And let me tell ya both of them are very safety concious about it but there is no point in carrying it unless you are serious about it. If you want to subdue someone without severely hurting or killing them get a taser or some mace. Most gun owners will tell you that if your life or anyone elses is in real danger you put two in the chest and one in the head if ya have to.

[GhostontheNet]

[quote="termyt"]Indeed. Since we belong to a republic, we are all equal members of our society. That does not, however, grant any individual citizen the right to prosecute laws and enact punishments.

Part of the social contract requires you to forfeit your rights to protect yourself in favor of society’] I'll back out here since I basically agree with the fundamentals of this position and could only argue semantics that I disagree with.

[Fsiphskilm]

my

[uc pseudonym]

I may not have room to speak, but I will say this in general: let us remember to keep the discussion from becoming heated. That is merely a warning, not a condemnation of any post as of late.

It would be perverse to be greatful for injustice.

Isn't the death of Jesus the greatest injustice in the history of mankind?

I feel that the term "injustice" is too broad to have such absolute rules created about it. Technically, it is injust that some human beings have less than others (most of America compared to the third world, for example), yet I feel it would also be wrong to spurn the gifts that God has given us. Should we not be grateful for our relative comfort (though I certainly don't mean to imply we have no obligation regarding it)?

Your comments overall don't really injure me

As I said earlier, I have little wish to argue this permutation of the subject, hence my post naturally had little intent to challenge your own.

on the grounds that anyone reasonably discussing natural rights will say that they are a gift of God anyway (it's unsuprising that most of the U.S. founding fathers were Christians or Deists), and also the wishes and will of God.

That is true. Perhaps it would have been more accurate if I had said that I do not feel Locke's printed beliefs on natural rights, as well as the current use of them, are truly comparable to Christian morality. From my point of view, the intent and the origin are essentially irrelevant.

At the risk of dragging (molinist postmillenialism) eschatology into this a little (though answering in the negative already has dragged it in) - I ask the rhetorical question]

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I don't feel either prediction particularly commends itself; I believe we can presume that an omniscient being would make the proper choice. My response now, however, is almost beside my point. As humans, we cannot possibly judge what course of action will truly be more effective.

However, you didn't suggest that we can. Instead, you offered what is a logical answer: judging if an action is worth the risk. I feel that we should allow the person a chance, however small, to change; I think that a purely logical answer destroys any concept of love. From a purely logical standpoint, if we killed every human when they were born, all of them would go to heaven (we will put aside that debate for the moment, though I realize that it does apply) and once humanity died out sin would be eradicated.

If loving my enemy comes at the expense of the 2nd great commandment to love my neighbor as myself, indeed, quite possibly several of them, I will not spare them from justice. The Law of YHWH also seems to operate on this notion - "Thus shall you purge evil from your midst". Indeed, it will execute people for far more reasons than would happen in American society (which doesn't really care for purging evil from its midst).

I do not feel that I can provide a legitimate answer to this without going beyond CAA's boundaries of theological debate. It will suffice to say that, presuming I understand you correctly, we are operating from irreconcilable hermaneutics.

[Vash is a plant]

*back from camping a day early due to rain* Wow... I got lost at about the 3rd page @.@ , but thank you all for putting in such effort! I like the guidelines that Termyt gave and will try to follow them! ^.^

Sorry, I didn't mean for this to get into a theological debate....

I think all the responses to this post has shown that a lot of it is up to the person and it also depends on the situation.

As for me, if someone were to try and harm me, I would try to escape and disarm them, but I wouldn't take it to the point of doing more to them than what they tried to do to me.

Personally, I don't think as Christians it is our place to individually deliver punishment to anyone. I think that's the government's place. They are to give an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth, but we as individuals are to "turn the other cheek".

Thinking on all of this, I've come to the conclusion that in my case, it would not be wrong to try to ward an attacker off, but it would be to go to an extrem like breaking bones. As some here had said, to try and keep the person from committing a crime.

BTW, in my state (Florida!!) the law will soon be that it will be excuseable to kill a person that is trying to seriously harm you, at least that's what my sensei said..

Wow! Thank you all for your help! Thank you so much!

-Plant

[uc pseudonym]

That may be a good place to end this thread, actually. I will encourage (though not require) members to halt any contentions or complete them via PM. The original question has been answered, and it is likely this thread will only become heated if the discussion continues for a long enough period of time.

Sorry, I didn't mean for this to get into a theological debate....

Thank you for being aware of this, but you are in no way to blame (nor was this thread too far in violation of the rules of CAA).

[Heart of Sword]

EDIT: Oops, thread's over. Sorry. ^_^