Getting Closer to "The Actual Argument"

Previously:

Patrick Chan   Kevin:  
"What if you shoot him and his last reflex action before he dies is to slit her throat with the knife that you saw was perilously poised to slit her throat?"  
As usual, Kevin misses the point of Steve's post. This isn't the first time someone has corrected Kevin on the issue. Is it because Kevin is intellectually incapable of grasping Steve's point? Is it because Kevin is dishonest or duplicitous and intentionally refuses to argue in good faith? Or is it a bit of both for Kevin? After all, one could imagine the same scenario in which by shooting him in the head it destroys his brainstem and thus instantly incapacitates him. Plus, even if there's a 1% risk he could still slit her throat, but a 99% chance he won't, then it could be worth taking the risk if it means saving her life. We could go back and forth tinkering with various scenarios, but when is Kevin going to deal with the actual argument? I have tried to make the point several times that these hypotheticals are worthless. What we need is a set of moral principles to follow, not hypotheticals to tinker with.
"You should give a Scriptural witness (because God's Word does not return void) and pray at the same time. You should give him a persuasive opportunity to repent of his apparent intention."  
It's easy enough to tweak the argument. Say you already did witness to him and he refused. Or say he's deaf and it wouldn't help. We could go on. But again for whatever reason(s) Kevin simply refuses to engage the actual argument, and instead concocts various escape clauses so he doesn't have to deal with the actual argument. Yes, we could go on and on, tweaking the hypotheticals, and concocting various escape clauses. That's because we're not dealing with unchanging moral principles.

So here are my principles:

In contrast, the anti-pacifist principle is:

  • God will sometimes force you to violate His command not to kill, or else violate another command ("protect").
  • it is better to harm someone else than be harmed
  • it is better to kill someone else than be killed,
  • it is better to kill than to allow your predestined "elect" to be killed.
  • it is better for me to judge who will live and who will die than to obey God and let Him choose who, if any, will die or be harmed
"The pacifist is clearly more faithful to Scripture than a U.S. soldier who is killing, crippling and making homeless hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Christians in order to replace a pro-western government with an Islamic theocracy under Sharia law."  
As I pointed out above, Kevin is a libertarian anarchist and radical pacifist "Christian" political candidate. Furthermore, he plainly hates "Amerika" (Kevin's term). He's even compared America to ancient Assyria, which in turn Kevin thinks God rightly judged by destroying her, so by implication Kevin believes God would rightly judge "Amerika" by destroying "Amerika." Kevin's posture towards "Amerika" is ironic in light of his beliefs as well as the fact he wants to be elected to serve in American gov't. If the United States does not repent and God does not judge the U.S., then God owes an apology to Sodom and Gomorrah.

I do not want to "serve in" the government, I want to abolish the government.
In light of his opinions about "Amerika," why doesn't Kevin renounce his US citizenship and leave the US? That seems to be the most logical thing for him to do. Indeed, otherwise, it's arguable Kevin himself is complicit in some of what the US has done, since he's presumably a tax-paying US citizen who has not only voted but also has been a political candidate in the past, etc. That's an interesting question.

I'm a U.S. citizen only because I was born in a geographical location which mass murderers in Washington D.C. have claimed as being under "their" jurisdiction. If I had been born in some other "jurisdiction," the U.S. government would not grant me citizenship, because my allegiance to God is greater than my allegiance to the U.S. government.

How do I know that the U.S. government would not allow me to become a U.S. citizen? Because

  • There are many court cases that have said precisely this.
  • I know how to read court cases because I studied law and passed the California Bar Exam
  • A federal district court in Los Angeles agreed with me that these cases bar a Christian from becoming an attorney or an American citizen if that Christian will not kill just because the government orders him to do so, even if it conflicts with the commandments of God.
  • Here is the U.S. Supreme Court case which the federal court said prohibits a follower of Christ (me) from becoming an attorney
  • Here is more information about my case, which went to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
  • My citizenship in in heaven. (Philippians 3:20).
"I disagree. God does not put us in position where we are forced to sin. (1 Corinthians 10:13)"  
We've corrected Kevin on this point in the past. But he keeps repeating it. For one thing, this assumes it is indeed a sin, but that's the very point at issue. You've "corrected" me? You mean you proved that 1 Corinthians 10:13 is false? What do you mean?

You're position seems to be,

  • "It's not a sin if I can't think of anything else to do."
  • "It's not a sin if it's the only way to get what I want."
"That's the question: is it inescapably necessary to harm the assailant to protect the innocent?"  
Yes, say it is, given the scenario. Why does Kevin keep dodging the actual argument? "GIVEN the scenario, which I, as the All-Being Master of Time, Space and Dimension have ordained."

In other words, let's assume that what God says in 1 Corinthians 10:13 is NOT TRUE.

I do not accept the given scenario.

My position is that God does not put us in a scenario where we are forced to choose between God's commandments. God requires from us faithfulness, not the perfect scenario.
"Second, how do you prove from Scripture that our first duty is to love X rather than love Y?"  
The answer Kevin is looking for is in Steve's very post! There is not a single verse of Scripture in Steve's post to answer this question.
Also, I actually alluded to this above in my comments which Kevin claimed he read every word of! If he had read what I wrote and understood it, he wouldn't be asking this question. So was Kevin outright lying and thus arguing in bad faith? Or did he read what I wrote, but not let it sink in, in which case it may reflect poorly on his intellectual acumen? I understand, I just don't agree.
"Jesus says "Give to him who asks." The Federal Reserve creates trillions of dollars a year. Give the robber a few bags of federal reserve notes and then deal with him when his adrenaline goes down to normal.."  
So Kevin is suggesting we should bribe criminals so they won't commit crimes, let them leave in peace, and then hope to follow-up with them? "Bribery" is an interesting term.

Matthew 5
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

OK, call it "bribery."

We are commanded to "overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:21).
Give him drink, give him water, give him Federal Reserve Notes.
Our goal is to see him repent and stop being a robber, not to kill him.
What if there are situations where the criminal won't accept the money? Say a crazy serial killer who can't be reasoned with. Kevin could go back and forth with us using various clauses and sub-clauses, adding fine point after fine point, but the whole time Kevin is avoiding the actual argument. The question is, ARE THERE EVER "situations?"

I agree, we can go back and forth. I would say that instead of stipulating that we just happen to have a LETHAL weapon, armed, pointed at the assailant, and ready to fire by remote control, we stipulate that we have a phaser set on stun that will put the assailant to sleep without harming him. So let's put an end to stipulated scenarios and deal with "the actual argument."
"The banks are actually the robbers. Maybe they should make restitution.."  
We could say something like: Politicians including political candidates are the actual robbers. Maybe they should make restitution. Maybe Kevin should donate all his money. I realize you're just making fun of me, but it seems like you would also have to make fun of Jesus:

Mark 10
23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto His disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
24 And the disciples were astonished at His words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
26 And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved?
27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.
28 Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee.
29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,
30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.
31 But many that are first shall be last; and the last first.
"So he's already started raping your daughter, but instead of witnessing to him and asking him to stop, or simply pulling him off of your daughter, she now has to witness you splatter your daughter's face with his brains. Great parenting."  
Kevin is so addle-brained. What if "simply pulling him off of your daughter" doesn't work? What if he puts up a fight? What if he's armed? And so on. Anyway, what would be normal parenting is if the parent protects their daughter by whatever means necessary including force and potential lethal force. What if, what if, what if....

The question is, Does God put you in a position where you CANNOT obey the command to "love your enemy" and "Thou shalt not kill" without VIOLATING the command to protect your family?
Why is Kevin so anti-women? Is he sexist? Why doesn't Kevin interview women who have been violently raped and ask them what they would've chosen if they only had these two choices: to have been violently raped as they were, or to have not been violently raped but at the cost of the would-be rapist's life? There are actually women who have said, "Don't kill someone 'for me' and send him off to hell for eternity just so I can avoid a few moments of torture, like Christ endured torture for me."
"This is pure idolatry. This is murder, pure and simple. We must obey God rather than "the governing authorities in the service of their country." (Acts 5:29) They both should have walked together to Switzerland."  
For Kevin, to be a soldier is "pure idolatry." In that case, we shouldn't have any soldiers. In that case, if a radical Muslim nation invades us, we won't and shouldn't defend ourselves. We should just surrender and hope for the best. Jesus plainly, explicitly, unmistakably said that when a pagan nation invades "your" nation, surrender. Be subject. Do what they say. "Go the second mile." ← read that link
Also, Kevin interprets Acts 5:29 by reading into Acts 5:29 his pacifism and political philosophy. This is eisegesis, not exegesis.  
BTW, Switzerland has soldiers. Several years back I was friends with a Swiss person. He told me every healthy Swiss man of a certain age is required to serve in the military. For two years at first, starting around age 18-20, if I recall, then for the rest of his life in the reserves until age 50 or thereabouts, I think. He told me these men always keep their military grade rifles with them too (e.g. at home). If all this is so, Switzerland wouldn't be an option for Kevin. Switzerland doesn't invade other countries as did Hitler and Bush.

 

I would pay the tax. I would rather go to prison, like Muhammad Ali.
"World War II was utterly unjustifiable on Christian grounds."  
Who says WW2 was fought "on Christian grounds" in the first place. Everybody alive at the time.

Today the whole world is divided between human slavery and human freedom—between pagan brutality and the Christian ideal.
We choose human freedom—which is the Christian ideal.
No one of us can waver for a moment in his courage or his faith.
We will not accept a Hitler-dominated world. And we will not accept a world, like the postwar world of the 1920's, in which the seeds of Hitlerism can again be planted and allowed to grow.
We reassert our abiding faith in the vitality of our constitutional Republic as a perpetual home of freedom, of tolerance, and of devotion to the word of God.
Franklin D. Roosevelt: Radio Address Announcing an Unlimited National Emergency, May 27, 1941

Trust me; I could provide many more examples.

If it wasn't fought on Christian grounds, was it fought on Satanic grounds?

Previously: