Third Reply to Patrick Chan

Patrick Chan Kevin:	I suppose it's an honor to have someone invest as much time as Patrick Chan has in dealing with my arguments for pacifism. So I will return the honor by reading his lengthy replies and responding as best I can.
"It is an argument against the Romans 13 argument against pacifism. The pacifist says "Do no violence." The anti-pacifist says 'But Romans 13 says God ordains violence.'"
1. Notice Kevin's tendentious characterization, viz. "anti-pacifist."	What term would you suggest I use? I don't think my opponents are merely "non-" pacifist. It's not like they're neutral or indifferent to my pacifism. Steve Hays seems to believe that my system would lead to the total breakdown of society. That sounds "anti-" pacifist to me. I would say both sides are "tendentious." I would say the Bible is "tendentious."
2. Also, it's not the non-pacifist's position that "Romans 13 says God ordains violence." At best, that's a superficial gloss over what our take on Rom. 13 is, and despite the fact that we've proffered a much more nuanced take on Rom. 13 in previous comments (if Kevin bothered to try to read or understand them). Again, Kevin isn't responding to our arguments as given, but rather his strawman versions.	Three insults, no argument. I think my comment still stands: "The pacifist says "Do no violence." The anti-pacifist says 'But Romans 13 says God ordains violence.'" You can "nuance" that if you want, but that's what I'm taking away from this conversation. Romans 13 is used as a justification for a violent response and a denunciation of pacifism. (Even though such violence contradicts the first premise of Paul's argument, which he sets forth in the latter part of the previous chapter.)
"My reply is that God still punishes those who do the violence which God 'ordained.'"
1. Once again, Kevin misses the point. Yes, God ordained "violence" in the sense that he has ordained everything. Yes, God punished the Assyrians.
However, it doesn't follow from all this that therefore God is punishing Assyria because it was "violent" let alone that God punishing Assyria has anything to do with pacifism.	Why did God punish Assyria if not because Assyria raped, pillaged, killed, enslaved, and destroyed Israel?
2. Indeed, Isa. 10:12f states why God is punishing the Assyrians: "When the Lord has finished all his work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, he will punish the speech of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the boastful look in his eyes." This verse indicates God is punishing Assyria for its arrogance, for starters.	So if Assyria raped, pillaged, killed, enslaved, and destroyed Israel in a more "nuanced" manner, Assyria would not have been punished by God?
3. This isn't to say God isn't at the same time punishing Assyria for many things +/- "violence." But my immediate point is Scripture doesn't frame God's dealings with Assyria in the same way Kevin has framed it. Let alone that the reason God is punishing Assyria is directly relevant to the debate over pacifism.	God "ordained" Assyria to commit acts of violence, but these violent acts cannot be used as an excuse for not following in the steps of Jesus and being a pacifist.
4. Also, it could've been God would've punished Assyria even if they had done no violence to Israel but instead led Israel astray to worship Assyrian gods and thus commit idolatry. After all, God has punished people for idolatry in other passages of the Bible.	Sure, God would have punished Assyria for "leading Israel astray," but that's not what God ordained Assyria to do. God ordained them to do to Israel what Amerika did to Iraq: destroy, kill, plunder; vicious, depraved violence.
"That's because violence is a violation of God's Commandments."
1. Once again, this begs the very question at issue. That's what the debate is about. Kevin keeps assuming his perspective as if it were correct, i.e. thus saith Kevin, but he doesn't argue for his perspective.	If you can't prove that God did *not* judge Assyria for violence, then I'm not begging the question, I'm setting for proof for my own position. I think the Bible clearly says that God judges nations that rape and pillage other nations -- even if He "ordained" them to do that very thing.
2. Once again, Kevin makes a tendentious characterization in that "violence" isn't the non-pacifist's focal argument. It'd be better to say something like the use of force including potential lethal force.	I don't think the Bible uses such sterile, neutral language.
3. In general, pacifism is also against forceful resistance, even if it falls short of death.	As I said previously, what might be considered "forceful" in one context (e.g., date-rape drug) would not be considered "forceful" if used to de-escalate a violent situation.
4. "Violence" is an imprecise term. Kevin never bothers to detail what he means by "violence." It could mean a variety of things. Bludgeoning someone with a baseball is violent. Is lethal injection "violent"? Again, that depends on how loosely we define the term.	Killing someone -- even by lethal injection -- is sinful "violence." If Assyria marched into Israel and killed a hundred thousand people by lethal injection, there would be no doubt that it was an act of sinful "violence." I don't know why we're arguing about this word. I think we can get a fair idea of what violence is by reading the Bible. A particular definition of "violence" is not really relevant to my position. My position is that a Christian should rather be killed than kill.
5. Some "violence" may indeed be sinful, but it doesn't then follow all "violence" is therefore sinful. It depends. Murdering someone in cold blood is sinful, but apart from the fact that that's not what the non-pacifist argues for, Kevin has thus far never explained how "violence" used in protecting a loved one from a murderer or rapist is immoral. He again just takes it for granted that his viewpoint is correct while ours is wrong. #thussaithkevin	A person who threatens rape or murder is our "enemy," and Jesus said to love our enemies. You can't love your enemy if you kill your enemy. Tranquilizing an attacker who will not heed rebukes is not an unloving or sinful act of violence. Intentionally killing someone is a violation of God's command "Thou shalt not kill." Some people say it's OK to take someone else's life in order to save your own life. The Christian pacifist says that is contrary to the teachings and model of Jesus and Christian ethics. The debate between these two clearly-distinct positions will not be resolved by arguing over the technicalities of the word "violence."
"Sorry. It took me a while to become a pacifist too."
Why is Kevin sorry about it?	I feel sorry that you're going through such a struggle before you (eventually) become a pacifist like Jesus commands.
"God says 'Thou shalt no steal,' but the State would not exist without violating this commandment ('taxation')."
Once again, Kevin assumes what he needs to prove. What makes Kevin think taxation is the state "stealing"? He doesn't say.	I did indeed "say." I linked to my argument. Also here.
"God says 'Thou shalt not kill,' but the State was created for the purpose of killing people to protect our stuff."
1. Once again, Kevin makes a tendentious characterization of "the State." As if all states were like this throughout their entire histories.	It is the very definition of the state. It uses "the sword."
2. But this is due to Kevin's anarchist political philosophy.
"The Bible is a record of sinful man creating 'states,' and God sending prophets to denounce them."
1. Once again, Kevin is reading what he wants into the Bible. He's reading the Bible through the lens of his political philosophy.	That is a false accusation. I used to believe, like everyone else, that the State was a morally legitimate, "God-ordained" institution. Then I read through the Bible cover-to-cover and underlined every verse that related to "the State." It became clear that God did not command human beings to form "the State," and that God consistently denounces those who do. Jesus commands His followers "not" to be "archists," so that's where I get my "anarchist political philosophy."
It's sad that a professing Christian like Kevin thinks this is a main point of the Bible. It'd be a lot more accurate (though we'd only be scratching at the surface) to say the Bible is God sending prophets to call Israel to repentance and faith in God again.	Repent *of what*?? Most of the pages of the Bible are about statist violence or connected to acts of statist violence. I don't think it's far from the truth to say that the Bible is a manifesto against "the powers."
2. The Bible doesn't talk about "the state" as if it were a monolithic entity with no changes from Genesis to Revelation. The Egyptian "state" of the patriarchs was quite different than the Roman Empire, for instance.	What difference do the differences make? They are all still evil.
3. Prophets don't denounce states, period. There was a lot more to it than this. Kevin is oversimplifying matters which should be detailed.	My point is that the Bible is opposed to the creation of violent empires. Why argue with this without some support for your position? If I'm "oversimplifying," it should be fairly "simple" to de-bunk my claim. My claim is this: "The State" is the single most dominant character/entity in the Bible, behind God. Whole books of the Bible are about "the State" or "civil government" (e.g., "Judges," "Kings,"), "civil governments" are the most frequent object of the Prophets, most of the historical narratives involve states. Even the doctrine of "salvation" is primarily political in the pages of the Bible, and the Hebrew word for "salvation" bears this out. And "the State" is a human instrument of vengeance and violence, which is what the pacifist claims is contrary to the ethics of Jesus.
"I've never asked anyone to do this. I provide lots of links to support my claims."
Kevin's "links" mainly just link back to his own arguments, which are highly debatable, to say the very least.	Then debate them. Don't just say "that's debatable." Pull my arguments apart point by point. Tell my why my prooftexts don't come close to proving what I claim they prove.
"What is inaccurate in that statement? Isn't that exactly what the U.S. did in Iraq?"
Here's what Kevin said: "In our day, we should not voluntarily enlist in an effort to overthrow a pro-western government, kill, cripple, or make homeless hundreds of thousands of Christians, and replace that government with an Islamic Theocracy under Shariah Law."
This is a highly biased narrative. Some of the facts fit, in a sense, but that's mostly besides the point, since the biased narrative is what's actually controlling the facts rather than the other way around, which is what accuracy should entail.	Of course it's "biased!" I'm making an argument. But is it *false? No! Every fact is true. In fact, what makes the claim offensive and "biased" is that it contains facts* most Muricans don't want to think about.
"I think God was being merciful to people in darkness. Enlightened people are held to a higher standard."
What does this even have to do with my point? It could be true, but it doesn't touch on what I said.	God does not require people living in darkness to be executed for killing someone under certain circumstances. But after they hear the teachings of Jesus, they are held to a higher standard.

Patrick Chan "I'll read a link to any page that endorses your explanation and rules mine out entirely."
1. What makes Kevin think a page on the internet is the first port of call?	It's the easiest way to put me in contact with some information.
2. Why doesn't Kevin read a good Bible commentary on Exodus instead of "a link to any page"? It'd be far better to take it from an expert on Exodus who has written an entire tome on the Book of Exodus than to see some page on the internet. Check out commentaries on Exodus by scholars like Doug Stuart, Duane Garrett, Victor Hamilton.	I don't think the question of whether it is more Christian to kill or to be killed is going to be resolved by a paragraph in some commentary on Exodus. This is a big and obvious issue.
3. By the way, even if someone ignores everything I said on these verses, Kevin's "explanation" is still deficient on its own. He doesn't even argue for how he derives his interpretation from the text. Again, he just asserts it's correct.	I think my explanation of the verse is plausible and consistent with my advocacy of pacifism. You haven't shown why it's unacceptable, you've only said "go read a commentary."
"No, that's like saying exclusive and permanent monogamy wasn't the standard until the New Covenant."
1. Wrong. The debate over pacifism isn't analogous to the debate over marriage.	The debate over Exodus 22 is directly relevant to the debate over pacifism and analogous to marriage.
2. Once again, Kevin missed the point of what I said. I'm just logically drawing out his own argument.	You missed the point. God holds us to a higher standard in marriage than the Jews were held to in the Old Testament. God also holds us to a higher standard on loving our enemies. Exodus 22 and Matthew 19 prove this.
"Jesus said it was that way 'from the beginning.' But because of the hardness of hearts under the Old Covenant, God instituted 'Plan B.'"
Given statements like this as well as his past statements, Kevin obviously doesn't know the first thing about how to appropriately interpret the Bible. At best, what Kevin says is ignorant.	Name one commentator who disagrees with my interpretation of Matthew 19. How does YOUR interpretation of Matthew 19 differ from what I just said?
"The New Covenant tells us which Old Covenant laws have died and been resurrected in a new form."
Since Kevin once again evades my questions, I'll repeat myself:	More ad hominem accusations. I'm not trying to "evade" your questions, I'm trying to tackle them (all) head on.
1. If what Kevin has said is true, then how was it moral to kill a thief under certain circumstances in the OT, but now immoral to do the same under the NT?	"How" was it moral? I'm not sure I understand the question. In the Old Testament, God did not require a killer to be "executed" (that is, for his blood to be shed) under certain circumstances. I believe that killing should be more strictly evaluated under the light of the New Covenant.
2. If what Kevin has said is true, then why stop with this law regarding killing thieves under certain circumstances? Where does Kevin draw the line between which moral/civil commands have changed from the OT to the NT?	I draw the line where Scripture draws the line. The Bible says "executed if during the day, but not if during the night." The Bible also says the Sun has now arisen and we are now in the Day. 2 + 2 = 4. But regardless of how you interpret Ex. 22, I still think the case for loving enemies rather than killing them is clear.
"True, just as 'the immediate reference' in Isaiah 7:14 was not Christ. But the Bible clearly says Isaiah 7:14 was about Jesus. I think the New Testament gives us clues that Jesus is the Sun of Righteousness."
1. Once again, Kevin goes off on another tangent. Kevin keeps jumping around. What does Isa. 7:14 have to do with the debate over pacifism? The threadbare relation is simply because it's another instance of typology for Christ. But otherwise there's really no significant connection to my point about his previous passage in Mal. 4:2.	You said Malachi 4:2 is not directly about Jesus. I came back and said that in the same way Isaiah 7:14 is not "directly" about Jesus, but it clearly IS about Jesus. I think you just lost this issue.
2. But at least he concedes my point is "True."
"I don't think I lept 'willy nilly.' All the verses I've cited are pretty compelling, I think, whereas you've cited nary a single verse."
1. Apparently Kevin thinks proof-texting plus allegorization is how one exegetes. But that's pure ignorance of how to do biblical hermeneutics.	Maybe so, but you did not refute my claim with any hermeneutics of your own. I think my verses are more persuasive than your no-verses-at-all.
2. This is on top of the fact that Kevin's citing verses have very little if any relevance to the debate over pacifism. Certainly Kevin doesn't argue for them. Again, he just proof-texts and allegorizes as if this is the sum total of what should be done in interpreting the Bible.	Malachi 4:2 is persuasive evidence that we should not kill thieves, even though in Exodus 22 someone who killed a thief at night was not put to death, because in Ex 22 someone who killed a thief in daylight WAS PUT TO DEATH. That's a feather the pacifist's cap, if you ask me.
3. People can compare what I've done with what Kevin has done and decide for themselves. Better yet (by far), and as I previously mentioned, people should consult a good commentary to see how it's actually done. Not rely on Kevin's blatantly amateurish (if that) "exegesis."	"Amateurish" exegesis is better than no exegesis at all. The word "amateur" comes from the Latin word for "love." I exegete because I love the Bible, not because I get paid to do so.
"Both, if you count Christ's coming in AD70 as His 'second' coming."
Wow. Does this mean Kevin is a full preterist?	No. I could mean I'm a partial preterist, however.

Patrick Chan "I don't take verses like Romans 16:20 ('And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly') literally as to bruises or feet. I also don't take verses like Isaiah 45:14 literally as to chains, but I believe these prophecies have a real social fulfillment through the Church and the spread of the Gospel."
1. Once again, Kevin doesn't respond to what I asked.	Yes I did. Jesus is victorious over evil but not because His followers literally bruise unbelievers and put them in literal chains. Jesus is victorious through His pacifist followers.
2. If Rom. 16:20 is in part alluding to Gen. 3:15 i.e. the protoevangelium, then it has a literal fulfillment in the death and resurrection of Christ. Or more likely it's just Paul telling Christians Christ has and will win.
"The law of Exodus 22, which says someone who kills someone who tries to steal his TV is guilty of murder, still applies"
Kevin tries to have it both ways. Given the logic of his earlier point, this law would no longer apply under the NT. But now Kevin wants to have it apply again. Kevin is inconsistent.	Why would a law against killing someone not apply under the New Covenant?
"though I don't believe the killer's blood should be shed."
Apparently Kevin just picks and chooses what he wants to believe from the Bible. The parts that agree with Kevin, Kevin believes. The parts that disagree with Kevin, Kevin disbelieves. In that case, Kevin isn't submitting to God's Word. Rather, Kevin wants God's Word to submit to him. God's Word isn't autonomous over Kevin. Rather, Kevin is autonomous over God's Word.	I don't just "pick and choose," arbitrarily and with no systematic basis. All you do is insult me, Patrick, and I think you violate the 9th Commandment by doing so. I believe Old Testament laws against homosexuality are still applicable, but I don't believe homosexuals should be put to death. That's because I distinguish between the "moral law" and the "ceremonial law." Likewise, I believe laws against killing intruders are still applicable, but not the part that commands that the killer's blood be shed to make atonement.
"But now it is also true that killing an intruder 'at night' is also considered murder, because Jesus said 'love your enemy' and it's better to be killed than to kill, and better to witness than to kill."'
Once again, we've already covered this ground numerous times. Once again, Kevin is assuming what needs to be proved. Once again, this is the very point of contention. Once again, Kevin just doesn't get it. He keeps repeating himself without interacting with what other people's counter-arguments to his position. Is Kevin doing this because he can't or because he won't argue in good faith? If the former, then reflects poorly on Kevin's intelligence. If the latter, then this reflects poorly on Kevin's character. If both, then it's doubly unfortunate for Kevin.	You're attacking me, but not exegeting the text.
"And what is Jesus your judge going to say about your demand? If you need help, I'll try to help you. But I suspect this is just another insincere anti-pacifist argument."
1. Sorry, given Kevin doesn't know the first thing about how to properly interpret the Bible based on his previous attempts at "exegesis," I think I'll just skip Kevin's further attempts at interpreting Jesus here.
2. Kevin obviously missed the intentional absurdity of my point.	And you missed the intentional seriousness of my point, which is that pacifism does not result in the total triumph of evil in society.
"Yes, most of what Steve says is intended to be humorous rather than philosophical (from the Greek, 'love of wisdom')"
They're not mutually exclusive. I find what Steve says both "philosophical" as well as "humorous," among other things.
"I can't win. I'm either 'peripheral' or 'backpedaling.'"
These two aren't opposed to one another in an either/or situation. Kevin could be both making peripheral arguments as well as backpedaling.	My point is that I'm doing neither. I'm advancing a systematic defense of non-aggression.
"The Americans weren't just fighting Indians, they were fighting European powers who were hiring the Indians."
I never claimed otherwise.
"This is different (I hope) from stealing land that belonged to Indians, which was more typical of secular Americans in the 19th century than in the 17th-18th century."
Also, the original contention wasn't over it was "more typical" or not. It was whether it simply occurred or not. I think we've already shown it has.	My point is that to whatever extent America was once a "Christian nation," it is no longer so because America refused to follow Jesus in a pacifist direction.

Patrick Chan "My point is that to whatever degree America was 'a Christian nation' and a 'City upon a Hill,' it is no longer so because America has abandoned any pretense of following Christ, and has adopted wholesale Imperial violence and mass murder. It starts with killing tax collectors over a few pence, and the flawed theory of 'self-defense.'"	Oops, there you go, I just said it again.
1. For starters, what makes Kevin think things in America are worse now than in the past?	Every single person who signed the Declaration of Independence and Constitution would say things are worse now than in the past.
2. What makes Kevin think America is "Imperial" i.e. an empire in the first place?	This, this, and this.
3. If America is an empire, what makes Kevin think America is the sort of empire that "has adopted wholesale Imperial violence and mass murder," etc.? Coincidentally, this narrative happens to mesh well with Kevin's political philosophy!	Because since I was born, the U.S. has killed, crippled, or made homeless TENS OF MILLIONS of innocent non-combatant civilians around the world.
4. Finally, even if I agree (which I don't) with Kevin's narrative, the argument against pacifism that we've given in this thread doesn't significantly depend on America as an empire. Rather, for the most part, we've been focusing on comparatively more mundane affairs like a husband protecting his wife and kids from a murderer and rapist.	Your willingness to kill a person who threatens to harm you (or your family) is directly related to your acceptance of a government that kills MILLIONS of people to "protect" you. Jesus says it is better to be harmed than to harm; better to be killed than to kill. You extend your short life for a few extra months by killing a human being created in the Image of God. Jesus gave His life for His enemies.
"You have an example of someone you consider to be following Christ in the act of committing genocide against Indians?"
Once again, Kevin missed the fact that I never claimed this so it's not up to me to defend something I never claimed.
"It seems obvious to me that Romans 13 prohibits the violent overthrow of the government. How do you harmonize violent revolution with 'be subject?'"
1. LPT: Just because things seem "obvious" to you doesn't make them true.	Just because you say that doesn't persuade me that they are *not* true.
2. Why does Kevin think I'd argue "harmonize violent revolution with 'be subject'"? I never said I agree. But I also never said I disagree. Rather, I was just responding to Kevin's immediate point.	What is your response? Is it permissible to engage in the violent overthrow of the government, according to Romans 13? I say no, that Romans13 commands a more "pacifist" position.
3. However, if Kevin wants to hear more, then one could reply as follows. Strictly speaking, Paul was writing to the Christians in Rome in the 1st century. Paul was telling the Christians in Rome to "be subject" to Rome in the context of the Roman Empire. It's not as if Christians in Rome were in a position to resist Rome either. However, this doesn't necessarily apply to all Christians in all places at all times. Of course, if somoene argued along these lines, then they'd have to further delineate the argument. But it's a start if that's what Kevin wants to hear.	What other context is there to be subject to Rome? Why were Christians not in a position to resist Rome? Resistance was "endemic."
"Well, let's see, the Roman Empire had a 'senate.'"
Once again, Kevin doesn't detail the point. He just cherry picks "senate" as if the Roman Empire's "senate" is evidence their system of gov't is analagous to our system of gov't.	It is a well-known fact that American government was patterned in many ways after Greco-Roman forms. I would say that Christianity was a more dominant influence, but there was still Romans influence. Look at the architecture in Washington D.C.: Roman.
"Does anybody worship Obama? Try this."
So is Kevin arguing Obama "worship" is analogous to what Caesar worship in the Roman Empire? If so, his Google-fu skills won't help him here.
"Is the United States like the Roman Empire? Try this."
Kevin's "Try this" links to a basic Google search. But Google turns up pro and con. So this doesn't help Kevin.	"Pro" helps; "con" is not conclusively against my position.
"The United States is more evil and more dangerous than the Roman Empire. The U.S. is the enemy of humanity."
Sorry, but I think I'll pass on Kevin's highly jaundiced view or narrative about US history. I can refer to American historians who know what they're talking about instead of reading Kevin's one-sided screed against the US.	If it's "highly jaundiced," it should be "easily refuted." But you offer no refutation whatsoever. Every single person who signed the Declaration of Independence and Constitution would be horrified at what an atheistic and violent nation the United States has become.
"He said enough to make clear that Christians should not engage in the violent overthrow of the government."
Thus saith Kevin.	You think it's OK to engage in the violent overthrow of the government? ad hominems and personal attacks are no substitute for argument, and no substitute for just flat out stating your thesis, even without any supporting argument.

Patrick Chan "Never heard of 'Lee Rockwell.' I try to fill all my webpages are filled with links and footnotes to the sources I rely on. I may be a plagiarist, but I'm not an original thinker. So what? Deal with the message, not the messenger."
If Kevin had a message besides believe me because I say I'm right, then I'd be more willing to listen.	It is better to be killed than to kill. Because that's what Jesus did, and told us to do the same.
"Can you point me to a commentary which says Romans 13 permits the violent overthrow of the government?"
Why? I never claimed it did. But Kevin should check out Tom Schreiner or Doug Moo's commentaries on Romans. They're excellent.	And they say that Romans 13 approves of the violent overthrow of the government????
"Can you point me to a commentary which says that Malachi 4:2 has nothing to do with Jesus?"
Why? I never claimed otherwise. In fact, I claimed it did. But obviously Kevin missed my point entirely. I personally like Iain Duguid's commentary, but it's not as scholarly. But there are others which are (e.g. McComiskey).	Are you serious? Then why this prolonged discussion?? [smh]
"Can you point me to a commentary which says Exodus 22 does not say that someone who kills a thief during the day is guilty of murder?"
Why? I never claimed otherwise. Once again, Kevin can't keep track of the arguments. I already referred him to commentaries on Exodus above.	This entire thread began with the claim that a Best Buy employee would be justified in killing someone who was trying to steal a TV. If you agree with my exegesis of Ex 22, why are we arguing?
"Or more specifically, can you point me to a commentary which says my position on those verses is beyond the pale of logic and sensible exegesis, and no commentary which advances my arguments is reliable?"
Yes. I've referred Kevin to several commentaries. I can name even more. But most if not all of the commentaries I've mentioned should call into serious question Kevin's "exegesis" of the passages under discussion. I do feel bad for Kevin in that his "exegesis" is so poor but he doesn't realize it. Anyway, people can check out any of the commentaries I've mentioned (e.g. Doug Stuart on Exodus) and see how these commentaries compare to Kevin's "exegesis."	Please quote Dr. Stuart or drop the argument.
"My library has over 10,000 volumes. I'm sure I have an average of ten commentaries on every book of the Bible."
Good for Kevin. But judging by his "exegesis," too bad Kevin doesn't appear to have understood what he's read. Well, assuming he's read the books in his library. Sometimes people own a lot of books but don't bother to read let alone understand them. What's the point of that? Just for show, I guess.	More ad hominem.
"It wasn't intended as iron-clad 'proof,' but merely to clarify one premise. That premise being that God says 'Thou shalt not kill,' and 'kill' is broader than 'murder.'"
Kevin made a distinction between intentional vs. unintentional murder. But that's something both sides could agree on. So Kevin doesn't make the argument for pacifism by drawing this distinction.	"Could" agree on, but don't. Some people say it's OK to kill, because "Thou shalt not kill" only prohibits "murder." I showed the word means more than just "murder."
"So what is the definition of a 'good faith' argument? How do my efforts not qualify as 'good faith' efforts to persuade someone to become a pacifist?"
For starters:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith	Doesn't answer my question. In fact, I wonder if *you're* arguing in good faith. You seem to just be attacking me without offering any substantive arguments of your own against pacifism. Sometimes you argue about my interpretation of Malachi 4:2 and then you say you agreed all along. You won't say whether Romans 13 prohibits the violent overthrow of governments. I honestly don't know what your real position is, after all this space. I think we should move on. This will be my last reply unless there's something of substance to discuss.