Killing in Self Defense

[Nessa]

Sounds like the Auca Indian story, with Jim Elliot.

It's an amazing story of how God can reach even those who seem to be unreachable.

So, if that's the story that the video clip was from, then I'd say that those missionaries already made up their minds that they were going to die to bring the gospel to the aucas.

Did they have the right to use force to defend themselves?

Of course they did. And even in the murderous evil that happened to those missionaries, God still was able to get through to other aucas. So, what Satan meant for evil, God turned into something glorious.

And K, I guess I'd ask you...

If the missionaries defended themselves, and survived the attack, could God still have been able to get through to some of the aucas?

I don't know...maybe the missionaries could have killed some of the aucas, then showed "agape" love, as they tended to the wounds of the injured aucas.

The clip shows an ambush. It shows the missionaries weren't ready for an attack. If they were ready, maybe they'd have still been alive.

Who knows.

They werent ready for the attack? You are missing the whole point. They knew what they might be getting themselves in for. They werent.niave.. They had no intention.from the get go of.defending themselves physically

[RickD]

nessa wrote:
Sigh, ok, say the impossible happened and they did do that...answer the question..please

Despite what they would or wouldnt do...you can answer me hypothetically...

Was that a real sigh, or just for dramatic effect?

Ok, I'll play along with your little make believe story. Assuming someone could actually knock on a tent, and assuming the natives asked them to leave, and assuming the husband and wife missionaries understood that the natives were asking them to leave, and assuming they didn't leave when asked, because they were there on a mission, and the natives attacked the wife, yes, I think it's wrong if the man didn't at least try to protect his wife from being killed. Call me "old fashioned", but I'd like to think that any man would risk his life to protect his wife. And any man who wouldn't try to protect his wife, is definitely wrong.

Nessa,

Dare I ask who'd make him a sammich if the wife was killed? Really Nessa. Put yourself in the man's shoes, just for a moment.

[RickD]

Sounds like the Auca Indian story, with Jim Elliot.

It's an amazing story of how God can reach even those who seem to be unreachable.

So, if that's the story that the video clip was from, then I'd say that those missionaries already made up their minds that they were going to die to bring the gospel to the aucas.

Did they have the right to use force to defend themselves?

Of course they did. And even in the murderous evil that happened to those missionaries, God still was able to get through to other aucas. So, what Satan meant for evil, God turned into something glorious.

And K, I guess I'd ask you...

If the missionaries defended themselves, and survived the attack, could God still have been able to get through to some of the aucas?

I don't know...maybe the missionaries could have killed some of the aucas, then showed "agape" love, as they tended to the wounds of the injured aucas.

The clip shows an ambush. It shows the missionaries weren't ready for an attack. If they were ready, maybe they'd have still been alive.

Who knows.

They werent ready for the attack? You are missing the whole point. They knew what they might be getting themselves in for. They werent.niave.. They had no intention.from the get go of.defending themselves physically

You may be right. And forgive me if I'm missing the point. All I had to go on, was a 4 minute clip of a movie, in which the missionaries clearly seemed surprised that they were being attacked.

[RickD]

RickD wrote:
So, if that's the story that the video clip was from, then I'd say that those missionaries already made up their minds that they were going to die to bring the gospel to the aucas.

Kurieuo wrote:
Shouldn't we be that way naturally as Christians wherever we are?

Should we naturally make up our minds that we are going to die, wherever we are?

No, that's insane. An argument could be made that we should be willing to die, if need be. But make up our mind that we're going to die wherever we are?

K wrote:
I agree they had a right to defend themselves as humans.
But, I'd disagree that it would have been valid for them to do so as Christians.

In part because they'd made up their minds as you say to go there, but also because they are missionaries and well it doesn't sit right with me for them to carry arms when Christ is about peace and laying down one's life for another.

It gives the wrong message, and I dare say would be wrong in Christ's eye even if understandable and forgiven.

For the most part, given their specific situation as I understand it, I pretty much agree with you.

RickD wrote:
And K, I guess I'd ask you...

If the missionaries defended themselves, and survived the attack, could God still have been able to get through to some of the aucas?

K wrote:
More missionaries probably would have died. In reality, any effort could have just fizzled
And it possibly could have been some time later, maybe even once civilisation reached them (which was only generations reach away). Then they wouldn't have had their own land secured, and then the government probably would have just killed them off to protect their society.

But you don't know that. Whoda thought that it would have turned out the way it did? Murderers turning to Christ. With God, that's possible. Just like it could've been possible for God to work in the natives hearts, even if the missionaries fought back.
You're thinking in human terms. When you're trying to make the point that we shouldn't think that way.

And like I said, in this situation, you may be right that the missionaries had no intention of fighting back.

But, I hope you're not trying to say that because these missionaries had no intention of defending themselves, that nobody should defend themselves. That just doesn't add up.

[Nessa]

nessa wrote:
Sigh, ok, say the impossible happened and they did do that...answer the question..please

Despite what they would or wouldnt do...you can answer me hypothetically...

Was that a real sigh, or just for dramatic effect?

Ok, I'll play along with your little make believe story. Assuming someone could actually knock on a tent, and assuming the natives asked them to leave, and assuming the husband and wife missionaries understood that the natives were asking them to leave, and assuming they didn't leave when asked, because they were there on a mission, and the natives attacked the wife, yes, I think it's wrong if the man didn't at least try to protect his wife from being killed. Call me "old fashioned", but I'd like to think that any man would risk his life to protect his wife. And any man who wouldn't try to protect his wife, is definitely wrong.

Nessa,

Dare I ask who'd make him a sammich if the wife was killed? Really Nessa. Put yourself in the man's shoes, just for a moment.

The sigh was a frustration.at my self cos I regretted giving those what ifs cos I felt a bit dumb about it...

BUT you finally got to the point I was getting at. You would think it wrong for the husband not to protect his wife but doing that would have defeated what they were trying to communicate to the tribal people. They had no intention of retaliating. It would not of been appropriate even.

[Nessa]

I think this is one of those trips you pre pack your sammiches and take them with you...make sure the wife does extra cos she might die...tho be sensitive in saying that to her e.g not 'Hey hun, just in case you die and I dont..can you pack a few extra sammiches? Thanks hun, love ya!'

[RickD]

Sorry Nessa,

As a man, even the failure of a husband I can be on rare occasions , there's no way that I'm not protecting my wife. It's a natural, God given instinct. Most likely I'd die trying, but I could never live with myself if I didn't do anything. It's the same instinct for a mother. You'd do anything to protect your children. You'd even risk your own life to do it.

But thankfully, your hypothetical didn't happen. The men left the women where they were safe.


And, in your hypothetical, by showing that a husband protects his wife, he is showing that Christ protects the church, and died for her. So, that's part of the gospel, isn't it?

[Nessa]

Sorry Nessa,

As a man, even the failure of a husband I can be on rare occasions , there's no way that I'm not protecting my wife. It's a natural, God given instinct. Most likely I'd die trying, but I could never live with myself if I didn't do anything. It's the same instinct for a mother. You'd do anything to protect your children. You'd even risk your own life to do it.

But thankfully, your hypothetical didn't happen. The men left the women where they were safe.


And, in your hypothetical, by showing that a husband protects his wife, he is showing that Christ protects the church, and died for her. So, that's part of the gospel, isn't it?

If we are the church and jesus loves.the church then why doesnt he always physically protect the church? What about saul riding round and killing 'the church'? Yet how many died without God's protection? And he is well able to protect.

[Philip]

Nessa: If we are the church and jesus loves.the church then why doesnt he always physically protect the church? What about saul riding round and killing 'the church'? Yet how many died without God's protection? And he is well able to protect.

Because what God designed and CURRENTLY allows is not ALL about THIS life/this time, but is ultimately about the NEXT life, which is eternal. And not understanding this is also a common mistake made by atheists who make false assertions about Christianity. God makes few promises about THIS life, but makes the most important one about the one to come (for Christians/we'll be with Him forever in peace and great joy).

[Nessa]

Nessa: If we are the church and jesus loves.the church then why doesnt he always physically protect the church? What about saul riding round and killing 'the church'? Yet how many died without God's protection? And he is well able to protect.

Because what God designed and CURRENTLY allows is not ALL about THIS life/this time, but is ultimately about the NEXT life, which is eternal. And not understanding this is also a common mistake made by atheists who make false assertions about Christianity. God makes few promises about THIS life, but makes the most important one about the one to come (for Christians/we'll be with Him forever in peace and great joy).

Its NOT all about THIS life? Thanks for proving my point

[PaulSacramento]

If a person choose the path of self-sacrifice over self-protection, that is their choice.
It is, however, not the same thing as letting ANOTHER die ( who has NOT made that choice) when he/she can be protected.
I believe that all people have a duty to protect those that can't protect themselves, to save those that can't save themselves.
The taking of a life is always a very serious thing, perhaps the most serious of things.
IMO, the only time the taking of a life is justifiable is in the protection of another life.

[EssentialSacrifice]

Two questions I'd ask are whether:
1) These missionaries would be justified in using guns to kill and defend themselves?
2) Whether it would be valid for them as Christians to lethally defend themselves?

1). no, the missionaries would not be justified. This situation is, these men putting themselves in harms way, intentionally, to spread the Word. Sometimes the consequences are lethal, but spreading the Word has never been a walk in the park and those willing to must also "walk the walk" of Christ if there are to be the good fruits garnered.

2). the lethal defense of one person over another comes with dire consequences. They were not there to defend themselves, quite the opposite, they were there to give up their lives for the sake of Christ and all the holy souls of the natives yet to be touched by Him.

Their reward in heaven is great, their robes are white with sanctity and Christ's call to them, noticeably heeded and obeyed.

[theophilus]

Two questions I'd ask are whether:
1) These missionaries would be justified in using guns to kill and defend themselves?
2) Whether it would be valid for them as Christians to lethally defend themselves?

We might have a right to defend ourselves but there are times when it is better to give up that right in order to accomplish some higher good. Jesus could have asked God to send twelve legions of angels to keep him from being crucified but he chose to submit to death because that was the only way we could be redeemed. Sometimes his followers need to follow his example and submit to death when carrying out the job of telling others the gospel.

A long time ago I read a book about the missionaries whose deaths are the subject of the film and I recall that they discussed what they would do if attacked. Someone mentioned the possibility of shooting the attackers in the legs to stop them without killing them. Evidently they didn't have a chance to do this.

[Nessa]

Two questions I'd ask are whether:
1) These missionaries would be justified in using guns to kill and defend themselves?
2) Whether it would be valid for them as Christians to lethally defend themselves?

We might have a right to defend ourselves but there are times when it is better to give up that right in order to accomplish some higher good. Jesus could have asked God to send twelve legions of angels to keep him from being crucified but he chose to submit to death because that was the only way we could be redeemed. Sometimes his followers need to follow his example and submit to death when carrying out the job of telling others the gospel.

A long time ago I read a book about the missionaries whose deaths are the subject of the film and I recall that they discussed what they would do if attacked. Someone mentioned the possibility of shooting the attackers in the legs to stop them without killing them. Evidently they didn't have a chance to do this.

I dont reallly get that? Missionaries with guns? Like do they hold the gun in one hand and the bible in the other?

[RickD]

Two questions I'd ask are whether:
1) These missionaries would be justified in using guns to kill and defend themselves?
2) Whether it would be valid for them as Christians to lethally defend themselves?

We might have a right to defend ourselves but there are times when it is better to give up that right in order to accomplish some higher good. Jesus could have asked God to send twelve legions of angels to keep him from being crucified but he chose to submit to death because that was the only way we could be redeemed. Sometimes his followers need to follow his example and submit to death when carrying out the job of telling others the gospel.

A long time ago I read a book about the missionaries whose deaths are the subject of the film and I recall that they discussed what they would do if attacked. Someone mentioned the possibility of shooting the attackers in the legs to stop them without killing them. Evidently they didn't have a chance to do this.

I dont reallly get that? Missionaries with guns? Like do they hold the gun in one hand and the bible in the other?

A bible in one hand, and a gun in the other hand. Now you're getting it Nessa. It's called tough love. If only I could remember where someone was talking about tough love being part of agape love. I wonder who said that? Hmm....