Opinion of transformational pacifism

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Inspired by the fact that in my argument with jmfcst he was arguing about a specific hypothetical

it is NOT a hypothetical, it happens on a regular basis...take for instance the North Hollywood Shootout:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

please tell us if you believe the officers "sinned" and needed to "repent" when they killed these two heavily armed bank robbers

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Inspired by the fact that in my argument with jmfcst he was arguing about a specific hypothetical

it is NOT a hypothetical, it happens on a regular basis...take for instance the North Hollywood Shootout:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

please tell us if you believe the officers "sinned" and needed to "repent" when they killed these two heavily armed bank robbers

Yes. Next question.

No more questions.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Because of the possibly sketchy way the one dude died (in handcuffs, bleeding out in the street basically....though the reality of the situation wasn't as bad as that brief description sounds) or is any killing by a cop a "sin"?

he is saying any killing is a literal sin...and that there are situations where all available choices lead to sin...

...he claims he is attempting to live in the manner that is in agreement of the Kingdom of God timeframe when Christ is ruling and there will be no bloodshed or killing, thus killing to him is a sin.  Of course, he overlooks the fact that at the time when Christ reigns on earth, there will also be no eating of meat.  So, to be consistent, he would have to say killing animals and eating their meat is also a sin.  Which again, would run contrary to scripture.

---

He claims that since we live in a fallen world, our dealings with that fallen world will place us in situations (e.g. cops faced with a rampaging gunman) where all solutions to some problems are sinful.  I do agree with him that we live in a fallen world…But, what he fails to realize is that Christ did NOT come here to institute rules that would be in effect during the Kingdom period (else we wouldnt be eating meat), rather Jesus came to earth to provide a way for us to overcome the situations that this fallen world presents to us, and overcome them in a way that is not sinful.

Nathan’s view creates so much contradiction with scripture, that he has to preemptively backfill by asserting we are tempted in ways beyond what Christ was tempted, or that it was Christ’s infinite knowledge that allowed him to avoid sin  But even his attempts to backfill run contrary to scripture, because the scripture explicitly states that Christ was tempted in every way, and that the way to avoid sin is NOT perfect knowledge, but love (“love is the fulfillment of the law”).

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

still...I must say, this is one of the more interesting topics that has graced this board in some time.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Though, note that jmfcst and I have significantly different positions on hamartiology, neither of which are especially representative of Christians (mainly because no one position is).

ham-art-iology?  don't tell me, let me guess - is it the study of pig art?

In any case, if that word is going to be on the test, I'll need a dictionary and a whole day to study.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Exodus 22:2 "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.”

obviously, the bible explicitly allowed for killing in self-defense without guilt.  In fact, the very next verse says that if the thief is overpowered and captured and held until daylight (or, another interpretation is if the theif is breaking in during the day and his intentions are obviously just to steal), then his life is to be spared and he is to make restitution:

Exoduc 22:3 "If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."

So, the distinction is clearly made between the perception of danger, just as it is in our laws today - you have the right to use lethal force on an intruder if you perceive your life is in danger, and the law gives you much more leeway to kill if the intrusion happens at night.

But, the main biblical point is that the one who kills in valid self-defense is NOT guilty of bloodshed, and there was no sacrifce or religioius ritual required from him (obviously since he bore no guilt).  

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

This was the crux of the argument. Again, it partly has to do with how we were defining 'sin' and 'excusable' versus 'righteous' actions. I took a lesser-evil position in those situations (which to-day, incidentally, my priest backed me up on; I don't want to exercise appeal to authority in this context, nor honestly do I really want to continue discussing this particular issue at all, but I was sick of this whole conversation so that made me feel a little better about the whole thing).

while you were checking with your religious authority, you didn't by any chance, ask your priest what he thought of your opinion regarding homosexuality, did you?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

This was the crux of the argument. Again, it partly has to do with how we were defining 'sin' and 'excusable' versus 'righteous' actions. I took a lesser-evil position in those situations (which to-day, incidentally, my priest backed me up on; I don't want to exercise appeal to authority in this context, nor honestly do I really want to continue discussing this particular issue at all, but I was sick of this whole conversation so that made me feel a little better about the whole thing).

while you were checking with your religious authority, you didn't by any chance, ask your priest what he thought of your opinion regarding homosexuality, did you?

No, I didn't have to; I've known that he agrees with me and with by far the vast majority of his flock on that for years.

is this an RCC priest?  if so, you might want to add his view to the other thread I just created to measure acceptance of it within the RCC ranks.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

@Nathan,

what is your take on the following verse:

Exodus 22:2 "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed.”

So, from your point of view, if killing in self-defense is a sin, which category of sin are you referring to?  In other words: If the defender in Ex 22:2 is not guilty of the sin of bloodshed, then what sin is he quilty of?  The category of sin certainly can't be sexual immorality, or lying, or witchcraft...none of those actions are involved...so what exactly is the sin?

Or, are you saying that in the OT, killing in self-defense was NOT a sin, but in the NT it IS a sin?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

perhaps 'sin' hasn't been the ideal word to be using but I genuinely can't think of another in English that means close enough to what I've been trying to say.

the problem is not with the word 'sin', because it is clearly and simply defined in the bible as a transgression of God's law.  Therefore, what you and I have been arguing over is NOT the word sin, but rather the difference in how you and I read the contents of God's law for the NT church.

The problem I have is that what you’re placing the guilt of sin where it doesn’t belong.  I don’t like loading people down with unnecessary guilt, especially unwarranted guilt they can’t solve (you’ve defined a sin that there is no way to avoid and thus no way to avoid)

At least most legalism (e.g. wearing white shoes is a sin) has a solution (don’t wear white shoes)…but yours has no solution.

---

it has support in the writings of St Augustine if you're genuinely interested in understanding this better.

St. Augustine’s writings do not trump scripture, and I do understand the argument well enough to have immediately zoned in on the example of self-defense.  If there is a passage I am overlooking, I will be more than happy to review it.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The solution is the grace of God, which is actually more sola fides than I was thinking or what I'd like, but it's the only solution that makes sense to me. Total depravity is one of the few areas in which I agree with the Calvinists, but so is irresistible grace.

By solution I meant a way to repent and sin no more in that area, which is what your belief in this area lacks since you feel we are put into situations where every available choice is sinful.  To me, repent means to turn around and leave the direction you are going and go another direction…which is different than asking for forgiveness.

---

I actually do understand the vehemence of your disagreement with me a lot better now, since I know it's profoundly unpleasant and damaging to have guilt where it isn't necessary or called for, so thanks for that.

Sorry bro, I just automatically assume members are familiar with me, I didn't bother to look at your profile to see when you joined the forum, thought you had been here for a while and knew my story...the instant I was saved in 1992, God gave me a commission and set me to witness to a bunch of very close friends (my best friends) who were involved in a legalistic church founded by Herbert Armstrong who proclaimed himself to be the end of days Elijah sent to restore the true church and taught the observance of OT holy days and kept Moses' dietary law.  It was really upsetting to my friends (some of whom I had previously spent many nights eating dinner with them and their families, and their parents being part of the leadership of their church) when I told them I had been saved and sent by God to show them the truth, and I lost some very good friends, as if a bombshell had been dropped into the middle of my life, but I was able help save some of them, including my girlfriend who later became my wife (it took 18 months of studying with her before she finally let go - her church said it was the only true church and those that left were the only ones who wouldn't be saved).

So, my first couple of years of Christian life was spent witnessing to people in legalism…so I am a little “sensitive”, you might say, when I perceive a legalistic situation.  But, I also see this forum as a debating platform, so I am much more willing to push against ideas I feel are obviously and unnecessarily backward, than I would if we were simply co-workers.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

For what it's worth, given your explanation of that situation and what I know of Herbert Armstrong and his followers, I definitely do think that you were in the right there. I'm sorry if the way I was advancing my arguments reminded you of that; that's the sort of thinking about faith that I really do try to avoid.

no, you didn't remind of it

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

it was an interesting discussion, don't think the topic had been vetted yet on the religion board