This, of course, leads to at least two other vital questions. One, how does the person know that God is actually commanding him/her to kill? Two, is the person ready to face the consequences for their actions? Because, as SK so vividly describes in “Fear and Trembling,” suspending the ethical will most likely result in one becoming a universal pariah. This second question, I think, is actually the more important of the two.

What I mean is this: Let’s begin with the assumption — and there is reason to believe that the Bible does NOT advocate such a thing, though that discussion is for another day — that we have a mandate in Scripture to protect innocent life, even if it means killing an evil person to save innocent lives. If so, then it reasonable to conclude that God may reveal to a person that they ought to kill someone. After all, according to a prima facie interpretation, God told people in the Old Testament to kill all the time. Here, I say – do it!

If you really believe that God is asking do to this thing to stave off genocide, don’t shrink back. Do what you must. But don’t try to get away with it, either! The fact that Dr. Tiller’s killer attempted to escape the scene, and is now attempting to defend his actions, shows that he was never completely committed to the act. There is reason to doubt that his act was, in fact, a genuine suspension of the ethical. This is precisely why he is guilty. If he was truly following God’s command and suspending the ethical, he would refuse to defend his actions (indeed, he cannot!) and accept his fate – even if it means death – as the retaliation expected from the ethical system that he chose to suspend.

Clearly, the response to Dr. Tiller’s murder shows that most in the pro-life camp don’t believe his killer really heard from God either. Either that, or they believe the abortion genocide is not sufficient to warrant a violent uprising. In this sense, it should be clear that the motives of many pro-life advocates are conflicted, at best, and therefore those of us who believe an unborn child is a human life ought to keep in mind our own inconsistencies (and the inadequacies of our arguments) before we begin accusing and berating those on the pro-choice side of the issue.

The first one is clearly against a thief, and if you notice if this is “after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed.” So your claim can only be made during the nighttime hours at best.

The second one is concerning the defense of Jerusalem, again not an authorization from God for what you claim.

And clearly the Christian, who is now a citizen of a new country, has been given new orders.

Also, in the book of Nehemiah, the prophet reinforces this principle:

“Therefore set I in the lower places behind the wall, and on the higher places, I even set the people after their families with their swords, their spears, and their bows. And I looked, and rose up, and said unto the nobles, and to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, Be not ye afraid of them: remember the LORD, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses.”
Nehemiah 4:13-14

I am glad that you have come to acknowledge the logical consistency of the argument.

It was my parents, not I, whom the FBI were interested in speaking with.

What Scripture authorizes this? You are giving an authorization from God, and unless you have Scripture for this you are either an Oracle or Prophet. Do you claim this for yourself?

IF abortion is akin to the holocaust
IF World War II was justified in stopping the holocaust
THEN World War III must stop abortion

Have you considered that Jesus’ tightening of the OT rules on adultery, murder, divorce, oaths, etc. also apply to vengeance and violence?

This same principle is reflected in our own civil legal tradition, as seen above. Thus, those who would exercise lethal force to stop a murderer are not themselves committing murder. They act to neutralize a threat.

The individual, in acting to defend another person from an imminent threat of harm, is authorized by God to exercise lethal, defensive force. This is not force enacted in retribution, but a defensive force used to protect. In Genesis, the Lord says:
And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Given that the imago Dei is not given at birth or sometime following, and God’s law gives protection to the unborn, the same as that granted to everyone else under the law. Christ’s coming does not “abolish the law,” but to fully realize all that was promised under the law. And so, under that law, homicide can be justified when done according to moral right.

This is true, it is not “lethal-force” (at least maybe not so directly); but that wasn’t my point, my point was simply to illustrate that “violence” was used by Jesus. And as you rightly underscore the context was part of a promise/fulfillment motif that He was directly fulfilling as the Messiah.

All I’m trying to do now is get out of the “lion’s den” here; I seem to be the only non-pacifist on this thread. But I just want to make clear, from my perspective, that I do not think this is an either/or situation. I think there are times that “defensive action” is justifiable; and then I also believe that “passive action” is justifiable.

Adam, you seem to want to decry any casuistry; not me! Scripture is full of this kind of “situationalism.” We have paradigmatic law (principles i.e. 10 Commandments), and then we have casuistic law (Levitical law-code). To assert that THE theme of scripture, and ethic of Jesus is ALWAYS pacifistic seems ad hoc to me. It’s just an assertion based upon “selective passages” of scripture (per various contexts). Does this mean I don’t realize that we are to be at “peace with all men?” No, I do see this as the stance the Christian is to take towards the world and others; but that does not mean that we cannot defend ourselves (personally), or that the gvt. cannot defend itself (collectively).

To be honest I see pacifism as an cop-out; it’s easy to say this kind of stuff from the comfort of our own homes in the US of A.

Anyway, peace (I leave on a pacifist note ;-).

Heydrich’s police actions were legal; he was, in fact, the government. Heydrich’s mortal wounds were inflicted upon him by a grenade thrown by a Czech assassin under small-arms fire from Heydrich himself. By your standards, the assassination of Heydrich was completely justifiable. However, in the grand scheme of the war, Heydrich’s death didn’t change very much. It was easy to pull in others to take his place. The most profound impact was the razing and slaughter of two Czech villages in retaliation. If the non-pacifist pro-life movement is concerned about this, it is taking a more reasonable position than they’re being given credit for. (But they’re still conflicted and wrong if they’re not pacifist, IMO.)