RE: [asa] Creation Care Magazine

David,
 
The example of an intruder with intent to do violence to your family is a
red herring. As a lawyer, you know that clause refers to a "well regulated
militia, being necessary to the security of a free state".
 
To use a "turn the other cheek" argument to debunk the right to keep and
bear arms, you have to establish that Jesus no longer intended national
governments, national defenses and the concept of righteous governments,
which I don't think you rationally can do.
 
Thanks
 
John

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of David Opderbeck
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 3:46 PM
To: drsyme@cablespeed.com
Cc: Janice Matchett; asA
Subject: Re: [asa] Creation Care Magazine

Well now I think your paraphrase is inaccurate Jack. Sure, if the intruder
is in the act of murdering the family and there's no other alternative,
violence against the intruder might be justified. And yes, it's easy to
Monday morning quarterback, and the exigency of any situation has to be part
of an ethical determination. But I think my original point stands -- it
simply is not the case that this principle offers moral support to a private
right to bear arms. The case in which "the most effective means available"
to prevent violence against one's family requires the private use of weapons
is exceedingly rare.

On Dec 27, 2007 3:39 PM, <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:

Ok thanks for the reference. But again your paraphrase was inacurrate. It
was Geisler, not Moreland. And you changed the quote: "Any man who refuses
to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder with the most
effective means available to him
fails them morally."

I think Geislers point is simply to say that if you watch someone murder
your family, and you choose to do nothing about it (assuming there is
something that you could do about it,) is immoral.

On Thu Dec 27 14:11 , Janice Matchett sent:

At 01:44 PM 12/27/2007, drsyme@cablespeed.com wrote:

Interestingly enough Janice was paraphrasing not JP Moreland but Ron Rhodes
who misquoted Moreland: "Theologians J. P. Moreland and Norman Geisler say
that "to permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To
allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of
cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In
brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission
can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect
his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally." He
gives no reference. http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/qselfdefense.html
~ Jack

@ Not so.

I just did a search and found the page from where I originally saw the quote
- it was on the "Karate for Christ" page :) I just forgot that Geisler was
involved with writing that book, also:
http://www.karateforchrist.ca/EssEades.pdf

Geisler wrote:

"To permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To
allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of
cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In
brief, not resisting evil is an omission, and an evil of omission can be
just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his
wife and children against a violent intruder fails
http://www.amazon.com/Life-Death-Debate-Moral-Issues/dp/027593702X

~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Dec 27 17:28:41 2007