MennoNet.com

This is a break off of the non-resistance thread.

The question is, being non-resistant, where would you draw the line in terms of your response? In other words, how far could you go in responding in the face of evil and still remain true to your non-resistant convictions?

Answer with the highest number you could, in good conscience, choose.

A question to ponder. Would it make a difference who is doing the attacking? A mentally handicapped person who doesn't know what they are doing? An evil thug who enjoys murder? A thief in the act of burglary? Or an arm of the state solely because of your faith in God? Would it make a difference in how you react with which one of these were attacking your family?

Ambassador wrote:A question to ponder. Would it make a difference who is doing the attacking? A mentally handicapped person who doesn't know what they are doing? An evil thug who enjoys murder? A thief in the act of burglary? Or an arm of the state solely because of your faith in God? Would it make a difference in how you react with which one of these were attacking your family?

For me, no, but I wouldn't do something that could cause death to any person (on purpose).

If I could physically resist with a low chance of hurting someone else I would. Think of disarming a child with a handgun. I might grab a person abusing another person, turning their abuse toward me. I see the key idea is to love the enemy. Something that would harm the evil doer would not be love. Something that would prevent them from doing evil might well be. A verbal resistance may often be better than a physical resistance. I see this from Jesus as non-violent verbal resistance: [bible]john 18,23[/bible]

I think I come out at the same place you do Jim. Well put.

According to the poll so far, we on MN are surprisingly homogeneous in our understanding of where we would draw the line.

Dan Z wrote:According to the poll so far, we on MN are surprisingly homogeneous in our understanding of where we would draw the line.

Seems to me there's a wide gap between 4 and 5 that is prompting everyone to choose 4 when some might actually choose 4.25 or 4.5 if that choice were available. For example, causing temporary harm (pepper spray? concussion? a strategically aimed kick?) to restrain or using harmful force (broken wrist? bullet in the foot?) to incapacitate. Nobody seems willing to admit premeditating the use of lethal force, which is good, but including that in the option does tend to steer people away from it. If 6 excludes lethal defense, it's actually lower on the scale than 5 in some respects.

ohio jones wrote:

Dan Z wrote:According to the poll so far, we on MN are surprisingly homogeneous in our understanding of where we would draw the line.

Seems to me there's a wide gap between 4 and 5 that is prompting everyone to choose 4 when some might actually choose 4.25 or 4.5 if that choice were available. For example, causing temporary harm (pepper spray? concussion? a strategically aimed kick?) to restrain or using harmful force (broken wrist? bullet in the foot?) to incapacitate. Nobody seems willing to admit premeditating the use of lethal force, which is good, but including that in the option does tend to steer people away from it. If 6 excludes lethal defense, it's actually lower on the scale than 5 in some respects.

I would be most comfortable with 3, but with the OP stating: "the highest number you could", forces me to consider option 4 in the most positive way possible. So reality may be a 3.5 for example. I'm supposing there could be certain scenarios that would fit closer to 4 than 3.

I find it would be situational. For example, I would be fine using medical restraints on a psych patient if they were under my care for their protection and others, I would not however choose that line of work. I would pull fighting kids apart, attempt to get between someone and their victims but I would not lay hands on them. A kid with a gun I would try to talk it out of their hands but not try to take it by force. I would not use nonlethal means like tasers or pepperspray. So in some regards I fit 2 better, its a little poorly distinguished between 2,3,4 with some ambiguous words. 2 you don't flee but you offer yourself, 3 you flee but nothing about sacrifice, 4 you obstruct and use non harmful restraint. You could argue 4 allows pepper spray or tying someone up.

Good point Ohio Jones – I've tweaked the poll a bit to indicate the use of non-lethal force and potentially deadly force.

Those who have already voted are free to change their vote if the new and improved poll helps clarify things better... or in the case of the person who voted for number six, if the new wording does not sit well.

Within the last year I saw an advertisement for "a net in a spray can" that would envelope a suspected criminal and tie/tangle him up. I can't find the ad now.
I'm thinking this would fit under number 4. Am I thinking correctly?