Hypothetical – would you physically protect a flawed church from an active shooter?

Inspired by a scene from the novel Victoria. I will present you with a moral dilemma, and I want you to decide what you would do, why, and describe the moral factors and tactical considerations involved in your judgment.


The government, in the interest of doing “social justice”, puts a bunch of extremely violent felons on buses. They bus these felons to a small town where they outnumber the inhabitants, and force local landowners to put them up for vouchers because “diversity”. All legal, because it’s the government.

Now, you are visiting this small town to see your parents, and go to the little church’s bake sale. After talking to everyone there, you determine that 10 of the attendees are solid but not very bright Christians (average IQ of 92), 30 are churchians, and 5 are SJWs. None of them has read a book since high school, and not one has heard of SJWs, 3rd Worldism, dispensationalism, fluoridated water, colloidal silver, or much of anything else. Everyone is operating almost entirely on instinct, including the resentful SJWs, being all they have to work with. Like the earliest churches in the New Testament, they struggle with deceivers, idiots, and heresies, but they are after all just dumbass normies prone to iatriogenic interventions.

One of the buses full of felons pulls up in front of the church. Doors open. FBI agents have been prowling the small town to arrest anyone who does violence, but they have conspicuously ignored the sudden epidemic of rapes and murders perpetrated by the felons. The locals are confused and frightened like sheep without a shepherd.

So when the active shooters enter the church to kill, rape, and destroy, is it moral to shoot back? Is it good to defend the people at this hypothetical bake sale? Is it not better to retreat to your parents’ home and try to wait it out? (Surely the historical r/k cycle will put all things right.) How much personal risk is permissible, in tactical and moral terms? Let’s say you have foreknowledge of the arrival of the felons, but the other people in your little church don’t believe you. Is it moral to try to convince them to pack heat? That is, essentially, is it moral to use persuasion even though you risk the 5 SJWs running you off (because they instinctively want the congregation to be as helpless as possible)?

Pro tip: This is basically how South Africa works, in the large.

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Hypothetical – would you physically protect a flawed church from an active shooter?

  1. Milk says:

    There’s something about referring to these hypothetical Christians as “low IQ” and “idiots” that is quite uncharitable. (I believe the modern word is “psychopathic”.)

    The idea that because the sincere ones are not so bright, the majority are hypocrites and a small few adhere to a misguided ideology it is better to let them die is, again, uncharitable to say the least.

    It smacks of eugenics. There is a flavor to it that is anything but Christian. You might want to read Chesterton’s “Eugenics and other evils”.

    A recent commenter has rightly pointed out that the churches in the very Bible were deeply flawed.

    As for que question, the right and courageous thing to do would be to defend one’s flawed brethren. It is far too easy to say I would do it. But that it would be the right thing to do seems entirely clear.

  2. everlastingphelps says:

    Yes to all. If the congregation (regardless of the pastor) profess the faith and haven’t fallen completely to heresy, then fight with them to defend the (small c) catholic church.

  3. mobiuswolf says:

    Assuming you managed to get this far without knowing what was going on, beyond the persuasions of the congregation, your main concern should be getting back to your parents and getting them out of town. Your scenario assumes you have no other overwhelming moral duty and can afford to sacrifice yourself for naught. In which case, moral enough, though I could think of better plans. Too bad it’s not KU, I would read it.

  4. mobiuswolf says:

    “Surely the historical r/k cycle will”
    ensure there is a lot of this kind of crap going around.God loves a clean slate.
    ;o)

  5. SirHamster says:

    “No, they are not your neighbors. They need better theology, more lawful practice, and pristine lineage to be worth saving.”

  6. Aton says:

    Dying for your brothers is an easy way to salvation (the hard way is living a Christianity life day in and day out every single day for the rest of your life). Provided cowardice does not overtake you, you’d be a fool not to defend these people until your death.

  7. glosoli says:

    The government, in the interest of doing “social justice”, puts a bunch of extremely fake Christians in senior church positions many years ago. They bussed these FakeChristians to a small town where they outnumber the inhabitants, and force local landowners to put them up for vouchers because “diversity”. All legal, because it’s the government. The FakeChristians take over the local church, and for decades preach false doctrine, ignore the bible, and lead ALL of the congregation down the wrong path, where they do not know God. To damnation, sadly.

    Now, you are visiting this small town to see your parents, and go to the little church’s bake sale. After talking to everyone there, you determine that 10 of the attendees are very weak and not very bright Christians (average IQ of 92), 30 are churchians, totally bought into the Fakery they are being sold, despite it being anti-biblical, and 5 are the leaders, evil FakeChristians, set on destroying souls. None of the congregation has read a book since high school (not even the bible), and some have heard of SJWs, 3rd Worldism, dispensationalism, fluoridated water, colloidal silver, but aren’t worried, because hey, they’re saved and so decide to love everyone, even those pumping the flouride into their water, and the Somalians into their town. Everyone is operating almost entirely on selfish unGodly instinct, including the resentful SJWs, being all they have to work with. Like the earliest churches in the New Testament, they struggle with deceivers, idiots, and heresies, and have been starved of anyone to tell them the Truth, and lead them away from eternal damnation, but they are after all just dumbass normies prone to iatriogenic interventions.

    More buses full of FakeChristians pull up in front of the church, with a large contingent of Somali refugees ‘meet your new neighbours’ cry the FakeChristians. Doors open. FBI agents have been prowling the small town to arrest anyone who does violence, but they have conspicuously ignored the sudden epidemic of rapes and murders perpetrated by the Somalians. The locals are confused and frightened like sheep without a shepherd, but still, they don’t open their bibles, oh ye of little faith.

    So when the FakeChristians bring the Somalians to the churchm knowing they will eventually kill, rape, and destroy, is it moral to try to save the church and its congregation? Is it good to defend the people at this hypothetical bake sale? Is it not better to sound the warning with clarity, boldness and scriptural backing, and try to lead as many lost sheep to a newer, safer pasture, where God’s men with guns will defend them, and keep out the Fakes? (Surely the historical r/k cycle will put all things right.) Is there any way you can save those lost sheep in their current pastures, do you need to act with urgency to have ready safer ground, and a building with a solid foundation, not built on sand, in tactical and moral terms? Let’s say you have foreknowledge of the arrival of the foreigners, but the other people in that little church don’t believe you. Is it moral to try to convince them to leave? That is, essentially, is it moral to use persuasion even though you risk the 5 SJWs running you off (because they instinctively want the congregation to be as helpless as possible)?’

    There, that’s more realistic.

    I’d start my own church and spread the word to all that need to hear with urgency.
    Those that have ears to hear will listen, those that don’t will be lost, it’s a narrow path, not many will keep to it. Amen.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      >There, that’s more realistic.

      Do you believe it’s unrealistic that any church, anywhere, would have as many as 10 believers in it?

      • mobiuswolf says:

        Some church somewhere must. Pick any church and I’d say you’d be lucky if…

      • glosoli says:

        You used the phrase ‘solid Christians’ in your post, now you use the word ‘believers’.

        I’m sure 95%+ of church attendees believe in Jesus and His resurrection.
        But of those 95%+ I’d say 99.7% act contrary to Jesus’ own teachings, and 100% act contrary to Jehovah’s instructions and covenants in the Old Testament. Hence, weak Christians, happy to compromise and disobey for an easy life.

        Jehovah tells is that if we obey His commands He will bless our nations, but if we ignore them He will subject us to all manner of horrors. Jesus tells us that many will claim to be followers and believers, but that He will never have known them, through their wrong actions, their disobedience and their hearts.

        None of this requires high IQs to grasp, it’s all there in the bible, plain as day, and Jehovah knows nations will turn away from Him, just as Jesus knew Peter would deny Him three times before dawn.

        I give thanks daily for knowing brothers who live and write about the truth, and are willing to help a novice. You said you feared God. Try just reading everything He ever said, in Moses’ time, and when He sent His son, just His words. Let them guide you.

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          >100% act contrary to Jehovah’s instructions and covenants in the Old Testament. Hence, weak Christians, happy to compromise and disobey for an easy life.

          Would I then be correct to describe your position as “100% of those who attend church are destined for Hell”?

          • glosoli says:

            I don’t want to speculate on any of that, that’s God’s business.

            I just want to do my church the right way, write my guidebook for a nation to follow God’s law, and trust God will take care of the rest.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              >I don’t want to speculate on any of that, that’s God’s business.

              Just within the last day, you have said…

              “Loving those places is satanic.”
              “The churchians (people and places) deserve to suffer the same fate as the baal worshippers, for they worship false gods, not Jehovah. And one day, they will suffer that fate.”
              “Churchians are not your enemy, they’re God’s enemies.
              They do not persecute you, rather they attempt to offend God.
              God hates them. He does not love them.”

              And, to illustrate my point for the peanut gallery:

              “If you think that belief in Christ alone is enough to secure your place in Heaven, I’ll call you a Churchian.”

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              And to be absolutely clear, you have declared 100% of those who attend a church “Churchians”, whom you describe as God’s hated enemies who will one day suffer the same fate as Baal worshipers. Your words, not mine.

              Why are you suddenly so reticent to say God’s hated enemies who will one day suffer the same fate as Baal worshipers are destined for Hell?

            • glosoli says:

              I’m reticent to say 100% because I don’t decide the percentages, and I don’t know every churchgoer and every church in the world.
              From what I know, the Amish and the Mennonites might be fine.
              God will decide, not me. Maybe some Churchians will repent on their deathbeds, maybe events in the next few decades and beyond will save some, as they turn away from fake faith.
              Based on scripture, it’s entirely possible that all Churchians will go to hell, especially those who knowingly play along with their sham faith, like you.

              > And to be absolutely clear, you have declared 100% of those who attend a church “Churchians”

              I’ve given my estimate, but the precise figure is not known to me. If you want to make a big deal out of that, rather than the actual issue, crack on, it just demonstrates your weak hand.

            • glosoli says:

              ‘Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

              21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.’

              Don’t water and fertilise corrupt tree, hew it down. I wonder what that means as regards crappy churches?
              Many will be disappointed when Jesus says ‘I never knew you: depart frome me, ye that work iniquity’. To hell with them I imagine.

              God always says these things so much better than me. My book will be easy, just a load of bible quotes.

            • glosoli says:

              [audio src="http://earnestlycontendingforthefaith.com/King%20James%20Bible%20Audio/Matthew%2023.mp3" /]

            • glosoli says:

              ’42Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. 43But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up. 44Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

              45Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? 46Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. 47Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods. 48But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; 49And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; 50The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, 51And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

              Some pertinent stuff in these words from Jesus, especially if one is prone to drink with unbelievers, for giggles and shit.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        There might be one or two churches like that, but yes, it is pretty unrealistic to expect any regular church to even have 10 righteous men (as per God’s conversation with Abraham viz Sodom and Gomorrah) Why? Because the church regularly drives away the righteous. Remember, even Elijah thought he was all alone, the SJW convergence in Israel had risen to such heights. But God told him, “I have reserved 7000 for myself who have not bent the knee to Baal”. But they were scattered and protected, each in his own little niche.

  8. everlastingphelps says:

    I’m still curious as to how anyone can ever come to the answer “is it a good thing to kill rapists and murderers” with a no.

    • glosoli says:

      ‘Rape’ is not really the word to use, as well as know the stories of women’s regret.
      The pertinent issues are whether she’s already bethrothed/married, and whether she’s a virgin. (My understanding is that God doesn’t give whores any rights to shout rape anywhere, because they’re whores). He wants to protect virgins and wives and the bethrothed, and engender a good society without sin.

      I happened to be listening to the chapter of Deuteronomy that covered this topic last night, so I’ll share it with you:

      ’22If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

      23If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

      25But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: 26But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: 27For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

      28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.’

      • everlastingphelps says:

        So when the active shooters enter the church to kill, rape, and destroy, is it moral to shoot back?

      • everlastingphelps says:

        Also, you need to reread the passages you posted. 22-24 and 28-29 describe willing women participants. 25-27 refer to forcing the women (aka rape), and is punished with death.

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          “””
          In book’s second half, however, Orwell turned his gaze to a different problem: the comparative unpopularity of socialism in the UK at the time, despite the clear and painful inequity observable everywhere. He concluded that the tweed-wearing, armchair-philosophizing, victimidentifying, pity-and-contempt-dispensing social-reformer types frequently did not like the poor, as they claimed. Instead, they just hated the rich. They disguised their resentment and jealousy with piety, sanctimony and self-righteousness. Things in the unconscious—or on the social justice–dispensing leftist front—haven’t changed much, today. It is because of of Freud, Jung, Nietzsche—and Orwell—that I always wonder, “What, then, do you stand against?” whenever I hear someone say, too loudly, “I stand for this!” The question seems particularly relevant if the same someone is complaining, criticizing, or trying to change someone else’s behaviour.

          I believe it was Jung who developed the most surgically wicked of psychoanalytic dicta: if you cannot understand why someone did something, look at the consequences—and infer the motivation. This is a psychological scalpel. It’s not always a suitable instrument. It can cut too deeply, or in the wrong places. It is, perhaps, a last-resort option. Nonetheless, there are times when its application proves enlightening.

          If the consequences of placing skatestoppers on plant-boxes and sculpture bases, for example, is unhappy adolescent males and brutalist aesthetic disregard of beauty then, perhaps, that was the aim. When someone claims to be acting from the highest principles, for the good of others, there is no reason to assume that the person’s motives are genuine. People motivated to make things better usually aren’t concerned with changing other people—or, if they are, they take responsibility for making the same changes to themselves (and first). Beneath the production of rules stopping the skateboarders from doing highly skilled, courageous and dangerous things I see the operation of an insidious and profoundly anti-human spirit.
          “””

          Jordan Peterson
          12 Rules for Life

  9. Pingback: Hypothetical 2 – Would you physically protect a church following 80% of the Law? | Aeoli Pera

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s