Did the brother in The Last of Us committ murder?

[Jackson Cooper]

In the beginning of the videogame, The Last of Us, the protagonist and his daughter are shot at by a soldier because the soldier was ordered to not allow any civilians past him in order to contain the outbreak. (They were not infected). The soldier kills that protagonist's child daughter and is about to kill the protagonist when the protagonist's brother shoots the soldier in the head from behind.
I thought nothing of this years ago when I first played the game, but now I suspect that the brother committed rebellion. Even feeling this way now, I would probably do the same thing. Maybe I am weak in that way.

 

[Winken]

Don't play those "games."

 

[~Anastasia~]

Not all killing is murder.

However, all killing of human persons IS taking a human life, and repentance is required. In other words it may be necessary, but is always regrettable.

(With that said, it is also the ethos of some that they would not kill another person even in self defense, but would die rather than kill to preserve their own life. By that I mean that self-defense is not compulsory. But again that is not quite the same thing as a situation where the only chance to save one life is to take another.)

 

[Jackson Cooper]

Not all killing is murder.

However, all killing of human persons IS taking a human life, and repentance is required. In other words it may be necessary, but is always regrettable.

(With that said, it is also the ethos of some that they would not kill another person even in self defense, but would die rather than kill to preserve their own life. By that I mean that self-defense is not compulsory. But again that is not quite the same thing as a situation where the only chance to save one life is to take another.)

I was thinking it'd be fine to kill a criminal in defense, but what about a soldier of the ruling government?

 

[~Anastasia~]

I was thinking it'd be fine to kill a criminal in defense, but what about a soldier of the ruling government?

Killing may at times be necessary.

It is never "fine". It is always regrettable.

It is always wiping out the life of a precious individual made in the image of God, no matter how deeply marred that image may be, or how their interests conflict with our own. But the world is not perfect. Sorting all that out belongs to God.

 

[~Anastasia~]

And I initially missed the significance of your question. You mean killing a soldier of one's own government?

In that case, not only is there killing of a person happening, but some kind of opposition to authority. So most likely the sin is compounded.

Daniel disobeyed the king when the king ordered no one to pray to God. The command was directly against th law of God, so Daniel was right to oppose it. But when the authorities came to cast him to the lions, he did not murder them.

 

[Jackson Cooper]

And I initially missed the significance of your question. You mean killing a soldier of one's own government?

In that case, not only is there killing of a person happening, but some kind of opposition to authority. So most likely the sin is compounded.

Daniel disobeyed the king when the king ordered no one to pray to God. The command was directly against th law of God, so Daniel was right to oppose it. But when the authorities came to cast him to the lions, he did not murder them.

It's interesting how Christians seem to think that rebellion is acceptable sometimes. It would be difficult to stand there while one's family is murdered.

 

[~Anastasia~]

It's interesting how Christians seem to think that rebellion is acceptable sometimes. It would be difficult to stand there while one's family is murdered.

This is something to talk to one's priest about.

If a gunman breaks into your house and is about to murder your family, and you stop him by killing him ... you have killed a person. Repentance is necessary for that. But it wasn't murder, and it's possible to justify it as necessary. There is honor in protecting innocents.

On the other hand, those we read about who were martyred for the faith - never tried to kill the guards or whoever came to take them away.


It can be difficult to sort out. Sometimes there are two things that are evil, and one is forced to choose one or the other. In the person breaking into the house, it would be evil to kill the intruder. It would be evil to allow him to kill innocents under your care. One will happen. So whichever you choose, it is an evil. Sometimes we choose the lesser evil, when we are forced to make a choice, and repent.

I really can't give an answer that a person should always do this or that. God is judge, and He knows the heart.

What I can tell you is that it is always a grievous thing to kill a human person. It might sometimes be necessary. But it is always grievous.

 

[Jackson Cooper]

This is something to talk to one's priest about.

If a gunman breaks into your house and is about to murder your family, and you stop him by killing him ... you have killed a person. Repentance is necessary for that. But it wasn't murder, and it's possible to justify it as necessary. There is honor in protecting innocents.

On the other hand, those we read about who were martyred for the faith - never tried to kill the guards or whoever came to take them away.


It can be difficult to sort out. Sometimes there are two things that are evil, and one is forced to choose one or the other. In the person breaking into the house, it would be evil to kill the intruder. It would be evil to allow him to kill innocents under your care. One will happen. So whichever you choose, it is an evil. Sometimes we choose the lesser evil, when we are forced to make a choice, and repent.

I really can't give an answer that a person should always do this or that. God is judge, and He knows the heart.

What I can tell you is that it is always a grievous thing to kill a human person. It might sometimes be necessary. But it is always grievous.

God ordered numerous humans to kill other humans. I'm not sure what you mean by grievous.

 

[~Anastasia~]

God ordered numerous humans to kill other humans. I'm not sure what you mean by grievous.

We have to be very careful building understandings from the Old Testament. When the woman was caught in adultery, the law would have demanded she be stoned to death. But what did Jesus do when she was brought to Him? He let her go free, uncomdemned.

Christ is God revealed to us.


Once again, I will say. Sometimes killing may be necessary. The world is no longer "very good" as God created it, but has fallen into sin. Many evils abound. Sometimes it might be necessary for a person to be killed, in order to prevent something worse happening (usually many others killed). That doesn't make it a fine good thing to do though. ANY killing of a human being destroys a precious, beloved creature created in the image of God, even if that person has become so twisted and so marred that image that we can't see it anymore. So it is grievous - a thing to be regretted. It might be necessary to kill someone, especially to save others from being killed. But we should be saddened that the world is in such a state that it becomes necessary, and saddened at the deed itself.

I hope that helps.

 

[Jackson Cooper]

We have to be very careful building understandings from the Old Testament. When the woman was caught in adultery, the law would have demanded she be stoned to death. But what did Jesus do when she was brought to Him? He let her go free, uncomdemned.

Christ is God revealed to us.


Once again, I will say. Sometimes killing may be necessary. The world is no longer "very good" as God created it, but has fallen into sin. Many evils abound. Sometimes it might be necessary for a person to be killed, in order to prevent something worse happening (usually many others killed). That doesn't make it a fine good thing to do though. ANY killing of a human being destroys a precious, beloved creature created in the image of God, even if that person has become so twisted and so marred that image that we can't see it anymore. So it is grievous - a thing to be regretted. It might be necessary to kill someone, especially to save others from being killed. But we should be saddened that the world is in such a state that it becomes necessary, and saddened at the deed itself.

I hope that helps.

Those anarchists certainly despised the Old Testament, parti ularly the judges that enforced the law. Jesus never ate pork. Would a judge have been required to stone the adulteress?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Those anarchists certainly despised the Old Testament, parti ularly the judges that enforced the law. Jesus never ate pork. Would a judge have been required to stone the adulteress?

I can only tell you - the penalty under the law was stoning. But the purpose of the law was only to teach.

And remember that God desires mercy.

If you want to know God's heart on the matter, look at Christ. That is always where we see God revealed to us. And Christ did not stone her.



It is not our place to judge God. In the end, everything works for our salvation.

 

[Jackson Cooper]

I can only tell you - the penalty under the law was stoning. But the purpose of the law was only to teach.

And remember that God desires mercy.

If you want to know God's heart on the matter, look at Christ. That is always where we see God revealed to us. And Christ did not stone her.



It is not our place to judge God. In the end, everything works for our salvation.

Jesus also said that it'd be better for someone to be tied to a stone and drowned rather than hurt children. Sounds like the death penalty.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Jesus also said that it'd be better for someone to be tied to a stone and drowned rather than hurt children. Sounds like the death penalty.

Jesus was saying that it would be a very serious thing to damage the faith of a "little one".


Have you ever heard someone say something like "I'd rather cut off my right arm than do that!" They aren't planning to cut off their arm. It's a way of saying how MUCH you want to avoid doing something.