Is it Ever Okay to Kill

[apache1]

Really? Huh. I need to stop using spacebattles standards, then.

I sincerely apologize for calling you an idiot, Apache. Now, what would you say is the scriptural support for acting violently in self-defense?

No problem, amigo. I don't know really where it says in the Bible one way or the other that truly says whether self-defense itself is wrong or not. I know the golden rule of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you and my own code of "live and let live' work well for me. In the Ten Commandments of course is Thou shalt not kill. Blessed are the Peacemakers is great. My own personal conviction is I don't think Jesus would want to let some innocent person to suffer or die when can be prevented. You have 2 polar extremes - one that is literally a masochistic martyr-complex dormat, the other "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out". Contrary to what you think from my postings, I come closer to the first. My belief is that if you keep your family or some other innocent from dying (and possibly, if not saved, going to hell) it may justify, if no other means around it, taking life of somebody that means harm to innocents and may mean harm to others in future. Whether scripturally sound or not, I don't know, but that would be something I myself would have to face before God. My hats' off to anybody that has ever been in that situation (even though I have never killed anyone in my life, and I never want to, I have in the past a few times had to violently confront some situations to protect my family, and other times myself, that if I didn't deal with it the way I did, would have had much worse outcome, and in at least one case, one of the persons dear to me was not saved. I, almost to my own detriment, stood up when no one else would, a chilhood friend that was the doormat of the local high school many years ago). Would I kill to protect? Yes, but only as last resort. Like old Rodney King said, "Can't we all just get along?". P.s. God bless the troops that are keeping us safe so we can enjoy our freedoms, including our freedom to freely have discussions like this.

 

[Hawisher]

That's fair. I would also kill to protect someone else, but only because I don't believe I have a right to choose a life of pacifism on their behalf.

 

[seeking Christ]

No problem, amigo. I don't know really where it says in the Bible one way or the other that truly says whether self-defense itself is wrong or not.

Correct! You have won the thread. We can see the Church struggle with this, throughout history. No easy answers here

 

[seeking Christ]

Not that he was ever an authority, but I just came across this and thought it both interesting and relevant:

“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” (Seattle Times, May 15, 2001).
Dalai Lama

SOURCE: http://www.christianforums.com/t7715651/

 

[Sectio Aureo]

Guessing is guessing. It means to judge and make a decision based on what you think. It means to estimate. What it does not mean is to know. If you know something, you do not have to guess.

If you want to call it a solution or an answer because it is a mathematical process, go right ahead. The reason I called it a guess is because the solution or answer you receive lacks certainty.

How do we "know" Pluto has an orbital time span of 248 earth years when we only discovered it 83 years ago? no one has ever witnessed a complete orbit let alone timed it.

I'll tell you how we "know", we use scientific method.

Certainty is too much to ask, and I feel it would be inappropriate to call the estimates that we derive from our dating techniques as just guesses. The estimates are about as close to certainty as we will probably ever get.

 

[Bethesda]

Firstly, Jesus set the model. Giving ones life instead of ever taking. That's the only way the cycle of violence and death is ever broken.

Now lets look at the passage:

But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; 40 and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; 41 and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. 42 Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.
Love

Three examples of finding imaginative non-forceful (not just non-violent) ways of addressing abusive situations. They aren't simple commands to non-violence; they are stronger than that. In place of violence they demand we find imaginative ways that challenge the thinking behind the abuse. "Turn the other cheek" and allow him to hit you again - but as an equal instead of as an inferior. "Offer your cloak" and leave him shamed by leaving you naked. "Go the extra mile" and leave him demanding you stop.

Lets face it, the first line is nonnegotiable and clear: "do not resist an evildoer". Whatever your human heroes might say, Jesus is clear.

Who do you follow again?

So would you not call the police if someone was attacking you or your family? Or be a witness to a crime. The thing is that the state uses implicit or explicit violence in the courts system, the prison and indeed in responding to your 911 call (or 999 in my country). I work in law enforcement - I've only ever hit someone once in 30 years and try to solve problems esp re aggression towards me and others with humour and a humane approach but we all carry some form of defensive weaponry either to protect ourselves or colleagues in a proportionate way (fortunately most people in the UK in such jobs are not armed so that issue of firearms rarely comes up)

 

[Hawisher]

How do we "know" Pluto has an orbital time span of 248 earth years when we only discovered it 83 years ago? no one has ever witnessed a complete orbit let alone timed it.

I'll tell you how we "know", we use scientific method.

Certainty is too much to ask, and I feel it would be inappropriate to call the estimates that we derive from our dating techniques as just guesses. The estimates are about as close to certainty as we will probably ever get.

Why is "know" in quotation marks? We don't "know" it, we know it.

 

[seeking Christ]

I've only ever hit someone once in 30 years and try to solve problems esp re aggression towards me and others with humour and a humane approach but we all carry some form of defensive weaponry either to protect ourselves or colleagues in a proportionate way

Proportionate force in the US, for law enforcement:

if they seem likely to attack, use your club (or flashlight)
If they have a club or knife, draw your gun
if they have a gun wait for backup, which will include heavier weapons than you carry

Proportionate force in the US, for male civilians:

you may have to die, and will certainly have to expose yourself to great risk, far greater than any leo would ever conceive of exposing themselves to

I'm just not a fan of the concept. If its time to fight, fight to win.

 

[ebia]

So would you not call the police if someone was attacking you or your family? Or be a witness to a crime. The thing is that the state uses implicit or explicit violence in the courts system, the prison and indeed in responding to your 911 call (or 999 in my country). I work in law enforcement - I've only ever hit someone once in 30 years and try to solve problems esp re aggression towards me and others with humour and a humane approach but we all carry some form of defensive weaponry either to protect ourselves or colleagues in a proportionate way (fortunately most people in the UK in such jobs are not armed so that issue of firearms rarely comes up)

That's precisely part of the point. I can't completely fix a broken system, though a prefer a less broken one than a more broken one. After 10 years in Australia I'm still very uncomfortable with police carrying guns as a matter of course. I would hate to live in the US.

I can choose my choices only within the context I'm given.

 

[ebia]

O.k., one pacifist that was definitely "agin killin" was an old Tennessee boy named Alvin York, later to be Sargeant York in World War I. He was a very devout Christian, was drafted, wanted to be a conscientious objector, but the option was not given him. Anyway, in battle became greatest soldier hero of WWI, did what he had to do, was not necessarily proud of the fact. In fact, he became a reluctant hero, did not want attention nor did he brag about the fact, simply did what he had to do. If he had not stepped up when he had to, he and his entire outfit would have been needlessly slaughtered. He and just a few fellow soldiers captured 200 or so German soldiers (who themselves might have been killed if battle had been more prolonged). This is one case of a pacifist who did what he had to to.

He measures up against your standard. The question is whether that's the Christian virtue.

 

[ebia]

Packing heat is THE most effective non-violent option to stop a serious threat, dead in it's tracks. At least in this Country, most actual use of guns (aside from target practice) a shot never gets fired and a defender wins, peacefully.

It may reduce the immediate short term threat to you. But it perpetuates and exacerbates the problem.

 

[seeking Christ]

It may reduce the immediate short term threat to you. But it perpetuates and exacerbates the problem.

No evidence that a criminal who shrinks away from a gunfight comes back better armed, to challenge the person that stood up to them. Instead, a criminal moves along to easier prey. And just to be clear, the hypothetical situation refers to dealing with a criminal.

 

[ebia]

Cannot be said that Jesus' rebuke was of violence generally, seeing as He also admonished His Disciples to buy a sword if they didn't have one. This is a very specific rebuke you refer to, with a very specific cause. Plus, He had already told the Disciples what was going to happen.

Jesus is giving a pep talk rather like the coach before the critical moment in the game. It involves lots of metaphor (as such talks always do. His disciples take him literally as they are still thinking in worldly ways. Jesus call's "enough" (ie "you're still missing the point completely, you idiots")

It's sad that Christians in the 21st century, after the resurrection, are still making the same mistake. Or rather, again - the earliest church was unanimously pacifist.

 

[ebia]

I'd rather be a Strawman (or Scarecrow) or a Tin Man than the Cowardly Lion. Yo-ee-oh, yohh-oh

Pacifism is neither heartless nor cowardly.

 

[ebia]

No evidence that a criminal who shrinks away from a gunfight comes back better armed, to challenge the person that stood up to them. Instead, a criminal moves along to easier prey. And just to be clear, the hypothetical situation refers to dealing with a criminal.

You're still thinking in the micro picture.

But even there by your own scenario you haven't solved a problem, just made it someone else's problem: very Christian of you.

 

[seeking Christ]

You're still thinking in the micro picture.

But even there by your own scenario you haven't solved a problem, just made it someone else's problem: very Christian of you.

There is no way that this describes "making it someone else's problem." Failed to convert a career criminal into a Saint? Yes. did you think you were going to do that while at gunpoint, being robbed and /or worse?

 

[ebia]

There is no way that this describes "making it someone else's problem."

"John can't rob me because I'm packing heat, so he'll rob Jim who doesn't instead" is exactly that.

 

[seeking Christ]

"John can't rob me because I'm packing heat, so he'll rob Jim who doesn't instead" is exactly that.

You fail to account for the fact that a career criminal is going to make Jim his mark anyway. John hasn't created anything here.

 

[Sectio Aureo]

Why is "know" in quotation marks? We don't "know" it, we know it.

I totally agree, however Max has a point also so I am obligated to make a distinction of some sort.

 

[David Brider]

No problem, amigo. I don't know really where it says in the Bible one way or the other that truly says whether self-defense itself is wrong or not.

Well, the whole stuff in the sermon on the mount that's already been quoted to you seems to rule out self-defence. But beyond that, given that Christianity is essentially about being selfless, I'm not entirely sure that defending oneself can really be said to sit well with that. I'm not even talking about killing in self-defence (which raises all sorts of ethical issues of its own - if taking a life is an act of evil, can it suddenly become an act of good if it's done in "self-defence"? If so, why and how?), but just self-defence in general. As Christians (I realise this isn't a Christians-only section of the forum, but I'm writing from a Christian perspective), we're called to take up our cross and follow Jesus, and that path involves suffering. As long as we're faithful to Jesus, should we do things to prevent ourselves from suffering at the hands of others, physically or otherwise? Human instinct says "yes," but that seems to be a case of human instinct not squaring with Jesus's expectations of us.