Is it Ever Okay to Kill

[LionofJudahDK]

That's a rather serious claim, bordering on flaming.

No more than someone saying the same thing about nazism or communism.

Particularly given that the earliest church was pretty much entirely pacifist until Augustine of Hippo

[/quote]

It was "pacifist" in the sense that Christians could not serve in the Roman Legions.
The reason?
The Legions were not just the means of Rome's defence, but was also on occasion employed against the Christians in the persecutions that existed until Galerius' Edict of Toleration in 311.

Not out of a "the world is all butterflies and rainbows, if only we decide it is!"-mindset, like the modern-day pacifism is.

 

[ebia]

No more than someone saying the same thing about nazism or communism.

It was "pacifist" in the sense that Christians could not serve in the Roman Legions.
The reason?
The Legions were not just the means of Rome's defence, but was also on occasion employed against the Christians in the persecutions that existed until Galerius' Edict of Toleration in 311.

Not out of a "the world is all butterflies and rainbows, if only we decide it is!"-mindset, like the modern-day pacifism is.[/QUOTE]

That's not what pacifism is. But then you just Godwined yourself anyway.

 

[LionofJudahDK]

That's not what pacifism is. But then you just Godwined yourself anyway.

Easy attempt at escape when you're cornered. Just concede defeat, and move on, or demonstrate how I am wrong.

 

[QueSi]

As a Christian, I believe it CAN be right for one person to kill another. And pacifism is up there among the most disgusting ideologies ever spawned in a human mind.

That depends 100% on the circumstances.

Soldiers in battle, judges ruling according to the the law of the land, executioners carrying out those rulings, someone defending his/her family, or other innocents, etc.

Who determines whom is and is not a soldier, Timothy Mcvee thought he was a soldier, so it was justified? Hitler was a soldier, so everything he ordered was justified? The men who flew planes into buildings considered them selves soldiers, was that killing ok in Gods eyes?

All of the nazi soldiers who killed Jews was ok because it was the law of the land?

All of the Iraqis and afghans who killed coalition soldiers are justified because they were defending their families? And all of the coalition forces are justified because they are soldiers in battle?

The US government was right in detonating two hydrogen bombs over innocent men, women, and children in Japan because they were defending innocents?

It is a very suicidal mindset to consider oneself a Christian and believe killing is right. if you love everyone as yourself like Jesus instructed many times, how could you kill anyone? Christians are supposed to strive to be Christ-like and I fail to see any point in the bible that he used violence.

 

[revrobor]

Who determines whom is and is not a soldier, Timothy Mcvee thought he was a soldier, so it was justified? Hitler was a soldier, so everything he ordered was justified? The men who flew planes into buildings considered them selves soldiers, was that killing ok in Gods eyes?

All of the nazi soldiers who killed Jews was ok because it was the law of the land?

All of the Iraqis and afghans who killed coalition soldiers are justified because they were defending their families? And all of the coalition forces are justified because they are soldiers in battle?

The US government was right in detonating two hydrogen bombs over innocent men, women, and children in Japan because they were defending innocents?

It is a very suicidal mindset to consider oneself a Christian and believe killing is right. if you love everyone as yourself like Jesus instructed many times, how could you kill anyone? Christians are supposed to strive to be Christ-like and I fail to see any point in the bible that he used violence.

It's interesting that some people, when they run out of logic for their argument, resort to stupid questions. It only makes them look less intelligent.

 

[QueSi]

It's interesting that some people, when they run out of logic for their argument, resort to stupid questions. It only makes them look less intelligent.

If you believe these are stupid questions, answer them, should be easy enough. The only logic I need comes from the Gospels and the words of Jesus.

 

[revrobor]

If you believe these are stupid questions, answer them, should be easy enough. The only logic I need comes from the Gospels and the words of Jesus.

Oh, c'mon. You, me and every Christian knows the answer to these questions and they are not the type of killing supporters are talking about. You have just run out of juice and are getting desperate in an effort support your position.

 

[QueSi]

Oh, c'mon. You, me and every Christian knows the answer to these questions and they are not the type of killing supporters are talking about. You have just run out of juice and are getting desperate in an effort support your position.

No answer. Hunh?

There is no way i will ever think that killing is ok, He said "Soldiers in battle, judges ruling according to the the law of the land, executioners carrying out those rulings, someone defending his/her family, or other innocents, etc." I was making the point that there are many different "soldiers" in many different "battles" and many "executioners" in many countries with many different laws.

I then ask you, when is intentionally killing someone justified in Gods eye?

 

[revrobor]

No answer. Hunh?

There is no way i will ever think that killing is ok, He said "Soldiers in battle, judges ruling according to the the law of the land, executioners carrying out those rulings, someone defending his/her family, or other innocents, etc." I was making the point that there are many different "soldiers" in many different "battles" and many "executioners" in many countries with many different laws.

I then ask you, when is intentionally killing someone justified in Gods eye?

I'm not interested in debating with you. You are asking questions that have already been answered. Read the thread.

 

[LionofJudahDK]

Who determines whom is and is not a soldier, Timothy Mcvee thought he was a soldier, so it was justified? Hitler was a soldier, so everything he ordered was justified? The men who flew planes into buildings considered them selves soldiers, was that killing ok in Gods eyes?

When did you stop beating your wife? I'll answer your ridiculous questions when you'll answer that.

Pulling a random Jesus-quote and say: "It means what I want it to mean - I win!" is very 4th-grade of you, and not something worthy of an adult.

 

[QueSi]

I'm not interested in debating with you. You are asking questions that have already been answered. Read the thread.

You say that I ask stupid questions and look less intelligent and you refuse to rebut me. I am saddened and fail to understand how Christians could be ok with killing.

 

[Cactus Jack]

Without reading all 45 pages.... (ugh!)

There is a time and a place for killing. Sometimes it's the best option- someone dying of a dreaded illness and they ask for euthanasia. Or if you catch some creep molesting one of your children. Perhaps another creep is trying to rape your wife, or maybe he just busted your door in and he has a gun. Self-defense is plausible. But not if there is any malice or profit. Then it's murder.

Kinda like abortions. You can only justify killing someone if, as I said, it's in self-defense or the defense of others. Kinda hard to see the threat level from a baby.
But that's another topic for another time.

 

[QueSi]

When did you stop beating your wife? I'll answer your ridiculous questions when you'll answer that.

Pulling a random Jesus-quote and say: "It means what I want it to mean - I win!" is very 4th-grade of you, and not something worthy of an adult.

I am not married, but divorced and I never hit my wife when I was married. I fail to understand what that has to do with any of this.

How did I make a "random Jesus-quote" mean something different than what it obviously meant?

 

[Max S Cherry]

As a Christian, I believe it CAN be right for one person to kill another. And pacifism is up there among the most disgusting ideologies ever spawned in a human mind.

I am not sure how it is disgusting, but I know many Christians who agree that killing can be acceptable under certain circumstances.

That depends 100% on the circumstances.

The problem with circumstances, as I have mentioned previously, is that it leaves us with no means of determining when a circumstance justifies killing. No one has been able to offer a workable way to determine when it is okay versus when it is not acceptable.

Soldiers in battle, judges ruling according to the the law of the land, executioners carrying out those rulings, someone defending his/her family, or other innocents, etc.

These are the types of situations which present some of the greatest challenges. All killing by soldiers cannot be justified as all war is not equal. Laws of the land are clearly capable of evil, and those who carry out evil laws appear to me to be doing evil. Defending his/her family seems justifiable until it is weighed against Christ's statements concerning who is family. Innocents include such a wide range of people who are killed by others that accepting "death of innocents" as justification for killing opens the doorway to killing many, many people.

 

[Max S Cherry]

Not out of a "the world is all butterflies and rainbows, if only we decide it is!"-mindset, like the modern-day pacifism is.

You do not seem to understand "modern-day pacifism" in the same way I do. Perhaps, my understanding is not pacifism plainly, but rather it is my understanding of Christianity. Christ tells us that the world is not all butterflies and rainbows, and He tells us that His followers will suffer and die. I do not believe that the world is peaceful and loving. It it were, there would be no way to practice pacifism.

 

[Max S Cherry]

After reading several of the more recent posts, it seems that some people have given up on finding solutions to decent questions and serious issues and have instead gone to insulting other posters.

We are different people, and we have different ideas and beliefs. I do not pretend to be the one with all the answers, but I have also not found anyone else who can provide answers to my questions.

It is legitimate to question "who is a soldier." It is legitimate to ask for a means of determining when killing is acceptable, and "in self-defense" or "in defense of innocents" does not provide the answer. Those responses fail to provide a *means* of determining which cases of "self-defense" and which cases of "defense of innocents" justify killing.

The response must offer a way to determine how it is okay to kill when you do not know if you life is truly in jeopardy versus the times when someone only wants to rob you or beat you. It must also define "innocents" and provide a way of determining which of these "innocents" each of us should be willing to kill to defend. How far must we go? On top of all that, it needs to put this killing in perspective with Christ's instructions to love others as He loved us. Additionally, I do not think the response should hinge on following laws and the rule of the land, because I think we should be able to agree that the world's law is not God's law. Perhaps they align some of the time, but there is nothing that guarantees that alignment.

I can understand if someone disagrees with my position, and I can even respect the positions of others. What I cannot do is fall into name calling, passing insults, or use our disagreement as a chance to belittle someone else.

 

[QueSi]

After reading several of the more recent posts, it seems that some people have given up on finding solutions to decent questions and serious issues and have instead gone to insulting other posters.

We are different people, and we have different ideas and beliefs. I do not pretend to be the one with all the answers, but I have also not found anyone else who can provide answers to my questions.

It is legitimate to question "who is a soldier." It is legitimate to ask for a means of determining when killing is acceptable, and "in self-defense" or "in defense of innocents" does not provide the answer. Those responses fail to provide a *means* of determining which cases of "self-defense" and which cases of "defense of innocents" justify killing.

The response must offer a way to determine how it is okay to kill when you do not know if you life is truly in jeopardy versus the times when someone only wants to rob you or beat you. It must also define "innocents" and provide a way of determining which of these "innocents" each of us should be willing to kill to defend. How far must we go? On top of all that, it needs to put this killing in perspective with Christ's instructions to love others as He loved us. Additionally, I do not think the response should hinge on following laws and the rule of the land, because I think we should be able to agree that the world's law is not God's law. Perhaps they align some of the time, but there is nothing that guarantees that alignment.

I can understand if someone disagrees with my position, and I can even respect the positions of others. What I cannot do is fall into name calling, passing insults, or use our disagreement as a chance to belittle someone else.

We seem to be on the same page. Glad to see someone else be rational.

 

[football5680]

Yes. We can kill in self defense, warfare, and during an execution and it will not be a sin.

But if it is possible you should always avoid killing, but at times it is unavoidable.

 

[QueSi]

Yes. We can kill in self defense, warfare, and during an execution and it will not be a sin.

But if it is possible you should always avoid killing, but at times it is unavoidable.

Which times is it unavoidable?

 

[LionofJudahDK]

Which times is it unavoidable?

When soldiers meet on the battlefield. Either you kill the other guy, or he kills you.
When you are a judge, and are faced with a criminal whose guilt of a capital crime has been proven.
When part of your duty as a prison officer, is carrying out the lawful ruling of the aforementioned judge.

And don't give me the sophistic "Who is a soldier? Who is a judge?"-nonsense. You wouldn't accept that kind of bovine manure in any other kind of argument. Don't bring it here.