Is it Ever Okay to Kill

[keith99]

I do not understand the 'Christian' position that holds that life is all important. A postition that seems to say that the end of this life is the end of everything.

There are scriptures that make it rather clear that harming innocent children has consequences far worse than mere death. E.g. "It would be better for him to never have been born".

If one kills someone about to Rape a child it would seem that they are actually doing a favor to the would be rapist. They are keeping him ut os that level of damnation.

 

[Jake255]

Many scriptures are taken out of context, yours below included.



Killing someone in defense of your life or the life of another isn't murder.



The 'enemies' that were to be forgiven was the Roman government and it's abuse of Jewish slaves. An 'eye for an eye' was never used by the Jews against the Romans, therefor this is a non-sequitor and an out of context statement.

Sorry but my standards are higher than the definition of murder provided by the US gov't. God's standards for believers are the standards of Christ and I sure don't see him going around killing everyone that brought harm to him. Nor can I read anywhere that the apostles reacted this way either, even though they were much abused.

 

[Jake255]

I do not understand the 'Christian' position that holds that life is all important. A postition that seems to say that the end of this life is the end of everything.

There are scriptures that make it rather clear that harming innocent children has consequences far worse than mere death. E.g. "It would be better for him to never have been born".

If one kills someone about to Rape a child it would seem that they are actually doing a favor to the would be rapist. They are keeping him ut os that level of damnation.

The end of this life is not the end of everything, but their is a value for life.

If a person causes a child to sin - then it would be better for him to never been born.

I do not see it as a favor to the rapist and the damnation factor is more complicated than sending a person to hell in one's own mind.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Sorry but my standards are higher than the definition of murder provided by the US gov't. God's standards for believers are the standards of Christ and I sure don't see him going around killing everyone that brought harm to him. Nor can I read anywhere that the apostles reacted this way either, even though they were much abused.

Jesus came riding on a donkey in that day. When he returns he will be astride a war horse.

 

[Jake255]

Jesus came riding on a donkey in that day. When he returns he will be astride a war horse.

Like I said, it is God's place to give life and God's place to take away - not ours.

He has the right to interrupt your life by striking you dead - I don't.

Jesus killed no one while he was a human on this earth, neither did his apostles.

 

[Jro]

Like I said, it is God's place to give life and God's place to take away - not ours.

He has the right to interrupt your life by striking you dead - I don't.

Jesus killed no one while he was a human on this earth, neither did his apostles.

Judas had a bit of blood on his hands.

 

[Rubiks]

Its okay for self defense but you make sure the other person knows that you have a gun/knife/weapon before you use it

 

[Glas Ridire]

Thank you all for responding to my questions.

To me, that view is simply not compatible with Christ's teachings of love and forgiveness. If killing is demanded of us, why are more of us not killing? It seems that even non-Christians who believe that life begins at conception and that killing to save innocents is "right" or "good" should be out killing. Could it be that we all know (whether we admit it or not) that we are not supposed to take a life in order to save lives?

You are welcome.

It could be on the other hand, the realization that we cannot as individuals "save the world" but that truth does not absolve us of the obligation to do what we can, where we can. Not everybody is cut out for or proficient in killing, those with no apptitude are as innocent for their inaction as those who are doing what they can where they can.

 

[Jake255]

Judas had a bit of blood on his hands.

Yep, and then he killed himself. Judas is not one of the 12 any longer either.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Like I said, it is God's place to give life and God's place to take away - not ours.

He has the right to interrupt your life by striking you dead - I don't.

Jesus killed no one while he was a human on this earth, neither did his apostles.

Jesus and the disciples didn't say or teach a lot of things, among these missing teachings is deadly force for self-defense.

If one wants to extract a spiritual principle from Jesus teachings in regard to self defense you need to look no farther than the 'goodman' who did not allow his house to be broken up. House meaning all of his possessions including his family.

 

[VictoriasImage77]

I don't believe that killing is ever "right." But if I was attacked, or my loved ones were ever attacked, I wouldn't hesitate. I'd rather ask the Lord's forgiveness than live with the alternative.

Same said for if I find an intruder in my house when they can see I am clearly home (car in the driveway, etc.). They get one verbal warning, if possible, then that's that.

So, if you try raping me or family-you die.
If you try killing me or family-you die.
If you rob me and put a gun to my head or knife to my throat-you die.
If you jeopardize life or liberty-you die.

This includes private citizens and government as well.

 

[Max S Cherry]

I do not understand the 'Christian' position that holds that life is all important. A postition that seems to say that the end of this life is the end of everything.

I do not understand that position either. Life is surely important as Christians are to use this life to spread the Gospel, but death is more the beginning of everything than the end.

There are scriptures that make it rather clear that harming innocent children has consequences far worse than mere death. E.g. "It would be better for him to never have been born".

If one kills someone about to Rape a child it would seem that they are actually doing a favor to the would be rapist. They are keeping him ut os that level of damnation.

I do not believe that a person is held accountable for the actions that his actions allow. Meaning if I kill a rapist who is in the process of raping, he is already a rapist, and me stopping the act did not stop the sin. It was already committed. If I kill him, I am responsible for ending his opportunity to be saved (if he is not already and I am only guessing that he is not), and for that, I am responsible. If I do not kill him and if he commits the rape, I am not responsible for the rape, because I did not commit it. What is worse the rape of an innocent or the loss of a soul? To me, the answer is the loss of the soul as it is permanent.

I cannot imagine God holding us accountable in situations in which He does not hold Himself accountable. God did not create evil. He created man, and He gave man a free will. Evil was created as a consequence of the two, but God did not create evil. As God is responsible for His actions, I believe that we are responsible for our own. As God is not responsible for the actions His actions allow, I believe we are not either.

 

[Glas Ridire]

I do not believe that a person is held accountable for the actions that his actions allow. Meaning if I kill a rapist who is in the process of raping, he is already a rapist, and me stopping the act did not stop the sin. It was already committed. If I kill him, I am responsible for ending his opportunity to be saved (if he is not already and I am only guessing that he is not), and for that, I am responsible. If I do not kill him and if he commits the rape, I am not responsible for the rape, because I did not commit it. What is worse the rape of an innocent or the loss of a soul?

If you allow it to continue, it is as if participating, the guilt is unconscionable. Someone who would not intervene shames humanity.

Let me put it another way: At what point are they already sinning, so you might as well let it happen? I tell the story about the gang rape I stopped, with a gun. They had the poor girls pants down to her thighs before I could get to the street. Should I have said "Oh, well, y'all ready have her privates exposed, so . . . go on ahead". Really? What does the Bible say? Check Matthew 5:27-28. When they decided to target her they had already committed the sin. I realize lust rarely drives rape, but the truth of Scripture should be clear. Those are Jesus' words.

I cannot imagine God holding us accountable in situations in which He does not hold Himself accountable.

But He did hold himself accountable. Jesus bore the full weight of sin when he was crucified. That some choose to reject the gift of salvation does not change the fact that Jesus carried the debt. The wages of sin is always death. Jesus truly died on the cross, not mostly dead or partly dead, full dead. Read the Nicene Creed sometime, it is a basic statement of Christian faith.

 

[johan77]

I agree we could simply stop the attacker by shooting them in the leg or something, however violence, for believers in anyway, is not ok.

I see your point about calling the police, except it IS their job to keep communities safe, is it not? Is it really passing a "dirty job" onto someone else whose job it really is?

Because you are saying that "violence, for believers in anyway, is not ok", would you recommend it as a principle to live your life? If a Christian woman is attacked and the attacker wants to abuse her, do you say that the only thing she should do is just screaming and imploring the attacker to stop? If you had a daughter/wife, would you recommend them such a behavior? If you witness such a situation you just pray and call the police? And the list of real life situations could go on...

 

[Paradoxum]

The thing that I find most curious is the view taken by Christians who believe that not only is it acceptable to kill in defense of others but that it is in fact demanded of us, a duty rather than an option. I follow the path of that thought, and I arrive at issues such as abortion. To those of us who believe that life begins at conception, abortion is murder, and it is not only murder. It is the murder of the most innocent of all humans: those not yet born. Abortion clinics present an immediate threat of death to innocent people daily, but abortion clinics are not bombed daily. Abortion providers are not shot daily. The view espoused by those who believe both that life begins at conception and that Christ demands that we kill to save others does not seem to be a view that even the believers truly accept. I do not see any relevant difference in a school shooting that leaves 20 children dead and an abortion clinic that performs 20 abortions. In both situations, 20 lives are extinguished. (Abortion is not the only situation in which innocents are killed or exposed to immediate threats of death or great bodily harm, but I think it is the clearest example for discussion. )

Clearly life begins at conception, but it doesn't matter if it is alive. Bacteria are alive and we kill them all the time. We kill animals (which are alive) just because they taste nice.

A fetus isn't a person. To kill it is little different from killing a low mental capacity animal.

And I think conservatives know this deep down inside. That is why they don't attack abortion clinics and doctors. They know that there is a difference between a fetus and a 6 year old child. It is just hidden below all the rules they have been taught.

If a conservative could save 1000 fertilized eggs, or 10 children, from a fire, I bet they would save the children. If they didn't, we would probably call them crazy.

It's not garbage when a person states that God gives life and God takes away - at least, it's supposed to be like that.

'Playing God' is always a silly argument. Anything could be considered playing God (medicine, splitting atoms, fire, flying, etc).

God doesn't give or take life. People are born through a natural process. It is fully explained how it works without God. And people die because their bodies break.

I don't believe that killing is ever "right." But if I was attacked, or my loved ones were ever attacked, I wouldn't hesitate. I'd rather ask the Lord's forgiveness than live with the alternative.

Don't you, perhaps, really think that killing is acceptable in those circumstances? You would do it because you think it is ok. The reason you say you will ask forgiveness is because you have been told (by a fallible human) that killing is always wrong.

 

[Max S Cherry]

You are welcome.

It could be on the other hand, the realization that we cannot as individuals "save the world" but that truth does not absolve us of the obligation to do what we can, where we can. Not everybody is cut out for or proficient in killing, those with no apptitude are as innocent for their inaction as those who are doing what they can where they can.

I do not think you addressed the issue of my question. If killing is required of Christians and if it is the "duty" of Christians to kill those who threaten others (threaten their lives not merely threaten), why are you not out killing? Abortion is the clearest example I could think of, but there are others. Tobacco companies and farmers, drug pushers, fast food providers and others kill more people than felons ever will. These people represent clear threats to the safety of others, and if killing to prevent harm to our neighbors is acceptable, these people should be targets of the righteous.

If you think that I am taking it too far, we can leave it at the abortion providers since they are unquestionably and immediately ending life. Why do you not kill them? Would it be wrong for Christians to kill these people?

If it is wrong but if it is right to kill the felons trying to rape and kill someone, what is the difference? What formula do you use to determine when it is acceptable and when it is not?

To me, the most reasonable plan is to kill no one. It was what Christ did, and I think we are to be as Christ-like as possible.

 

[muslimsoldier4life]

I do not believe that a person is held accountable for the actions that his actions allow.

So a person is not held accountable for certain actions in the eyes of God, according to Chrisianity? Talk about a cop out.

Meaning if I kill a rapist who is in the process of raping, he is already a rapist, and me stopping the act did not stop the sin. It was already committed. If I kill him, I am responsible for ending his opportunity to be saved (if he is not already and I am only guessing that he is not), and for that, I am responsible.

So you are afraid you doomed his soul to hell, by saving somene else? SMH

What is worse the rape of an innocent or the loss of a soul? To me, the answer is the loss of the soul as it is permanent.

No, the worse is the rape of an innocent. What if the innocent person's soul was in danger of hellfire according to Chrisianity. So as a victim of the rape, and seeing the inaction of a so called "Chrisitan", they commit suicide. You just allowed an individual to go straight to hell because you refused to assist them. You just screwed an innocent, while worrying about the evil.

 

[Glas Ridire]

If it is wrong but if it is right to kill the felons trying to rape and kill someone, what is the difference? What formula do you use to determine when it is acceptable and when it is not?

The answer to this question, resolves the other ones. The formula I use is as follows in no particular order: Is the action a violation of the law? Yes = continue assessing, No = mind my own business. Is a noncombatant, family member or myself in imminent danger of great bodily harm or death? Yes = continue assessing, No = escape and evade, or other defensive action. Is an alternative intervention viable? Yes = pursue the viable alternative, No = continue assessing. Am I sure of my target and what is beyond it? Yes = take aim, No = continue assessing.

This list isn't exhaustive but it should give you the flavor of the "formula".

 

[TheQuietRiot]

I don't believe that killing is ever "right." But if I was attacked, or my loved ones were ever attacked, I wouldn't hesitate. I'd rather ask the Lord's forgiveness than live with the alternative.

Same said for if I find an intruder in my house when they can see I am clearly home (car in the driveway, etc.). They get one verbal warning, if possible, then that's that.

So, if you try raping me or family-you die.
If you try killing me or family-you die.
If you rob me and put a gun to my head or knife to my throat-you die.
If you jeopardize life or liberty-you die.

This includes private citizens and government as well.

So much for turning the other cheek.

 

[Sectio Aureo]

I tried to address this issue under the title "Pacifism," but there were not very many people interested in a wide pacifism discussion. Since I am confronted by the topics of gun control, gun rights, and worries of possible firearm legislation in nearly every newscast I see, I thought I might try to limit the discussion to one very specific pacifistic topic, killing.

As a Christian, I do not believe it is ever acceptable for one person to kill another person. What are your thoughts?

Is it ever acceptable (moral, good, etc.) to take a person's life?

No, however I have given two scenario's below where I would kill.

If you think/believe it can be acceptable, under what circumstances would it be permitted?

1.Self defence or defence of my family or close friends.
2. Although I detest cannibilism I would kill someone as food for my family in a survival situation. (a very last resort)