Is it Ever Okay to Kill

[Max S Cherry]

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

Again, I agree that intervening is the thing to do. The issue is the level of intervention acceptable, and I believe it must stop before the assailant is killed. Humanity is beyond shame, and it is not in question here. There is a proper action for Christians, and I think that is the issue you and I are discussing. I hope that we can agree that non-Christians are not required to act as we do.

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.

You can definite stop the physical rape from happening, but you cannot stop the sin. The sin is not in the act alone. I think we are actually in agreement on this one.

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.

Jesus was the sacrifice, but He was not accountable. He was the ultimate sacrifice, because He was innocent. If He had been accountable, the cross would have been His rightful place, and His sacrifice would have not been a sacrifice at all. It would have been His punishment.

 

[Max S Cherry]

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.

To say that a fetus is not a person and to say that it is alive all the same is something that I have never been able to do. As an agnostic, to justify abortion I developed the idea that a fetus is not "meaningfully human." I based the idea on (pretty much the same thing as you when you say "low mental capacity") self-awareness, and in justifying abortion, I also justified killing anyone else who lacked self-awareness. It was an outrageous proposition, but I could find no other way to justify abortion.

As a Christian, I believe that a fetus is entirely human and possesses a soul. To me, the only meaningful differences between a fetus and a six year old are their locations and their ability to feel pain. The location of a fetus is inside a mother, and the location of a six year is out. The ability of a fetus to feel pain is something that I know little of, but I can see the pain of a six year old. Given equal chances of saving a fetus or saving a six year old, I would almost certainly save the six year old, but my only reason for saying this is that I can see the six year old. Am I sure that is the Christian attitude? No. I simply do not know.

You mention fertilized eggs versus children, and that is an interesting situation to consider. Again, I would opt for saving the children. Also, I am not sure about the nature of a "fertilized egg" being in an environment outside a woman's body. I do not know if they have any human significance from a Christian point of view. It may be that they are just the same as fertilized eggs made the old fashioned way, but they may not be. Still, I would opt for saving the children, so maybe I am not crazy.

 

[Max S Cherry]

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

A cop out? I am afraid that you misread my post. I believe that God holds man accountable for each of his actions. I said that I believe that God does not hold man accountable for the actions his actions allow. Those are two very different things.

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

I cannot doom anyone's soul to hell other than my own, but I can take away someone's life depriving him of the time in which he could be saved.

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.

No, I did nothing to cause the rape victim to go to hell. The rape was an indirect consequence of my action. If the victim goes to hell it is due to a personal choice. Through the killing of a unsaved person and through depriving him of time to be saved my actions can directly play a role in someone else going to hell.

I could be a negative influence on someone, and that person could go to hell. It would still not be a direct consequence of my actions, because that person could avoid hell by being saved. The only way I see that I can play a direct role in someone else going to hell is by taking away that person's option for being saved, and still, I would not be responsible for his fate. Salvation is a personal choice.

I believe Christ's example tells believers to avoid killing.

 

[Max S Cherry]

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".

Thank you, and yes, it does give me an idea of the formula.

From the criteria you mentioned, it seems that the only reason you do not kill abortion providers is due to the fact that abortion is not against the law. If rape was legal, would have no problem walking away from it? If murder was legal, would you be okay with that as well?

You give the law more credit than I think it deserves.

 

[Jake255]

Thank you, and yes, it does give me an idea of the formula.

From the criteria you mentioned, it seems that the only reason you do not kill abortion providers is due to the fact that abortion is not against the law. If rape was legal, would have no problem walking away from it? If murder was legal, would you be okay with that as well?

You give the law more credit than I think it deserves.

Good post, Max.

Sometimes we forget, as believers, that our standard is higher than that of the law of the land. If we look upon the nation's law as standard, we could with good conscious commit adultery.

Killing someone is wrong, it doesn't matter what man tells us is permissable.

 

[muslimsoldier4life]

No, I did nothing to cause the rape victim to go to hell. The rape was an indirect consequence of my action. If the victim goes to hell it is due to a personal choice. Through the killing of a unsaved person and through depriving him of time to be saved my actions can directly play a role in someone else going to hell.

So you would rather doom someone's soul to hell, rather than assist in saving a life? All because you have a problem with defending the weak through means of violence?

 

[Paradoxum]

To say that a fetus is not a person and to say that it is alive all the same is something that I have never been able to do. As an agnostic, to justify abortion I developed the idea that a fetus is not "meaningfully human." I based the idea on (pretty much the same thing as you when you say "low mental capacity") self-awareness, and in justifying abortion, I also justified killing anyone else who lacked self-awareness. It was an outrageous proposition, but I could find no other way to justify abortion.

That sounds similar to what I think, except you use the words 'meaningful human' instead of 'person'. It makes complete sense.

As a Christian, I believe that a fetus is entirely human and possesses a soul.

I assume you think the soul enters at conception, or some time soon afterwards? If so, then that is theology that has no evidence, and so can't be a basis for using the law to control people who don't agree with you. Not that I know that is what you want to do.

To me, the only meaningful differences between a fetus and a six year old are their locations and their ability to feel pain. The location of a fetus is inside a mother, and the location of a six year is out. The ability of a fetus to feel pain is something that I know little of, but I can see the pain of a six year old. Given equal chances of saving a fetus or saving a six year old, I would almost certainly save the six year old, but my only reason for saying this is that I can see the six year old. Am I sure that is the Christian attitude? No. I simply do not know.

The fetus is no different from a lower animals. There is a big difference between it and a 6 year old. But if you insist on making up a soul, and making up how it works and when it is put in a human, then there isn't much I can say. Well you would force me to talk about the theology and existence of the soul.

What is the soul? Why is the mind controlled by the brain? Ie: If chemical in the brain change, our mind changes.

You mention fertilized eggs versus children, and that is an interesting situation to consider. Again, I would opt for saving the children. Also, I am not sure about the nature of a "fertilized egg" being in an environment outside a woman's body. I do not know if they have any human significance from a Christian point of view. It may be that they are just the same as fertilized eggs made the old fashioned way, but they may not be. Still, I would opt for saving the children, so maybe I am not crazy.

Hopefully deep down you see the difference, and how immoral it would be to choose the fertilized egg over the child.

Would it be the same for a fetus? 10 fetus' who can't feel pain dying, or one 6 year old child?

 

[Max S Cherry]

So you would rather doom someone's soul to hell, rather than assist in saving a life? All because you have a problem with defending the weak through means of violence?

I would never "rather" doom someone's soul to hell, and that is the point of my refusal to kill an attacker. I cannot doom anyone's soul other than my own, and I cannot take responsibility for the actions of others.

Refusing to kill an attacker is not the same as not helping a person in need. I agree that we should help one another, but I cannot become a killer to prevent death or injury.

 

[JCFantasy23]

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?

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

If you think/believe it cannot be acceptable, what are your reasons for your view?

Yes I think it is acceptable to kill. We are not supposed to murder.

Murder and kill is not the same thing.

I completely believe in self-defense. If someone breaks into my house and tries to kill me, my child, or someone I love, then I think I would be in my right - Christian right - to kill them first and protect myself and my family.

Also, war is not murder.

Death penalty...well, Im not sure I agree with that but it's on a completely different ballgame of discussion.

 

[Glas Ridire]

Good post, Max.

Sometimes we forget, as believers, that our standard is higher than that of the law of the land. If we look upon the nation's law as standard, we could with good conscious commit adultery.

Killing someone is wrong, it doesn't matter what man tells us is permissable.

Well, I actually support abortion. I have my reasons and I am happy to talk about it, but if you open that discussion be aware I am not coming at it from one of the entrenched positions.

Not all killing is wrong. Were it so, God would have sinned when he sent the angel of death to strike Egypt. God would have sinned when Ananias and Sapphira met there doom. Did God sin? I don't believe so. Did God sin when He asked Gideon to strike the Midianites? Did Gideon sin when he followed the commands of God? What about Ehud? Sinner? The Bible is brimming with such stories. Yes, murder is a sin, but killing isn't always murder.

Refusing to kill an attacker is not the same as not helping a person in need.

If there is no other means possible or prudent, then yes, it is the same as not helping someone in need to not help them. In the gang rape scenario I have talked about, how else was one man going to stop five possibly (probably) armed gangsters? Would they have left if I had yelled at them? Would they have run away if I charged them with a broom in my hand?

I agree that we should help one another, but I cannot become a killer to prevent death or injury.

It is good to be aware of one's character I suppose. . . . All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. On the other hand, Wolves, Sheep, Sheepdogs . . .

 

[muslimsoldier4life]

I would never "rather" doom someone's soul to hell, and that is the point of my refusal to kill an attacker. I cannot doom anyone's soul other than my own, and I cannot take responsibility for the actions of others.

Let's say the rapist kill the person being raped, and you did nothing to prevent that from happening. Your inaction just doomed someone's soul hell. So in essence, you did indeed doom their sould to hell.

Standing by and doing nothing, is exactly the same as aiding an individual commit a crime, rape or murder. I would rather God be upset with me for taking a life while defending one, than live with the thought that I could have saved someone had I not been so blinded by my "convictions".

 

[David Brider]

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

I agree.

If you think/believe it cannot be acceptable, what are your reasons for your view?

The belief that all people are created in God's image, and that God loves everyone enough to die on the cross for us all. To take a person's life is to take the life of someone created in God's image, someone whom God loves enough to die for.

Also, it's in my upbringing. I was always taught that you should never harm or hurt another person. Which rather rules out killing anyone.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So you would rather doom someone's soul to hell, rather than assist in saving a life? All because you have a problem with defending the weak through means of violence?

Actually only God can doom someone's soul to eternal death (hell). Unrepentant murderers and rapists will come up in the second resurrection/White Throne judgement period, and have the opportunity to accept Christ as savior.

All they lose if you kill them is a few years of mortal life, during which they would in all likelihood commit more crimes or waste away in prison.

 

[Sectio Aureo]

Actually only God can doom someone's soul to eternal death (hell). Unrepentant murderers and rapists will come up in the second resurrection/White Throne judgement period, and have the opportunity to accept Christ as savior.

All they lose if you kill them is a few years of mortal life, during which they would in all likelihood commit more crimes or waste away in prison.

How do you know all this?

 

[Max S Cherry]

I assume you think the soul enters at conception, or some time soon afterwards? If so, then that is theology that has no evidence, and so can't be a basis for using the law to control people who don't agree with you. Not that I know that is what you want to do.

I believe the soul enters at conception, and I agree that theology should not be used as the basis for any law. It is my belief, and I hold only myself to it.

The fetus is no different from a lower animals. There is a big difference between it and a 6 year old. But if you insist on making up a soul, and making up how it works and when it is put in a human, then there isn't much I can say. Well you would force me to talk about the theology and existence of the soul.

No, there is not any reason for us to discuss whether or not there is a soul since you do not believe in one or at least not in the way I believe.

What is the soul? Why is the mind controlled by the brain? Ie: If chemical in the brain change, our mind changes.

In my belief, my soul is me. Your soul is you. Why is the body/mind controlled by the brain? I know how it is controlled, but I have no idea why it is controlled.

Hopefully deep down you see the difference, and how immoral it would be to choose the fertilized egg over the child.

I can rationally see the difference, but I am not sure of the moral difference between them. I am not saying that the difference is not there. It is something that I am unsure of, and I suppose that is why I was immediately interested when you mentioned the subject.

Would it be the same for a fetus? 10 fetus' who can't feel pain dying, or one 6 year old child?

1 to 1, 10 to 1, or 100 to 1 really makes no difference to me. I am not a utilitarian, and lesser and/or greater evils play no role in my belief. In my belief, a wrong is a wrong, and there are no levels to them. A killer of 1 is different from a killer of 100 only in the number of times he killed. He is still a killer. If he believes as I do and if he seeks redemption, he can pray: "Father forgive me for killing," and he will be forgiven for 1 or 100 killings.

The issue of pain is important to me as a human, and as I said earlier, I would rather one die who cannot feel pain than one who can feel pain. Is that the proper preference from the standpoint of Christian morals? I do not know. Given my true preference I would have neither die, but I do not believe that I am in charge of who lives and who dies.

 

[Max S Cherry]

Yes I think it is acceptable to kill. We are not supposed to murder.

Thank you for responding and sharing your beliefs with us.

Murder and kill is not the same thing.

I agree that they are not exactly the same thing, but murder is certainly a manner of killing. While they are not exactly the same, they are not entirely different either. I am not claiming to know whether it is right or wrong for a Christian to kill, but I do believe it to be wrong. As Christians, we share our Savior, but that does not mean that we have to share all our beliefs.

I completely believe in self-defense. If someone breaks into my house and tries to kill me, my child, or someone I love, then I think I would be in my right - Christian right - to kill them first and protect myself and my family.

In your view, what is the difference between your family and strangers? To me, we are all the same.

Also, war is not murder.

Murder is not in question. Killing is the topic, and war is killing. Even though war is not murder, war is still wrong if killing is wrong.

Death penalty...well, Im not sure I agree with that but it's on a completely different ballgame of discussion.

I am happy you brought the death penalty into the discussion, and I think it should definitely be considered along with everything else.

If there is a difference between murder and killing and if war is not wrong, an argument can be made in favor of the death penalty. It is not a huge jump to say that the death penalty is a war against one person, and it could be considered a war of retaliation and/or one of prevention. I oppose it as it is killing, but I know others will disagree.

 

[Max S Cherry]

Well, I actually support abortion. I have my reasons and I am happy to talk about it, but if you open that discussion be aware I am not coming at it from one of the entrenched positions.

As an agnostic, I can support abortion as well. My position is more than most people care for, but it is the only rationally sound one I have ever encountered. As a Christian, I believe there is no support for abortion, and if you believe you have found one, please start a new thread and share it.

Not all killing is wrong. Were it so, God would have sinned when he sent the angel of death to strike Egypt. God would have sinned when Ananias and Sapphira met there doom. Did God sin? I don't believe so. Did God sin when He asked Gideon to strike the Midianites? Did Gideon sin when he followed the commands of God? What about Ehud? Sinner? The Bible is brimming with such stories. Yes, murder is a sin, but killing isn't always murder.

God may do as God sees fit, and I would suggest nothing to the contrary. Christ did not strike anyone dead, and rather than kill, He offered Himself as a sacrifice. Was the option open for Him? Of course, it was, but He was setting an example for His followers. Loving and forgiving one's enemies does not, to me, entail killing them. It is easy to love the victim, but it is not so easy to love the attacker.

If there is no other means possible or prudent, then yes, it is the same as not helping someone in need to not help them. In the gang rape scenario I have talked about, how else was one man going to stop five possibly (probably) armed gangsters? Would they have left if I had yelled at them? Would they have run away if I charged them with a broom in my hand?

Is prayer prudent? Is it prudent to announce your presence to the attackers, to share with them the sinfulness of their behavior, and to ask them to leave? Is it prudent to put your life in God's hands while you stand in front of the woman willing to share her fate while killing no one? I believe it is. Is it a guarantee that you and the lady would not have been killed? Of course it is not, but there is no doubt that your faith would not have been questioned by any even if your common sense was. I believe it takes more strength to stand in faith than to wage battle with your enemies, and I believe Christ's teachings make this clear.

It is good to be aware of one's character I suppose. . . . All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. On the other hand, Wolves, Sheep, Sheepdogs

All it takes for evil to triumph in this world is for the world to continue. No matter what you do and no matter what every Christian does, evil will triumph in this world until the return of Christ. Good will not win out, and if that is the dream you are holding to, I believe you will be disappointed.

 

[Max S Cherry]

Let's say the rapist kill the person being raped, and you did nothing to prevent that from happening. Your inaction just doomed someone's soul hell. So in essence, you did indeed doom their sould to hell.

I believe you are misunderstanding responsibility. I would be responsible for killing the attacker, if I killed him, so I am responsible for his being alive to kill the victim. That does not mean that I am responsible for the victim's death. The attacker is responsible, because he is the killer.

Do you believe that God is responsible for evil? If you do, you and I just have difference beliefs. I am not saying that you are wrong rather I just do not agree with you. If you do not, please explain to me how God is innocent in the creation of evil while I am guilty in the death of the victim. To me they seem to be the same situation.

Standing by and doing nothing, is exactly the same as aiding an individual commit a crime, rape or murder. I would rather God be upset with me for taking a life while defending one, than live with the thought that I could have saved someone had I not been so blinded by my "convictions".

I would rather God not be upset with me at all, and I believe that my best way to achieve that goal is to live blinded by my convictions. Standing by and doing nothing is not the same as aiding. If killing an attacker is morally right, not killing him is wrong, but being wrong is still not the equivalent of helping him.

 

[Max S Cherry]

I agree.



The belief that all people are created in God's image, and that God loves everyone enough to die on the cross for us all. To take a person's life is to take the life of someone created in God's image, someone whom God loves enough to die for.

Also, it's in my upbringing. I was always taught that you should never harm or hurt another person. Which rather rules out killing anyone.

Thank you for responding and for giving the reasons you oppose killing. They are fine reasons indeed.

 

[cam44]

I KNOW that Jesus would say 'turn the other cheek' and he himself went without resisting to his own murder. I for one would fall short of these examples and his expectation if a threat came to my wife or children - as a parent - and this is too human and perhaps selfish. In these absolutely necessary circumstances I would not judge someone who killed ...