Is it Ever Okay to Kill

[cam44]

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.

With all due respect -- you may comfort yourself with respect to Abortion by convienently 'believing' the fetus is a lower animal etc. etc.. I can tell you as someone who has looked into this matter at great length that only a fool can let his conscience believe that. Watch some videos at your leisure on the topic so as to satisfy yourself at what time do you believe the fetus to have a soul. YOU go and search and satisfy yourself that promoting or supporting abortion in any way is not murder. If you can do that and still say what you have said, then you'll be at peace with yourself. After what I have seen I would never support this unnatural crime.

 

[toLiJC]

the: ruin, disfigurement, maiming and killing are not good things as a general rule, hereof may the true God and Jesus end the evil as soon as possible

Blessings

 

[Max S Cherry]

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 ...

Thank you for responding, and I also believe it is important to not judge others. We may disagree, but judging is not our place.

With all due respect -- you may comfort yourself with respect to Abortion by convienently 'believing' the fetus is a lower animal etc. etc.. I can tell you as someone who has looked into this matter at great length that only a fool can let his conscience believe that. Watch some videos at your leisure on the topic so as to satisfy yourself at what time do you believe the fetus to have a soul. YOU go and search and satisfy yourself that promoting or supporting abortion in any way is not murder. If you can do that and still say what you have said, then you'll be at peace with yourself. After what I have seen I would never support this unnatural crime.

I adamantly oppose abortion, and I do not believe a fetus to be anything other than human. On this matter, we agree.

 

[Glas Ridire]

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.

I'll do it here because it is short and sweet. I have been bloody to my wrists in the aftermath of a coathanger abortion. It was because I was volunteering my time at a homeless shelter and some well meaning folks gave a mentally challenged girl (not derogatory she was sporting a 70 IQ at best) meth
addict/ prostitute a check for an abortion because the State told her if she had another live birth, they would take it into custody for it's safety. So she smoked the check and asked some friends to "help" her. She didn't want the State to "get" the child one of 3 dozen or more Johns had given her. A few days later she spent several days in the hospital on tax payer's dimes, watching cable and eating well due to an infection she got from the coat hanger abortion. Yeah, 5 or so days of hospital with food & IV antibiotics is so much more efficient economically than paying a qualified individual to do it right in sanitary conditions. As sad a story as it is, when I was washing the blood off my wrists, a truth came to me: Making abortion illegal will NOT stop a single one, it will simply make every abortion like the fetus I had to pick up out of a sink. . . . People willing to kill a fetus, will. Making it illegal will just make it messier.

God may do as God sees fit, and I would suggest nothing to the contrary.

Cool, so If God tells me through my having both a conscience and non-cowardice to rub together that I shouldn't let some poor waitress get gang raped, I am in the clear. . . but how does that paint folks with a conscience that can't be rubbed up against non-cowardice?

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.

Oh really? Read the Nicene Creed again. Jesus and God aren't one? Really? Is that what you'd like to base your argument on?

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.

The counterpoint would be that killing an enemy is not the same as hating them. Sometimes the greatest kindness is to strike an enemy down in the most humane fashion. . . to kill quickly rather than drawing out an enemy's suffering. The most loving thing might in fact be to strike them down so they can receive God's mercy more quickly rather than writhing with a shattered spine and bone fragments in their lungs, coughing great sprays of blood while waiting for paramedics who will only be able to deliver them to the cold slab.

Is prayer prudent?

I thought so, going down the steps with revolver in hand.

Is it prudent to announce your presence to the attackers,

Tactically no, morally yes.

to share with them the sinfulness of their behavior, and to ask them to leave?

Again, tactically it probably would have been better to shoot the one between her legs while yelling & look for fight or flight responses for who got bullets to follow. Mostly I just wanted them to stop trying to gang rape the girl. . . . you can find fault in my priorities if you want to.

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 am not sure what you mean. She was screaming for help. That is what woke me up. The gangsters could have drawn weapons. There were more of them so even if they all drew at once I'd be hard pressed to shoot all of them before one hit me. . .. I am not sure what you are asking here.

Is it a guarantee that you and the lady would not have been killed?

Wait you mean if I'd have run up, thrown my arms around her and seen what happened? Well, yeah, after I was stabbed to death and she was gang raped, my family would be without support. . .. and the gangsters would feel empowered to victimize more people. It is good you are making your goals clear here.

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.

Read about King David, a man after God's own heart and get back to me about how battle prowess and strength aren't a factor. Does it take more than strength or prowess? Why yes. Is faith best witnessed by doing nothing? Read the New Testament again and tell me all about where doing nothing is advocated.

All it takes for evil to triumph in this world is for the world to continue.

What a bleak and hopeless answer, what a misreading of the Gospel, what a confession to putting cowardice above faith, what a pitty. If Christ could do nothing, why did He bother to heal people? If Christians could do nothing why did he empower His followers to heal? If our place in life wasn't to spread hope and love, why are we not struck dead and taken to heaven when we accept Christ?

No matter what you do and no matter what every Christian does, evil will triumph in this world until the return of Christ.

That simply isn't true. Those gangsters did NOT complete their gang rape, evil didn't triumph. It is a defeatist attitude to say evil will always triumph and use it as an excuse to do nothing. Read the parable of the talents again and see where it gets ya.

Good will not win out, and if that is the dream you are holding to, I believe you will be disappointed.

I am willing to be disappointed if it comes to that. I choose good and am willing to fight for it. The alternative would be shame and cowardice, the alternative would be hypocrisy and self imposed helplessness. . . . . my spirit won't bear that. I was redeemed by Christ and will give everything to the last drop of blood for His honor, I will love my enemy and their victims while striving for justice. I will do what I can to be part of the healing work of Jesus Christ in the world. I am okay with disappointment, if Jesus is wrong, I don't mind betting wrong. I'll share fate with Jesus over anything cowardice could buy me.

 

[Paradoxum]

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.

Well it is good, and much appreciated, that you are so reasonable about that.

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.

Well if we were trying to figure out if abortion is acceptable or not, the soul issue seems to be the big difference between us two. You could still believe there is a soul, but working in a different way. An emergent soul seems to make more sense, consider how connected the mind and brain are.

In my belief, my soul is me. Your soul is you.

By this do you mean, the experiences and thoughts that I call 'me'? The conscious mind, pretty much? Still, this doesn't tell me much about what you think the soul in the fetus is, since it has no awareness of its own identity.

Why is the body/mind controlled by the brain? I know how it is controlled, but I have no idea why it is controlled.

How is it then?

I'm not sure if you want to talk about the soul, so I'm not sure how far to push this.

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.

Well I would say that the rational, empirical difference between a fetus and the 6 year old creates the moral difference. To understand this I asked myself why killing someone who doesn't want to be kill is wrong. Once this is understood it becomes easier.

The simple answer, is that it is wrong to beings with a certain mental capacity with certain mental content. That is why it is ok to kill most animals, but not most people. A fetus can't possibly have this mental capacity, so it is similar in moral status to a lower animal.

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.

Even if you aren't a utilitarian, I would think numbers make a difference (I don't know if I am a utilitarian or not). Eg: An extreme example would be choosing to save one persons life, or to save the human race from enslavements. In that case I would expect the species to be saved, but if it were one murder vs one person enslaved, saving the life might take over importance.

In the case of the fetus vs child, I said 10 fetus' to try to off-set the pain of the child.

Sorry, one more thing, it is unbiblical to say that there are no levels of wrongness. I used to believe like you, until I was given the job to find out where it says it in the Bible. It seems to say the very opposite, including Jesus himself.

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.

Why does it have to be the standpoint of Christian morals... why not just morals? Don't we all we all have it written on our hearts, according to the Bible. We should be able to reason together what is right and wrong.

 

[Max S Cherry]

. . . People willing to kill a fetus, will. Making it illegal will just make it messier.

If you say that you agree with legal abortion from a societal standpoint, I say that is your option. If you say that you agree with legal abortion (or illegal for that matter) from a Christian standpoint, I do not believe that your opinion is the correct one. Legal or illegal, I do not believe abortion can be supported through Christianity. If it can, I do not believe that you have done so.

Cool, so If God tells me through my having both a conscience and non-cowardice to rub together that I shouldn't let some poor waitress get gang raped, I am in the clear. . . but how does that paint folks with a conscience that can't be rubbed up against non-cowardice?

I would never suggest cowardice from a Christian as I believe that would show an extremely low level of faith. I believe Christians should be guided by their conscience and by the teachings of Christ. Helping a neighbor is instructed, but killing an attacker is not.

Oh really? Read the Nicene Creed again. Jesus and God aren't one? Really? Is that what you'd like to base your argument on?

Is Jesus not a separate entity? Is your argument, if you care to make one, going to be based on the principle that Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit are not individuals? If it is, we will not agree.

The counterpoint would be that killing an enemy is not the same as hating them. Sometimes the greatest kindness is to strike an enemy down in the most humane fashion. . . to kill quickly rather than drawing out an enemy's suffering. The most loving thing might in fact be to strike them down so they can receive God's mercy more quickly rather than writhing with a shattered spine and bone fragments in their lungs, coughing great sprays of blood while waiting for paramedics who will only be able to deliver them to the cold slab.

Whether it is the greatest kindness or not is irrelevant to me, because I believe killing to be wrong. Of course killing an enemy is not the same as hating him, and you can even forgive him. Killing an enemy is not something that you would have done to yourself especially if you were not saved, so I do not see how it can fall under Christ's instructions. If the enemy is not saved, he will not receive God's mercy, and if he is saved, I do not believe that the decision to send him to God is yours to make.

I thought so, going down the steps with revolver in hand.

Tactically no, morally yes.

Again, tactically it probably would have been better to shoot the one between her legs while yelling & look for fight or flight responses for who got bullets to follow. Mostly I just wanted them to stop trying to gang rape the girl. . . . you can find fault in my priorities if you want to.

I do not question your priorities; they are yours. Because you are a Christian, I question the motive behind them. I think that you are mistaken in believing that killing is ever acceptable, and I do not think that you can use Christ's teachings to support them.

I am not sure what you mean. She was screaming for help. That is what woke me up. The gangsters could have drawn weapons. There were more of them so even if they all drew at once I'd be hard pressed to shoot all of them before one hit me. . .. I am not sure what you are asking here.

Wait you mean if I'd have run up, thrown my arms around her and seen what happened? Well, yeah, after I was stabbed to death and she was gang raped, my family would be without support. . .. and the gangsters would feel empowered to victimize more people. It is good you are making your goals clear here.

Criminals already feel empowered to victimize people, and I imagine that your actions did not alter their feelings. You helped someone without killing, and I think that is great.

I thought my goals were established in my original post, and I apologize if I was not clear until now.

Read about King David, a man after God's own heart and get back to me about how battle prowess and strength aren't a factor. Does it take more than strength or prowess? Why yes. Is faith best witnessed by doing nothing? Read the New Testament again and tell me all about where doing nothing is advocated.

Again you mention doing nothing, and I am not an advocate of inaction. I agree that Christians have a duty to help, everyone. God does not have an earthly army now, so your Old Testament references express nothing of God's plan under grace.

What a bleak and hopeless answer, what a misreading of the Gospel, what a confession to putting cowardice above faith, what a pitty. If Christ could do nothing, why did He bother to heal people? If Christians could do nothing why did he empower His followers to heal? If our place in life wasn't to spread hope and love, why are we not struck dead and taken to heaven when we accept Christ?

I would pity you if you were a coward, and I am not suggesting that you are or should become one. I am sorry if you understood it that way. It is not a misreading of the Gospel at all, and the end will not come because good triumphs over evil. If you have read the New Testament and understood it to indicate that evil can be defeated by man, I believe you should reread it. Christ will defeat evil, and it will not happen until His return.

Yes, I believe we should spread hope and love by spreading the Word of God, but we differ on the best means of doing so. I believe it is best done by living out Christ's own examples, and killing is not one of them.

That simply isn't true. Those gangsters did NOT complete their gang rape, evil didn't triumph. It is a defeatist attitude to say evil will always triumph and use it as an excuse to do nothing. Read the parable of the talents again and see where it gets ya.

A defeatist attitude? I think not. My attitude is one of hope, and I am completely optimistic about the future. You helped in one case, and as I have already said, that is good. Good things can be done, but in the end, evil will have its day. It will be short, but it will come. Being truthful, even when it is not pleasant, is a value in itself.

I am willing to be disappointed if it comes to that. I choose good and am willing to fight for it. The alternative would be shame and cowardice, the alternative would be hypocrisy and self imposed helplessness. . . . . my spirit won't bear that. I was redeemed by Christ and will give everything to the last drop of blood for His honor, I will love my enemy and their victims while striving for justice. I will do what I can to be part of the healing work of Jesus Christ in the world. I am okay with disappointment, if Jesus is wrong, I don't mind betting wrong. I'll share fate with Jesus over anything cowardice could buy me.

Again, I did not suggest avoiding confrontation. Fight for good, but do not kill for any reason. Avoid cowardice if you can and stand strong in faith. I believe it will serve you well. You do not need a weapon to be strong, and you do not need a weapon to help your neighbors. If you choose to use one, I am not saying that you are wrong to do so, but like any tool, weapons can be misused. I believe killing to be one of the misuses.

At least we agree that loving our enemies is the correct thing to do, and I am all for being a part of Christ's healing ministry. I do not see how you plan to heal through killing. I prefer to do it through peace and spreading the love of Christ to all.

 

[Max S Cherry]

Well if we were trying to figure out if abortion is acceptable or not, the soul issue seems to be the big difference between us two. You could still believe there is a soul, but working in a different way. An emergent soul seems to make more sense, consider how connected the mind and brain are.

I understand your point. For me, I believe the soul to enter immediately at conception. The soul is life. For humans, there is no life without soul. They are created at once. This makes the fertilized egg discussion interesting, and I have to wonder if eggs that are fertilized outside the body also have souls. Curious situation to say the least.

By this do you mean, the experiences and thoughts that I call 'me'? The conscious mind, pretty much? Still, this doesn't tell me much about what you think the soul in the fetus is, since it has no awareness of its own identity.

My agnostic leanings understand your empirical approach very well, and your "you" is nearly identical to the "me" I had before Christ. No, I cannot justify the "me" I have now outside my belief.

A soul, as I believe, is comprised of our experience and thoughts, but it is even more than just those. It is our essence and our life. Our mind and body are physical things, but there is something to them that is not physical. It is not easy to describe, but it is me without the physical drawbacks.

The fetus is without the experiences of the birthed, but other than those experiences, I cannot see anything to separate them from the rest of us.

How is it then?

I'm not sure if you want to talk about the soul, so I'm not sure how far to push this.

I am more than happy to discuss any topic you like, and if you want to get into a soul discussion, we should probably start a new thread for it. I think it might be incredibly interesting, because your questions caused me a pause. It is terribly difficult to discuss the soul in concrete, descriptive terms, and I would be interested to see what others thought about it.

If you want to discuss the soul in relations to abortion, I think I can say that I understand your point. If the soul emerges with experiences, abortion is morally neutral, because the fetus does not possess a soul. It is why abortion could be neutral while murder is wrong. Is that your position? If it is, I do not agree with it, because I think the soul and life arrive together. Of course, I may have your view wrong, and if I do, please do not hesitate to correct me.

Well I would say that the rational, empirical difference between a fetus and the 6 year old creates the moral difference. To understand this I asked myself why killing someone who doesn't want to be kill is wrong. Once this is understood it becomes easier.

Rationally, I agree with you, but when I studied it, I did not stop with the 6 year old. I carried it to the extreme. I will not try to lay it all out here, but the gist of it is something like this:

I did not start with the assumption that abortion was wrong. I started by assuming that abortion was okay, and I asked why. I could not kill a 6 year old because it is aware of itself. That is the reason why I think it is wrong to kill someone who does not want to be killed. Beyond the 6 year, can I kill a 40 year old? I cannot do it if he does not want to be killed, so what makes him different from the fetus. His awareness, so to kill him, I merely have to wait until he goes to sleep. Once he is asleep, his self-awareness drops to zero, and he becomes like a fetus. Killing him is neutral.

The simple answer, is that it is wrong to beings with a certain mental capacity with certain mental content. That is why it is ok to kill most animals, but not most people. A fetus can't possibly have this mental capacity, so it is similar in moral status to a lower animal.

I understand your view, but I cannot agree with it.

Even if you aren't a utilitarian, I would think numbers make a difference (I don't know if I am a utilitarian or not). Eg: An extreme example would be choosing to save one persons life, or to save the human race from enslavements. In that case I would expect the species to be saved, but if it were one murder vs one person enslaved, saving the life might take over importance.

From your example, it sounds like you just might be a utilitarian. I could not make the same decision. I would have to save the person's life. Enslavement for the race would be unfortunate, but I would have to preserve life over quality of life.

Sorry, one more thing, it is unbiblical to say that there are no levels of wrongness. I used to believe like you, until I was given the job to find out where it says it in the Bible. It seems to say the very opposite, including Jesus himself.

I apologize for the confusion. You are right. There are differences in sin. What I meant was a generalization that there are no light sins which God will tolerate. The consequences of sin is that it separates us from God whether it be lust, theft, or murder. Any sin requires the redemption of Christ to bridge the gap between us and God, and it does not matter if the sin is killing one or if it is killing one-hundred. I believe that to be the case.

Why does it have to be the standpoint of Christian morals... why not just morals? Don't we all we all have it written on our hearts, according to the Bible. We should be able to reason together what is right and wrong.

You asked...because I do not believe there are any morals other than Christian morals. I say Christian morals, because I respect the opinion of others who say that morals exist outside Christianity. My time away from Christ led me to believe that there are no morals inherent in man, and that what man calls morals are his desires. I see that as the reason why morality has changed over the years and why morality is different in different areas and to different people.

I believe that all people have the capacity for morality, but like any other capacity, I believe it can be exercised and strengthened or neglected and weakened. So yes, I believe people could know right from wrong, but I believe that a person rejecting God has already began the neglect.

 

[Sectio Aureo]

I don't kill bugs. In addition, humans are spiritual beings capable of eternal life, how is this comparable to a bug?

Every form of life on Earth is genetically related.

Bugs existed on Earth for many millions of years before us homo sapiens, without bugs homo sapiens would have never appeared on Earth.

For this reason I reject a concept of "lesser animal" as obviously every organism on Earth is integral to the well being of other organisms, therefore murdering of any organism is equally unmoral.

 

[madaz]

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

Not as easy as it sounds, I was once confronted by a gang of drunken youths who tried to beat me to death.
My only defence was to steal one of their knives and use it against three of them. The high court judge discharged me without conviction on the grounds of self defence.

 

[Glas Ridire]

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

I don't support this. It is not essential and can be tactically disadvantageous. I know when I was needing to go through metal detectors routinely I always carried a garrote made of non-metallic substances but capable of delivering 1200lbs+ of breaking strength to an opponent's throat. I know that I have cut men down while they still thought they had the advantage. I know that my body and face are covered with scars from combat in the real world and I am living and typing. .. . most of the time I have given criminals the option to run. Sometimes the situation dictates going ahead an opening 'em up a bit, a main vein, a tendon, a bullet hole. . .. these things are dynamic and I tend to resist codes of honor that get innocents killed needlessly. Leave sacrificing oneself for ideals to professionals.

 

[Sectio Aureo]

Sometimes the situation dictates going ahead an opening 'em up a bit, a main vein, a tendon, a bullet hole. . .. these things are dynamic

I detect some sadism in your words, do you hate these "criminals"?

 

[AstralProjectee2]

You must remember that the original 10 commandments does not say "thou shalt not kill" as in the KJV but "thou shalt not murder". The KJV was wrong. So it is OK to kill only in certain circumstances. Some Christians to this day still go by the bad translation error from a long time ago.

Obviously if you were a police officer you would have a moral duty to kill someone in some situations. Do you think the people on the 9/11 planes should have just let the people take over the airplane. If your only hope was to kill a terrorist on the high jacked plane, would you have done it? Of course you would/should have. Your question is a little silly.

Blessings.

 

[Glas Ridire]

I detect some sadism in your words, do you hate these "criminals"?

I detect some projection in your words.

No, but seriously, no. There is no hate in what I have done or am willing to do. There is love, love of my family, love of my neighbor, love of good biscuts and gravy, most of all love of God. I can't fathom letting a criminal take those things, interrupt those relationships, or end the time in which I can serve who I love. Compassion is the willingness to end a conflict decisively. Extreme blood loss tends to make an opponent faint and inclined to try and stop up the blood to preserve their life, the cutting of certain tendons makes continuing to present a threat difficult, massive holes have an effect on individuals that makes most inclined to stop. The process can of course be repeated as necessary, but it would be sadistic to wound a man expecting that pain would cause him to desist. At the point a criminal's threat of great bodily harm or death becomes so imminenet as to require physical intervention, they should be cut down efficiently, out of mercy.

 

[Max S Cherry]

You must remember that the original 10 commandments does not say "thou shalt not kill" as in the KJV but "thou shalt not murder". The KJV was wrong. So it is OK to kill only in certain circumstances. Some Christians to this day still go by the bad translation error from a long time ago.

The 10 Commandments are great, but they are not necessary to anyone who studies Christ's teachings. Unless you propose that the New Testament's accounts of Christ's ministry are almost universally translated incorrectly, translation errors do not affect the prohibition against killing.

Obviously if you were a police officer you would have a moral duty to kill someone in some situations.

I do not find this to be obvious at all. A police office may have a duty to kill someone is certain situations, but that does not make it a moral duty. If your point is that Christians should not be police officers since they may have to kill, I can agree with that. Law enforcement is probably not the best job for a Christian.

Do you think the people on the 9/11 planes should have just let the people take over the airplane.

As opposed to what? Did the passengers on the planes not let people take over the planes? That is how they managed to hit the buildings and the ground. I'm pretty sure if the passengers had taken over the planes they would have opted to dodge both.

If your only hope was to kill a terrorist on the high jacked plane, would you have done it?

My only hope will never be to kill anyone. My only hope is Christ. I do not understand your use of the term terrorist. Perhaps, you should tell me what you understand a terrorist to be.

Of course you would/should have.

I do not say what I would do or would have done in any situation in which I have not found myself, because the truth is that I simply do not know.

Your question is a little silly.

Well, thank you for taking the time to respond to it despite its silly nature.

 

[Max S Cherry]

Every form of life on Earth is genetically related.

If you say so, good! It kinda makes sense since we all have the same Maker.

Bugs existed on Earth for many millions of years before us homo sapiens, without bugs homo sapiens would have never appeared on Earth.

There are two claims in there that really need to have "I believe" tacked on them. We have no way to knowing whether bugs existed many millions of years before homo sapiens, and we do not know whether the appearance of homo sapiens depended upon bugs. Those are called beliefs. You obviously have them, but I do not.

For this reason I reject a concept of "lesser animal" as obviously every organism on Earth is integral to the well being of other organisms, therefore murdering of any organism is equally unmoral.

I also reject the idea of a "lesser animal," but I do so because it seems to imply that humans are extremely similar to other animals. The difference, I believe, is that humans have souls while other animals do not, and this difference is of tremendous importance. I can eat meat with my neighbor and feel good about it, but I cannot eat my neighbor's meat with the same peace of mind.

 

[Sectio Aureo]

If you say so, good! It kinda makes sense since we all have the same Maker.

It makes sense purely because all life (on this planet at least)has evolved from a common ancestor.

There are two claims in there that really need to have "I believe" tacked on them. We have no way to knowing whether bugs existed many millions of years before homo sapiens, and we do not know whether the appearance of homo sapiens depended upon bugs. Those are called beliefs. You obviously have them, but I do not.

We do know bugs existed millions of years before homo-sapiens and we do know the appearance of homo-sapiens could not have happened with-out the presence of other vital organisms including bugs. These are not beliefs or claims.

I also reject the idea of a "lesser animal," but I do so because it seems to imply that humans are extremely similar to other animals. The difference, I believe, is that humans have souls while other animals do not, and this difference is of tremendous importance. I can eat meat with my neighbor and feel good about it, but I cannot eat my neighbor's meat with the same peace of mind.

You are entitled to hold unsubstantiated beliefs.

 

[Paradoxum]

I understand your point. For me, I believe the soul to enter immediately at conception. The soul is life. For humans, there is no life without soul. They are created at once. This makes the fertilized egg discussion interesting, and I have to wonder if eggs that are fertilized outside the body also have souls. Curious situation to say the least.

What do you mean there is no life without a soul. Life is a biochemical process and physical structure. Bacteria are alive and can be fully explain without need for a soul. The mind of animals does seem different from the purely physical, but in that case it is the mind that makes the difference, not mere life.

Even fertilization is a process. There is no one instant that can be pointed to as the moment when a soul should enter. That is why I think it makes much more sense to think that the soul emerges with a certain brain/ mental capacities. It is our minds that make us different from most animals, not our bodies. The human body is an ape body, and there is no reason to think we are different and have a soul just because we are biologically human. If anything is the image of God, it is the mind, not the body.

My agnostic leanings understand your empirical approach very well, and your "you" is nearly identical to the "me" I had before Christ. No, I cannot justify the "me" I have now outside my belief.

Then why give up on a reasoned and empirical approach? Religions have a bad habit of making stuff up. It is our reason that must free us from superstition. I'm not against you being a Christian, but I am in favour of a reasonable faith.

A soul, as I believe, is comprised of our experience and thoughts, but it is even more than just those. It is our essence and our life. Our mind and body are physical things, but there is something to them that is not physical. It is not easy to describe, but it is me without the physical drawbacks.

But I see no need to suppose we have an essence beyond the physical. I can see why it might be helpful for the mind body problem. I think that the mind could be more than merely the atoms that science currently describes.

I'm not trying to totally argue against the idea of the soul right now, but more against the idea that it is placed in the human at conception. An emergent soul seems to make much more sense.

The fetus is without the experiences of the birthed, but other than those experiences, I cannot see anything to separate them from the rest of us.

Well the mind and body of the fetus is almost totally different from ours. The only similar thing is its DNA, but then a skin cell also has the same DNA.

I am more than happy to discuss any topic you like, and if you want to get into a soul discussion, we should probably start a new thread for it. I think it might be incredibly interesting, because your questions caused me a pause. It is terribly difficult to discuss the soul in concrete, descriptive terms, and I would be interested to see what others thought about it.

If you want to discuss the soul in relations to abortion, I think I can say that I understand your point. If the soul emerges with experiences, abortion is morally neutral, because the fetus does not possess a soul. It is why abortion could be neutral while murder is wrong. Is that your position? If it is, I do not agree with it, because I think the soul and life arrive together. Of course, I may have your view wrong, and if I do, please do not hesitate to correct me.

That is pretty much my position.

While I don't think the soul is implanted at conception (if there is a soul),would it matter if it was? All the fetus gains is some vague 'essence' which few people seem to even be able to begin explaining. Saying it is wrong to kill a fetus because of its essence, seems little different from saying, "It is just mysterious, but true because I say so."

The reason we think it is wrong to harm people is because it harms people, killing included. It violates their will. To say it is because of an 'essence' completely divorces our thoughts from the real reasons that real people think it is wrong to kill and harm others. The 'essence' alone isn't enough. It is the violation of another that causes our moral outrage.

Rationally, I agree with you, but when I studied it, I did not stop with the 6 year old. I carried it to the extreme. I will not try to lay it all out here, but the gist of it is something like this:

I did not start with the assumption that abortion was wrong. I started by assuming that abortion was okay, and I asked why. I could not kill a 6 year old because it is aware of itself. That is the reason why I think it is wrong to kill someone who does not want to be killed. Beyond the 6 year, can I kill a 40 year old? I cannot do it if he does not want to be killed, so what makes him different from the fetus. His awareness, so to kill him, I merely have to wait until he goes to sleep. Once he is asleep, his self-awareness drops to zero, and he becomes like a fetus. Killing him is neutral.

I think I used a similar argument years ago against abortion. I consider it quite so strong now, though it is interesting. We consider it wrong to violate the will (or supposed will) of another. When the person went to sleep we assume that they willed not to be killed in their sleep. Because of that we think it is wrong to kill them in their sleep, since it would be an attack on them. We respected them while awake, and that respect continues which they sleep.

I understand your view, but I cannot agree with it.

From your example, it sounds like you just might be a utilitarian. I could not make the same decision. I would have to save the person's life. Enslavement for the race would be unfortunate, but I would have to preserve life over quality of life.

Well that is scary, and things like this make me wonder if religion is necessarily dangerous and the threat to humans.

I apologize for the confusion. You are right. There are differences in sin. What I meant was a generalization that there are no light sins which God will tolerate. The consequences of sin is that it separates us from God whether it be lust, theft, or murder. Any sin requires the redemption of Christ to bridge the gap between us and God, and it does not matter if the sin is killing one or if it is killing one-hundred. I believe that to be the case.

That is fair.

You asked...because I do not believe there are any morals other than Christian morals. I say Christian morals, because I respect the opinion of others who say that morals exist outside Christianity. My time away from Christ led me to believe that there are no morals inherent in man, and that what man calls morals are his desires. I see that as the reason why morality has changed over the years and why morality is different in different areas and to different people.

Well it isn't as if Christians have had the same moral opinions throughout history. I would say that it isn't morality changes, but our understanding of morality. Also the circumstances which the moral principles apply to change.

I believe that all people have the capacity for morality, but like any other capacity, I believe it can be exercised and strengthened or neglected and weakened. So yes, I believe people could know right from wrong, but I believe that a person rejecting God has already began the neglect.

I feel I understand it much better now than before. Before, some of the moral actions I did was just because that was what I was told was right, by the Bible or authority figures. Now I have better principles to base action on.

The funny thing (or perhaps not that funny) is that Christians have done many immoral or evil things, in the past and now. It isn't even necessarily a rare thing. I wonder how many people were ok with kill homosexuals in the past, and how many Christians in Uganda are today. It was Christian evangelists who helped lead that country to potentially murdering gay people.

Then there are the many wrongs of the Catholic church, the wars and terrorism between denominations. The oppression, torture, and murder... all in the name of the greater good of saving souls of course.

I see no reason to think that atheists neglect morality any more than Christians.

(That was probably a silly pointless rant, ignore it if you wish).

 

[Max S Cherry]

You are entitled to hold unsubstantiated beliefs.

As are you apparently. Of course, I am taking "substantiate" to mean "to prove" and "substantiated" to mean "proven." If you mean merely that it supports something you like, fine call my beliefs unsubstantiated, and I will do the same to yours. It will go no where. What I take for support may be nothing to you, and what you take for support may be nothing to me. Unless it can be proven, it is unsubstantiated belief which is redundant as all beliefs are unsubstantiated.

It makes sense purely because all life (on this planet at least)has evolved from a common ancestor.

Unsubstantiated belief Number One.

We do know bugs existed millions of years before homo-sapiens and...

Unsubstantiated belief Number Two.

...we do know the appearance of homo-sapiens could not have happened with-out the presence of other vital organisms including bugs.

Unsubstantiated belief Number Three.

These are not beliefs or claims.

I believe that they are both beliefs and claims. You cannot prove any of the three.

 

[Sectio Aureo]

As are you apparently. Of course, I am taking "substantiate" to mean "to prove" and "substantiated" to mean "proven." If you mean merely that it supports something you like, fine call my beliefs unsubstantiated, and I will do the same to yours. It will go no where. What I take for support may be nothing to you, and what you take for support may be nothing to me. Unless it can be proven, it is unsubstantiated belief which is redundant as all beliefs are unsubstantiated.

Originally Posted by Sectio Aureo
It makes sense purely because all life (on this planet at least)has evolved from a common ancestor.

Unsubstantiated belief Number One.

Unsubstantiated by myself yes, but at least it can be substantiated, simply choose any random organism on Earth in any location on Earth, be it archaea, fungi, bacteria, protist, plant or animal.

Then take a DNA sample, compare the DNA with your own, you will indeed find you are genetically related and further more you will be able to trace both ancestries back to a common ancestor.


Originally Posted by Sectio Aureo
We do know bugs existed millions of years before homo-sapiens and..

Unsubstantiated belief Number Two.

The evidence to support this claim is overwhelming. Do the research at a library of your choice. We do know life started in the sea then after billions of years life finally populated dry land. Without plants and insects "setting the stage" on dry land by providing a non toxic O2 rich environment for more complex organisms like dinosaurs and mammals it would have been impossible for the complex organisms to even begin to exist on land. Fossil evidence of bugs goes back aprox 400 million years, fossil evidence of homo-sapien only a few million years.

Unsubstantiated belief Number Three.

Originally Posted by Sectio Aureo
These are not beliefs or claims.

I believe that they are both beliefs and claims. You cannot prove any of the three.

You are correct they are actually claims, but they are factual claims. Beliefs they are not.

The proof is there if you seek it. The claims can be demonstrated and "proven" if you make the effort.

Bugs can survive without humans, humans cannot survive without bugs.

Perhaps humans are "lesser"?

 

[seeking Christ]

For me the only time I can see it being acceptable is in cases of self defense or defense of others from immediate harm.

Our Constitution has been interpreted that we have no right to bear arms to defend others. I think this qualifies as being criminally insane ... it leads to police thinking that protecting the public is not part of their job, as well as a host of other easily foreseeable problems.