Is it Ever Okay to Kill

[ChristOurCaptain]

I just read Rudolf Hoess´ autobiography.

Uhm......
I just had a glass of coke light.

Why are we sharing what we just did, as if this was Facebook?

 

[quatona]

Uhm......
I just had a glass of coke light.

Why are we sharing what we just did, as if this was Facebook?

I don´t know why you are doing it, and I don´t know what coke light might have to do with anything.

The text I mentioned, however, was right on the topic you had brought up.

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

I don´t know why you are doing it, and I don´t know what coke light might have to do with anything.

It didn't. But it seems we were mentioning random facts of things we were doing, so I joined in.

The text I mentioned, however, was right on the topic you had brought up.[/quote]

No, it wasn't.

 

[Glas Ridire]

It is never okay to kill. Never.

The experience of being alive is the culmination of biological, chemical, and perhaps divine phenomenon. It should be a crime against existence to ever deny a body in time the experience of life.

We justify the killing of others as a shearing of society of the parts unnecessary and detrimental. Or we bring up the noble ideals of removing the bad parts to improve or protect the collective, which is just lazy. Prevention, not readiness for the effects of evil or what have you, should be the standard.

So, if a child was about to be raped and killed and the only way to prevent it would be to take the criminals life . . . you would condemn someone for interfering and rescuing the child? The wrong of the child's death would only be on the criminal and not the bystander who condoned the action through passivity? Is that right?

 

[Mediate]

So, if a child was about to be raped and killed and the only way to prevent it would be to take the criminals life . . . you would condemn someone for interfering and rescuing the child? The wrong of the child's death would only be on the criminal and not the bystander who condoned the action through passivity? Is that right?

Look at it this way.

If each man takes the bible and adheres it to himself. IF each man would do as Jesus did, or for other religions, perhaps Buddhism, as Buddha did, then who would be the executioner of a criminal? Yet who would be a criminal?

It is a hard thing, but yes. violence should not beget violence.

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

'prevention of a crime', is a form of vengeance. 'You are about to kill, so I will kill you'.

It is in fact, a retaliation against another's intent of crime. Did God say to Abel, or to adam, or to Eve, 'Cain will kill Abel. Kill him first before he gets a chance'?

'Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

The story of sodom. 'Take my daughters instead'.

God repays the evil. And God also protects the ones who trust in him enough to leave vengaence to him.

The man who doesn't kill the attacker is seen as weak by men. But his weakness shames those who kill. His forgiveness shames those who won't. His placidity shames those who are aggressors.

'For it is God who has called the weak, the outcasts, rejects and the fools of teh ways of the world to shame those who are wise of them'.

'It is better that a man becomes a fool of the ways of the world that he may be truly wise'.

It may be 'lawful' to beget eye for eye. But lawfulness is full of loopholes. Like forbidden fruit, tempting those who live by it. But living by grace and righteousness, with true faith, is set apart from the law.

It is to go 'above and beyond' the law.

It may be 'permissible' to kill the aggressor, but perhaps not 'beneficial' in the sight of God.

But to answer your question, it is up the person in that position. Who am I to condemn them for doing what they believe is right?

It is God's to judge and repay. It's God's in the end. If on earth, I can help them see something different, some more of that 'faded glass', then I should try, if they will listen.

I assume because you're here, that you're willing to listen to other opinions. But in the end, it's up to you.

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

snip

10 guy, is that you?
Look here.....
Either, you go with this line of thinking all the way: "We should never punish at all, just turn the other cheek, therefore, let's do away with prisons, police and courts!", or stop trying to use Jesus as a way to justify your own views. To do otherwise is hypocritical and arbitrary.

Am I asking you to be in favor of CP? No. I'm asking you to stop taking the Gospel hostage in your opposition to it. Killing the rapist before he rapes and kills the child (if killing him is the only option available, which it won't be in 99,9% of cases) is protecting the innocent, and THAT, if you want to go there, is most definitely a Christian virtue.

 

[Mediate]

10 guy, is that you?
Look here.....
Either, you go with this line of thinking all the way: "We should never punish at all, just turn the other cheek, therefore, let's do away with prisons, police and courts!", or stop trying to use Jesus as a way to justify your own views. To do otherwise is hypocritical and arbitrary.

Am I asking you to be in favor of CP? No. I'm asking you to stop taking the Gospel hostage in your opposition to it. Killing the rapist before he rapes and kills the child (if killing him is the only option available, which it won't be in 99,9% of cases) is protecting the innocent, and THAT, if you want to go there, is most definitely a Christian virtue.

When did the bible become about making myself a 'king' and deciding how a country is run?

I'm not here to create laws for you. If you want to be judge and executioner, go right ahead.

'For even when the archangel Michael spoke with the devil himself, he did not make out to bring a slanderous judgement against him, but instead said 'God himself will rebuke you'.

'Vengeance is mine, I will repay' says God.

 

[Mediate]

Like I said, the law is like a forbidden fruit. Tempting into loopholes.

But again, the laws are the laws. I'm sure if you killed a rapist if you had to, that the law wouldn't treat you too harshly. But then, you can never be sure.

As for God, I won't speculate too much, but I should say that we all have done things thinking it was 'the right thing to do'. I'm no different.

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

When did the bible become about making myself a 'king' and deciding how a country is run?

It isn't (not since theocratic Israel, anyway). That's MY point, whereas you seem to be saying: "This is my reading of the Bible, therefore society shouldn't have CP". That's the sentiment I opposed.

I'm not here to create laws for you. If you want to be judge and executioner, go right ahead.

'For even when the archangel Michael spoke with the devil himself, he did not make out to bring a slanderous judgement against him, but instead said 'God himself will rebuke you'.

What a marvellous display of subtle offensiveness...comparing those who DARE to point out the fallacy of your "reasoning" with satan. Well played.

'Vengeance is mine, I will repay' says God.

And....that quote is relevant to how society should deal with criminals, HOW?

 

[Mediate]

It isn't (not since theocratic Israel, anyway). That's MY point, whereas you seem to be saying: "This is my reading of the Bible, therefore society shouldn't have CP". That's the sentiment I opposed.



What a marvellous display of subtle offensiveness...comparing those who DARE to point out the fallacy of your "reasoning" with satan. Well played.



And....that quote is relevant to how society should deal with criminals, HOW?

If you believe in God then you have already answered your own questions.

I am not intent on comparing you to satan. I am intent on pointing out the message that no matter how 'evil' the person, we are not to bring a 'slanderous judgement against them'. I think that the concept of Satan qualifies for 'evil' far beyond the average rapist.

And secondly, if I am to become a fool of the ways of the world, to become humble and leave vengeance to God, then what place does making laws for society have in that?

I adhere to it, myself. I'm not telling anyone else how to adhere to it. Personally, I won't kill or execute someone. Whether you will or not is up to you.

If you perceive that I am pushing my interpretation as evidence against the death penalty, then by those same standards, aren't you pushing yours as evidence for it?

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

snip

Would you please rephrase this entire post into plain English? Your reasoning is.....impossible to follow.

 

[Mediate]

I gave the OP my interpretation of the bible on how I should treat a person. You feel that I am using God's word to support my own opinion on society, rather than using God's word to tell you how I myself would treat a criminal. Then you're questioning how it relates to society's treatment of criminals. It makes no sense. This is circular.

That's exactly why I'm always pointing out that it's up to the person in the position. Otherwise we end up with circular objective arguments that go nowhere.

Personally, I feel that I wouldn't kill a man for any reason, and I have said why above.

So instead of an argument, I say let the OP and anyone reading make up their own mind. I don't feel like I need to push my opinion onto society. It speaks for itself.

 

[Glas Ridire]

'prevention of a crime', is a form of vengeance. 'You are about to kill, so I will kill you'.

Moving past the "if everyone was a teletubby" rhetoric . . . NO! crime prevention is the opposite of vengeance. Simply being violent in some cases does not automatically make something vengeance. Vengeance is responsive/ reactive by definition. Crime prevention is proactive by definition. Crime prevention is loving my neighbor as myself. It is ghastly and contra-Gospel to see a crime victim and do nothing.

'Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

Far better that I die by the sword as a consequence of sacrificing myself for my neighbors, than to bear the shame of having done nothing, like the servant that was given one talent. Where did that servant end up by the way?

The man who doesn't kill the attacker is seen as weak by men. But his weakness shames those who kill. His forgiveness shames those who won't. His placidity shames those who are aggressors.

Charming, but no. Killing isn't always required but when it is, and a man stands idle, allowing the torment of innocents through complicit inaction, viewing it as mere weakness is a kindness, the shame is unthinkable to allow an evil such as watching a child be raped and murdered and to do nothing. I suspect that you are upholding a moral view based solely on theory & if tested would look down on the "do nothing" and be thankful for the man, who would do violence on behalf of the innocent.

I have told the story here and here it comes again: I was awakened one night to the screams of a young lady being slapped around and about to be gang raped at the bus stop across the street. Knowing the police response time in the neighborhood was excessive, I asked my bedmate to call 911 and then I went down to the street with an instrument of lethal force in my hand and encouraged the gang members to let the woman pull her pants back up and leave her alone. I phrased it a bit more colorfully, but you get the idea? I would have had absolutely no problem pulling the trigger had they reached for weapons or continued their actions on her. They chose not to get shot. The bus came and the woman was gone before the police ever arrived, some 20+ minutes after the event was over.

In view of this story, and the tale of the Good Samaritan, what would the moral obligation have been had the witnesses seen the crime in progress rather than the victim afterward?

'For it is God who has called the weak, the outcasts, rejects and the fools of teh ways of the world to shame those who are wise of them'.

Not really relevant. One doesn't need to be wise in the ways of the world to stand up for the weak, one doesn't even have to succeed, but to do nothing would be unconscionable.

It may be 'lawful' to beget eye for eye. But lawfulness is full of loopholes. Like forbidden fruit, tempting those who live by it. But living by grace and righteousness, with true faith, is set apart from the law.

It is to go 'above and beyond' the law.

When Jesus was questioned about the Law, He replied "The first and greatest commandment is this: That you love the Lord your God with all your heart, body, and soul . . . the second is like unto it, that you love your neighbor as yourself, on these two, hang all the Law and the Prophets". If it were my daughter or wife across the street that night, I would want someone to intervene. It is hypocrisy to wish safety for my loved ones and not be willing to contribute to the safety of others. It is simply loving my neighbor as myself to seek to prevent crimes against them.

It may be 'permissible' to kill the aggressor, but perhaps not 'beneficial' in the sight of God.

Are you suggesting that God condones child rape?

But to answer your question, it is up the person in that position. Who am I to condemn them for doing what they believe is right?

If the child rapist believes that it is okay so long as he kills the child afterward, is child rape okay with you?

I assume because you're here, that you're willing to listen to other opinions. But in the end, it's up to you.

Well, you do seem to be offering some different opinions. I can't say as I have encountered many people who would stand idle and watch a child rapist rape and murder a child. It is pretty much outside my understanding of loving one's neighbor and suffering the little children to come unto (Jesus) & I suppose at this point I am curious how such a person lives. Like, if you really believe anything is okay so long as the other person believes it is okay, do you lock your doors? Do you keep money in a wallet in a pocket or do you withdraw all your money from the ATM and set it on the sidewalk expecting it will be there when you need to buy something? When I think about what the lifestyle you propose ACTUALLY would look like, I wonder if you live it or if you just espouse these views to make yourself feel better about ignoring the poor or innocent.

 

[Mediate]

Moving past the "if everyone was a teletubby" rhetoric . . . NO! crime prevention is the opposite of vengeance. Simply being violent in some cases does not automatically make something vengeance. Vengeance is responsive/ reactive by definition. Crime prevention is proactive by definition. Crime prevention is loving my neighbor as myself. It is ghastly and contra-Gospel to see a crime victim and do nothing.


Far better that I die by the sword as a consequence of sacrificing myself for my neighbors, than to bear the shame of having done nothing, like the servant that was given one talent. Where did that servant end up by the way?

Charming, but no. Killing isn't always required but when it is, and a man stands idle, allowing the torment of innocents through complicit inaction, viewing it as mere weakness is a kindness, the shame is unthinkable to allow an evil such as watching a child be raped and murdered and to do nothing. I suspect that you are upholding a moral view based solely on theory & if tested would look down on the "do nothing" and be thankful for the man, who would do violence on behalf of the innocent.

I have told the story here and here it comes again: I was awakened one night to the screams of a young lady being slapped around and about to be gang raped at the bus stop across the street. Knowing the police response time in the neighborhood was excessive, I asked my bedmate to call 911 and then I went down to the street with an instrument of lethal force in my hand and encouraged the gang members to let the woman pull her pants back up and leave her alone. I phrased it a bit more colorfully, but you get the idea? I would have had absolutely no problem pulling the trigger had they reached for weapons or continued their actions on her. They chose not to get shot. The bus came and the woman was gone before the police ever arrived, some 20+ minutes after the event was over.

In view of this story, and the tale of the Good Samaritan, what would the moral obligation have been had the witnesses seen the crime in progress rather than the victim afterward?



Not really relevant. One doesn't need to be wise in the ways of the world to stand up for the weak, one doesn't even have to succeed, but to do nothing would be unconscionable.



When Jesus was questioned about the Law, He replied "The first and greatest commandment is this: That you love the Lord your God with all your heart, body, and soul . . . the second is like unto it, that you love your neighbor as yourself, on these two, hang all the Law and the Prophets". If it were my daughter or wife across the street that night, I would want someone to intervene. It is hypocrisy to wish safety for my loved ones and not be willing to contribute to the safety of others. It is simply loving my neighbor as myself to seek to prevent crimes against them.

Are you suggesting that God condones child rape?


If the child rapist believes that it is okay so long as he kills the child afterward, is child rape okay with you?


Well, you do seem to be offering some different opinions. I can't say as I have encountered many people who would stand idle and watch a child rapist rape and murder a child. It is pretty much outside my understanding of loving one's neighbor and suffering the little children to come unto (Jesus) & I suppose at this point I am curious how such a person lives. Like, if you really believe anything is okay so long as the other person believes it is okay, do you lock your doors? Do you keep money in a wallet in a pocket or do you withdraw all your money from the ATM and set it on the sidewalk expecting it will be there when you need to buy something? When I think about what the lifestyle you propose ACTUALLY would look like, I wonder if you live it or if you just espouse these views to make yourself feel better about ignoring the poor or innocent.

'Christians' are the most arrogant people on Earth.

My father was beaten almost to death in my own home. I wasn't there. I wanted to be.

I spent my entire life in a country where' protestants' and 'catholics' bomb and kill each other over a piece of land, professing a great 'cause'.

My brother's father in law was murdered in his own home.

My relatives have been shot.

Let me tell you, there is NO good that comes from violence for violence. Or violence for violence's prevention. Each begets more of it.

Yes you're right, given the chance, I would stand in and sacrifice myself for another person's sake. I know I would. I'd grab the child and run or hold off the attacker. But I certainly wouldn't kill him.

And after the fact, I certainly wouldn't have him executed.

 

[Glas Ridire]

Yes you're right, given the chance, I would stand in and sacrifice myself for another person's sake. I know I would. I'd grab the child and run or hold off the attacker. But I certainly wouldn't kill him.

And after the fact, I certainly wouldn't have him executed.

What if the attacker caught you and pinned you down and . . . . it became more horrible (in ways I hesitate to post because they are so awful)?

Not only would the child still be a victim but you as well and all because you chose to be complicit in the attacker's crime by doing nothing.

 

[quatona]

It didn't. But it seems we were mentioning random facts of things we were doing, so I joined in.

Well, if that´s what you guys did and what you personally joined in that´s fine with me - but not my problem.

No, it wasn't.

Have you read it?
If so, you really didn´t see the relevance for the point you brought up?

 

[Cactus Jack]

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?

There is a difference between murdering and killing. Murdering is taking the life of another without a justifiable cause. Just because you don't like the way a man looks at your wife is not grounds to kill, it would be murder.
If you caught the same man raping your wife or daughter, different story. Then killing may be justified, depending on your personal view. And then you view means little as the court system has the authority to punish those they feel deserve it.

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

Have you read it?
If so, you really didn´t see the relevance for the point you brought up?

I cannot see what isn't there.

 

[Max S Cherry]

I don't know why this thread has gone on so long. No Christian thinks killing is "OK" even when it is justified such as in war or in self defense. One day there will be no more war or killing of any kind. But until the Lord returns there will be killings. So lets just live with it and do what we can to minimize it.

My question in the original post was not if it was ever "ok" to kill. I asked if it was ever "acceptable" to kill. There is a big difference in those two questions. I think the thread has proven to have such long legs because new people see it and want to post. The new posts bring it back to the top of the list again, so more people get to see it.

I find myself agreeing with you again. Killing will continue, and I think the best thing any of us can do is to attempt to minimize it. However, I do still enjoy reading the thoughts and comments of new posters. It is a minority opinion, but I am convinced that-for me-killing is not an option.

 

[quatona]

I cannot see what isn't there.

Does that mean you do have read it?