killing people

[Jet Black]

what would give you the right to kill another human, and why do you have that right?

 

[ahman]

i would say, that in the event of your life being threatened or that of your family's, you are entitled to react with neccessary force to eliminate the threat. the acceptable level i am taught when we do self defense where i train, is 1 "level" down.

and example:

if an assailant grabbed your shirt and made as if to punch you in the face, you would react and probably put him in a (suitably painful) bar (such as an arm bar) and warn him that continuing is not a good idea, thus you have demonstrated your wishes to not be attacked further and have used less force. you can't be held accountable in the law's eyes.

the next example, if an attacker had your wife at gunpoint, and doing the only thing you could do quickly enough to ensure her safety you broke the attackers neck with a punch or chop, that is using neccesary force to stop the attack and it is the attackers problem for creating the situation, it would be seen as self defense and the law could not hold you accountable for any damage done, so long as the lethal threat was still being applied.

whilst this is in a legal sense, it also applies to christian morals i believe. hope that helped.

 

[kedaman]

I don't think it applies to christian morals.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

The moral right? That, obviously, depends on your morality. I would say that according to Christian morality, nothing can ever give you that right.

 

[Rogue Light]

Well, according to the supreme court, you can do anything you want to (and justify if under the ninth amendment). However, it's up to a judge to decide if it's a right or not.

...it's yet to happen, but I'm sure it will if America doesn't fall withint he next thousand years.

 

[Skummer]

If you or another is attacked and you have a reasonable belief that the attacker intends to maim or kill, you are justified in killing said attacker.

'Course if you wanna be nice you can try to lock him up and warn him, but standing joint locks aren't particularly useful in controlling a vicious opponent, better to kill or perhaps strangle him I think.

 

[DailyBlessings]

I would say that a Christian can never have that as a right. The Bible is fairly clear on that. For instance: "Thou shalt not murder," "If a man strikes your left cheek, turn and offer him your right," and Jesus' intervention when Peter fought to save His life at Gethsemane.

However, I would never condemn someone for defending their family or country against violence with whatever force is required. It is a sin to kill, yes, but our imperfect world causes us to commit many sins. If we casually overlook some sins- like borrowing/lending money at interest, for instance- I don't see how we could judge someone committing another in defense of that which they love.

 

[stray bullet]

what would give you the right to kill another human, and why do you have that right?

If they were attempting to take my life or the life of a loved one.

 

[Mustaphile]

From a personal perspective, nothing would give me that right, so I guess I don't have to justify having the right, since I don't claim it.

From a societal perspective, the government could give me the right, but I would choose not to take it. Then it comes down to what price I am willing to pay should they seek to force me to do it.

I often ponder what my culpability is for taking a life by accident. For instance if I was defending myself and seeking not to use life threatening force, but did by circumstance kill someone. Circumstance might arise in many situations where I play some role in someone losing their life.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

I would say that a Christian can never have that as a right. The Bible is fairly clear on that. For instance: "Thou shalt not murder," "If a man strikes your left cheek, turn and offer him your right," and Jesus' intervention when Peter fought to save His life at Gethsemane.

However, I would never condemn someone for defending their family or country against violence with whatever force is required. It is a sin to kill, yes, but our imperfect world causes us to commit many sins. If we casually overlook some sins- like borrowing/lending money at interest, for instance- I don't see how we could judge someone committing another in defense of that which they love.

How can the world cause us to commit sins?

 

[savvy]

I would say that a Christian can never have that as a right. The Bible is fairly clear on that. For instance: "Thou shalt not murder," "If a man strikes your left cheek, turn and offer him your right," and Jesus' intervention when Peter fought to save His life at Gethsemane.

However, I would never condemn someone for defending their family or country against violence with whatever force is required. It is a sin to kill, yes, but our imperfect world causes us to commit many sins. If we casually overlook some sins- like borrowing/lending money at interest, for instance- I don't see how we could judge someone committing another in defense of that which they love.

But the Bible never defines exactly what murder is. And God often tells people in the Bible to kill other people, so there are instances where it is justified.
And anyway, of course Jesus didn't let someone save his life, the whole point of the exercise was to die for humanity.
I don't think that God requires me to remain defenseless if someone tries to kill me or people I love. That would be kinda like suicide.

 

[12volt_man]

I would say that a Christian can never have that as a right. The Bible is fairly clear on that.

Where does the Bible say this?

For instance: "Thou shalt not murder," "If a man strikes your left cheek, turn and offer him your right," and Jesus' intervention when Peter fought to save His life at Gethsemane.

1. The word commonly translated as "murder" is ratsach. Notice that we never see this word or the negative language associated with it associated with killing in battle, self defence or capital punishment.

2. Jesus was speaking of facing persecution for the sake of the Gospel, not in cases of capital punishment or defending one's loved ones or country.

3. Jesus' warning to Peter was not a condemnation of violence, but a warning to a friend that he would be killed if he did not put his sword away. After all, Peter stood no chance against a squad of Roman soldiers.

It is a sin to kill, yes,

Not always. It is a sin to commit murder but not necessarily to kill.

If we casually overlook some sins- like borrowing/lending money at interest,

?

 

[Dracil]

I'd rather maim and incapacitate than kill.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

Assuming an attempt is made to achieve the goal with as little force as necessary:

(1) To prevent harm from befalling an innocent person
(2) To punish a person who has been convicted and sentenced of a suitably heinous crime by an authorized court

As to (2), I am not pro-death penalty but I'm not anti-death penalty, either. I would not volunteer to be an executioner, but I support the right of our society to eliminate those who have repeatedly demonstrated themselves to be a threat to innocent lives.

That being said, if you (rhetorical) could guarantee murderers would get life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, I'd back a death penalty ban.

(1) may also involve acts of aggression, such as when an army attacks and enemy to prevent that enemy from harming innocent civilians.

 

[mpshiel]

Assuming an attempt is made to achieve the goal with as little force as necessary:

(1) To prevent harm from befalling an innocent person
(2) To punish a person who has been convicted and sentenced of a suitably heinous crime by an authorized court

As to (2), I am not pro-death penalty but I'm not anti-death penalty, either. I would not volunteer to be an executioner, but I support the right of our society to eliminate those who have repeatedly demonstrated themselves to be a threat to innocent lives.

That being said, if you (rhetorical) could guarantee murderers would get life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, I'd back a death penalty ban.

(1) may also involve acts of aggression, such as when an army attacks and enemy to prevent that enemy from harming innocent civilians.

Could you please define "innocent" - I assume you don't mean either "Sin-Free" or "Christian" - would innocent apply to any who do not commit act of violence, like a drug dealer for example?

 

[Believer-in-Christ]

In self-defense it can happen. I would try not to kill if I can help it. If my life was in danger and my adversary had a gun, I'd certainly try to stop him/her from shooting. I would rather the matter be settled without death.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

Could you please define "innocent" - I assume you don't mean either "Sin-Free" or "Christian" - would innocent apply to any who do not commit act of violence, like a drug dealer for example?

Here's a couple of hypothetical situations to explain it:

A cop is standing on a street corner. He sees a known drug dealer walking down the street but has no justification to arrest him at that time. Suddenly a maniac rushes out and starts attacking the drug dealer with a meat cleaver. The cop is justified to use lethal force to save the drug dealer's life because the drug dealer did nothing to provoke the attack and the maniac would have attacked any target of conveniece; hence, the drug dealer is "innocent" in the sense that he did nothing to directly precipitate the attack on himself.

Same situation, only this time a rival drug dealer starts shooting at the first one, and (a) the first drug dealer whips out his piece and kills the second one. If the first drug dealer stops shooting once the immediate threat is dealt with, he is justified in killing the second one. (b) If he stands over the body and keeps shooting, the cop is justified in arresting him and using lethal force if he refuses to surrender. In case (a) the drug dealer -- even though he has provoked the confrontation by being a rival -- did not seek out the confrontation and used only enough force to protect himself from harm. In case (b) the drug dealer goes beyond the limits of self defense and is acting aggressively against an opponent no longer capable of harmful action.

 

[mpshiel]

Here's a couple of hypothetical situations to explain it:

A cop is standing on a street corner. He sees a known drug dealer walking down the street but has no justification to arrest him at that time. Suddenly a maniac rushes out and starts attacking the drug dealer with a meat cleaver. The cop is justified to use lethal force to save the drug dealer's life because the drug dealer did nothing to provoke the attack and the maniac would have attacked any target of conveniece; hence, the drug dealer is "innocent" in the sense that he did nothing to directly precipitate the attack on himself.

Same situation, only this time a rival drug dealer starts shooting at the first one, and (a) the first drug dealer whips out his piece and kills the second one. If the first drug dealer stops shooting once the immediate threat is dealt with, he is justified in killing the second one. (b) If he stands over the body and keeps shooting, the cop is justified in arresting him and using lethal force if he refuses to surrender. In case (a) the drug dealer -- even though he has provoked the confrontation by being a rival -- did not seek out the confrontation and used only enough force to protect himself from harm. In case (b) the drug dealer goes beyond the limits of self defense and is acting aggressively against an opponent no longer capable of harmful action.

I am sorry, is this a universal morality? I thought we were talking about Christians?

How about: drug dealer sells people drugs in capacities he know will likely kill them. They take the drugs and die. The dealer has not killed them but provided the instument for them to do so. A parent comes and kills the dealer. Thus the dealer is an "innocent" and the parent must be shot? Is that my correct understanding of a Christian response to this situation?

 

[ahman]

that is creating a different situation, so you cannot use the same method of punishment.

do you punish your child in the same way for hitting someone in a playground as you would for a grown man hitting a woman in a bar?

that case would probably be different, and both parties would be arrested and given long sentences. the drug dealer has supplied drugs = prison for a nice long time.
parent has overreacted = not as bad as murder but still a bad crime and prison again for a large amount of time.

you can't judge both cases the same.

 

[Blackmarch]

But the Bible never defines exactly what murder is. And God often tells people in the Bible to kill other people, so there are instances where it is justified.
And anyway, of course Jesus didn't let someone save his life, the whole point of the exercise was to die for humanity.
I don't think that God requires me to remain defenseless if someone tries to kill me or people I love. That would be kinda like suicide.

The shedding of innocent blood is murder..
I think God justifies the defense of your lives, freedom, and etc..
But should you refrain from using violence/the sword you will be blessed more.