To kill or not to kill that is the question

[TemperateSeaIsland]

As an Atheist I find it hard to understand why Christians actually care about such things. If the Christian religion is true that this life really has only one important outcome, that you die as a believer and that the quality of your life is of no relevence as this life will be a tiny tiny portion of your overall existance. The teachings of Jesus seem to reflect this view... don't care about material goods and treat everyone in a loving way.

If you're honest about your beliefs do you think after a hundred trillion years in heaven you'd care you died in bed warm with a loving family surrounding you or being tortured to death by an enemy?
What if you find your enemies are in heaven too, would your past rivalry and hatered have any relevence in the afterlife?

 

[disciple2011]

OK this is about as Pacifist as you could get in your answers. Any chance of a rationale for this. e.g. not fighting against Hitler in WW2. Not shooting the guy who was just about to kill your wife and kids etc.

Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies and Appeal to Fear in one post.

Bravo!

 

[Blackguard_]

As an Atheist I find it hard to understand why Christians actually care about such things

I don't see why an atheist would care about such things either. If the atheist is right, there is only oblivion and it really doesn't matter at all what sort of life or death you had.

Perhaps the present is important too?

 

[Blackguard_]

3) Can I kill in self defence?

Of course. The right to life is the basic right. No sense putting the "rights"(I think by being a lethal agressor you forfeit that right) of the attacker over the rights of his intended victim.

4) Can I kill to save the life of another?

yes.

5) Should I be allowed to carry weopanry to defend myself and others.

Yes. Forbidding that is a violation of the right to life/self defense.

As someone else said, only your enemy wants you disarmed.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

I don't see why an atheist would care about such things either. If the atheist is right, there is only oblivion and it really doesn't matter at all what sort of life or death you had.

Perhaps the present is important too?

I was expecting this

For the Atheist (well most of us) this is the only existance we will experience so why not do the utmost to preserve and enjoy it?

For a christian outside of giving the opportunity of salvation, this life should have less importance to your whole existance as you give to any single moment of your current life.

To be perfectly honest the fact that some Christians seem to place so much importance on their current lives suggests to me that deep down they dont believe.

 

[disciple2011]

Blackguard said:

"The right to life is the basic right."

Where is this right written into the natural world?

And can I exercise this right when I am about to die of old age?

 

[Blackguard_]

For the Atheist (well most of us) this is the only existance we will experience so why not do the utmost to preserve and enjoy it?

What do you have to preserve? There is only oblivion. You are living on borrowed time with borrowed memories. So what if you live a bit longer? You can't take the experiences and enjoyment of life with you.

Looking at it through the afterlife, from the Christian POV this life might be of extremely small importance, but from the atheist POV this life is of absolutely zero importance.

Like I said, perhaps the present is important? That's what the atheist is trying to preserve isn't it?

 

[Blackguard_]

But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also." Matthew 5:39

How do you kill people while still following the command not to resist evil people? Killing seems like it would be a very severe form of resistance.

Since when is a slap a lethal threat? Jesus was not talking about self defense in that verse but responding to insults.

They thought the true teaching sounded nice but was too idealistic and down right suicidal. So the faith got a make over to in order to increase it usefulness to the authorities. The original forms was ok for people who left everything and lived in a religious commune (shared everything in common) or became a monk but it wasn't that attractive to Caesar.

So are you an anarchist?

I hope so, there are too many idolaters who give the State a right to self defense and/or killing they would deny the individual.

 

[Tuddrussell]

What do you have to preserve? There is only oblivion. You are living on borrowed time with borrowed memories. So what if you live a bit longer? You can't take the experiences and enjoyment of life with you.

If there is only oblivion, then life becomes the most important thing.

1) In what circumstances is it permissible to wage war and why? E.g. Never, just war, preventative war, holy crusade

War is just group conflict, the base morality is no different than any conflict.

2) Is political violence permissable against established authorities?

In certain circumstances.

3) Can I kill in self defence?

If you wish, I won't fault you for it. Nor would I fault you for not doing so.

4) Can I kill to save the life of another?

Now, that depends. Does the person you are saving want to be saved? does the person you are saving deserve to be saved? Is the person you are killing less or more worthy to live then the person you'd be saving?

5) Should I be allowed to carry weaponry to defend myself and others.

Yes, I see no reason why that shouldn't be the case. (As long as you are trained in their use, and have the appropriate licenses.)

6) Is vigilante justice ever permissable?

Morally? Sometimes. Legally? Not under most circumstances.

7) Is genocide ever OK?

It can be a lesser evil or a necessity, but no. Not even with the best of reasons is it OK.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Since when is a slap a lethal threat?

I wasn't so much talking about the slap as I was the injunction not to reisist evil people.

So are you an anarchist?

Of sorts.

 

[Blackguard_]

I wasn't so much talking about the slap as I was the injunction not to reisist evil people.

Context matters. Jesus was talking about personal revenge(the preceding verse is "you have heard it said, 'an eye for an eye...'", not self defense against lethal force.

We know from the parables Jesus has no problem mentioning robbers, such as the strongman not allowing his home to be broken into if he knew when they'd come, so why doesn't he talk about highwaymen(a huge problem back then, especially with all the traveling the disciples do) and burglars and murderers and such instead of a slap on the face?

I do not see that verse as preaching pacifism.

Jesus later says to acquire swords along with other provisions, the implication being we are to be prepared, including for our own defense.

When Peter struck the high priest's servant Jesus rebukes him for still not getting it and preventing what he came to Earth to do, not for resisting evil.

I doubt there is much point to us debating though as we start from different principles. You seem to be a good old fashioned "throw out the OT" Gnostic, and so verses like proverbs 25 about a man being like a muddied spring or polluted well who falters before evil or in Nehemiah where the builders of the wall wear swords will fall on deaf ears while I consider them very important.

Of sorts.

Of sorts?

As Chairman Mao said "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun". All political power is backed by force. You can't be a pacifist and an archist. Or do you mean a "Christ is my only king" sort of thing?

 

[Ishraqiyun]

You seem to be a good old fashioned "throw out the OT" Gnostic,

Correct. It has some parts that are worth reading but I really doubt that it's all "inspired" when it orders religious violence, the killing of women and children, keeping the virgins among the conquered for yourselves, etc.. Pretty much the opposite of the way of life Christ called people too. Some of the Wisdom literature like the Proverbs and the Wisdom of Solomon are nice. Some of the books like Leviticus and many of the books that portray the history of Israel are rather dreary.

Context matters. Jesus was talking about personal revenge(the preceding verse is "you have head it said ,'an eye for an eye...'", not self defense against lethal force.

Using force against someone in response to an injury they caused you is ruled out. Why would a preemptive attack be allowed?

Jesus later says to acquire swords along with other provisions, the implication being we are to be prepared, including for our own defense.

And they misunderstood what he was saying and bought actual physical swords. Christ shows that they misunderstood when he demands that Peter puts back his sword and he points out that those who live by the sword will die by the sword. The "sword" he was speaking of when he told them to purchase swords wasn't carnal.

As Chairman Mao said "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun". All political power is backed by force. You can't be a pacifist and an archist. Or do you mean a "Christ is my only king" sort of thing?

That's why I'm not a politicion. I find myself attracted to libertarian socialism / anarcho-socialism but I tend to think it might be unrealistic to expect that it would be adopted anytime soon. For that reason I simply critique the evils I see but for the most part stay away from active involvement in politics. I don't support any of the regimes in the world today but I'm not involved in some revolution to overthrow them either. I'm not one of those starry eyed people who thinks they are going to single handly usher in an earthly utopia though.

 

[mindlight]

As an Atheist I find it hard to understand why Christians actually care about such things. If the Christian religion is true that this life really has only one important outcome, that you die as a believer and that the quality of your life is of no relevence as this life will be a tiny tiny portion of your overall existance. The teachings of Jesus seem to reflect this view... don't care about material goods and treat everyone in a loving way.

If you're honest about your beliefs do you think after a hundred trillion years in heaven you'd care you died in bed warm with a loving family surrounding you or being tortured to death by an enemy?
What if you find your enemies are in heaven too, would your past rivalry and hatered have any relevence in the afterlife?

Surely in the light of an eternal relationship with God doing His will is the primary consideration whether that involves killing or not killing.

As a famous fictional gladiator once said.
"What we do in life echoes in eternity"

 

[mindlight]

Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies and Appeal to Fear in one post.

Bravo!

Now that you have got your mockery out of your system will you be providing a rationale for your position.

 

[mindlight]

Correct. It has some parts that are worth reading but I really doubt that it's all "inspired" when it orders religious violence, the killing of women and children, keeping the virgins among the conquered for yourselves, etc.. Pretty much the opposite of the way of life Christ called people too. Some of the Wisdom literature like the Proverbs and the Wisdom of Solomon are nice. Some of the books like Leviticus and many of the books that portray the history of Israel are rather dreary.



Using force against someone in response to an injury they caused you is ruled out. Why would a preemptive attack be allowed?



And they misunderstood what he was saying and bought actual physical swords. Christ shows that they misunderstood when he demands that Peter puts back his sword and he points out that those who live by the sword will die by the sword. The "sword" he was speaking of when he told them to purchase swords wasn't carnal.



That's why I'm not a politicion. I find myself attracted to libertarian socialism / anarcho-socialism but I tend to think it might be unrealistic to expect that it would be adopted anytime soon. For that reason I simply critique the evils I see but for the most part stay away from active involvement in politics. I don't support any of the regimes in the world today but I'm not involved in some revolution to overthrow them either. I'm not one of those starry eyed people who thinks they are going to single handly usher in an earthly utopia though.

Marcionite liberalism. It is hard to know how to respond. You doubt the authority of the scriptures so a biblical argument will not work with you. It is the assumptions of your position which are wrong headed here. Your opinion on this OP is just the symptom

 

[disciple2011]

Now that you have got your mockery out of your system will you be providing a rationale for your position.

My position, sans the overused Godwin's and fallacious argumentation, is that killing people has been done for thousands of years. And the result is that
people are still being killed. So it is an exercise in futility.

 

[mzungu]

Surely in the light of an eternal relationship with God doing His will is the primary consideration whether that involves killing or not killing.

As a famous fictional gladiator once said.
"What we do in life echoes in eternity"

Which God are you referring to? Surely you do not expect a child brought up in a Muslim community to become a Christian? If you think that you have the right to kill all non Christians then I guarantee you the VAST MAJORITY of Christians worldwide will be against you!

Let me remind you that Christianity is not a Political party and especially not this:

​

 

[circa02]

Context matters. Jesus was talking about personal revenge(the preceding verse is "you have heard it said, 'an eye for an eye...'", not self defense against lethal force.

We know from the parables Jesus has no problem mentioning robbers, such as the strongman not allowing his home to be broken into if he knew when they'd come, so why doesn't he talk about highwaymen(a huge problem back then, especially with all the traveling the disciples do) and burglars and murderers and such instead of a slap on the face?

I do not see that verse as preaching pacifism.

Jesus later says to acquire swords along with other provisions, the implication being we are to be prepared, including for our own defense.

When Peter struck the high priest's servant Jesus rebukes him for still not getting it and preventing what he came to Earth to do, not for resisting evil.

I doubt there is much point to us debating though as we start from different principles. You seem to be a good old fashioned "throw out the OT" Gnostic, and so verses like proverbs 25 about a man being like a muddied spring or polluted well who falters before evil or in Nehemiah where the builders of the wall wear swords will fall on deaf ears while I consider them very important.

Of sorts?

As Chairman Mao said "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun". All political power is backed by force. You can't be a pacifist and an archist. Or do you mean a "Christ is my only king" sort of thing?

Anarcho-pacifism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[mzungu]

To kill or not to kill? Here listen:

[HD] Queen - Bohemian Rhapsody (official music video) + LYRICS (BEST QUALITY) - YouTube

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Marcionite liberalism. It is hard to know how to respond. You doubt the authority of the scriptures so a biblical argument will not work with you.

I'm certainly willing to take into consideration statements from the Old Testament. I've found a few of the books to be useful and to have some worthwhile "stuff" in them. I just don't accept the view that they are infallible. I also don't believe they are completely consistent in teaching. Something doesn't have to be infallible in every context for it to be making a legitimate and reasonable argument though. There is a lot of wisdom to be found in some of the OT.

Simply saying "it's written in the OT" isn't enough in and of itself to convince me it's true but I would still take it into consideration.