To kill or not to kill that is the question

[mindlight]

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.

Well I guess if the expected result of killing bad people was to reduce the amount of killing in the world then you are probably right- it has not been that effective. But not sure I take that kind of utilitarian view. Some people kill cause they are bad people with bad motives and some people kill for good motives and with good effect. I think there needs to be some discrimination here. Our lives on this earth are not all that we have.

 

[mindlight]

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:

​

Not sure you have been following the arguments in this thread at all as I have never said that we should kill all non Christians.

Personally I believe the only hope for Muslims as for yourself is a relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

Not sure you are qualified to talk for the global church.

The Republicans are far from perfect- greed and self-righteousness being two of their sins and as with Luthers doctrine of two Kingdoms they represent worldly civic authority which is ultimately appointed by God , but they measure up as the best of a bad bunch globally in my view- depending on whom they select as a leader. I hope Rick Perry gets the nomination.

 

[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.

You would not last two minutes against a Stalin or a Hitler.

Luthers doctrine of two kingdoms might be instructive of the difference between our two citizenships of Gods kingdom and the duties we owe to the authorities which he has appointed. As you seem to confuse the realms of personal living and political responsibility in what you say.

Personally I believe we cannot be vigilantes or revolutionaries except in situations of extreme lawlessness or under Gods direct instruction e.g. maybe Cromwell and the Puritans but not the American or French revolutions. Self defence is legitimate and killing with the authority of the state also, in war or as a minister of justice, is also biblical.

 

[Blackguard_]

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

Preventing an injury or further injury to yourself or others is quite different from taking revenge for an injury. In one you are the defender and in the other you are the agressor.

Sadly though, many can't seem to grok the difference between predatory and protectionary violence.

And they misunderstood what he was saying and bought actual physcial swords.

No, they aren't shown buying any swords. The disciples already had at least 2 physical swords when Jesus said that.

Jesus didn't have a problem with a couple disciples carrying swords around, and later, right before Peter strikes, they ask if they should strike with their swords.

If Jesus had a problem with carrying a sword, when the disciples said they have at least 2 would have been a good time to mention it.

Even if Jesus did mean a metaphorical sword, he did not object to the disciples having real 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.

...and goes on to say that the could have twelve legions of angels at his disposal and that it must happen this way to fulfill scripture. What Peter didn't get then was what he didn't get earlier when he said "may it never be" when Jesus was talking about being killed and raised and Jesus says "get behind me satan".

A theme running through the gospels is the disciples not understanding that Jesus must be killed and raised, and Peter trying to physically prevent that is the last example of that.

Jesus rebuked Peter for interfering with his plan, not for fighting in and of itself. Note how he doesn't tell Peter or the other disciples to get rid of their swords.

The "sword" he was speaking of when he told them to purchase swords wasn't carnal.

He was telling the disciples to make worldly preparations for themselves, including for personal defense.

I'm curious, what would the "moneybag of the Spirit" be?

 

[TG123]

The majority of the mainstream historic Christian church and Jews before them have held to the view that violence and killing are sometimes permissible. Prominent theologians/Christians like Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, CS Lewis, Francis Schaeffer and Billy Graham have all endorsed this view.

But the main argument from the Christian one has to be the biblical one.

Thank you very much mindlight for your response, as always it was written very thoughtfully and I appreciate that. None of the Bible verses above show that Christians are allowed to take part in war, and below I will show how that is the case.

1) THE NATURE OF GOD
A) "The Lord of hosts" one of many titles given to God is a distinctively military one.
B) God has an army. Jesus claimed he could have called 5 legions of angels to his defence were it necessary. We see this army deployed in defence of Elisha who revealed the host of fire to his associate also. An angel sent by the Lord executes hundreds of thousands of Egyptians at the passover. An angel destroys the Assyrian army before the gates of Jerusalem. Angels wage battles in defence of Israel e.g. Michael in Daniel. In the New Testament Kings are executed by angels. In Revelation angels carry out spectacular judgments and a war is waged in the heavenlies between Gods army and the devils.
C) God passes judgments on the wicked. The flood , the plagues of Egypt and the events of Revelation being three examples in Old and New Testaments.

All of the points above are true. God is referred to as a warrior in Exodus 15:3

The LORD is a warrior; the LORD is his name.

So far we have no problems. The verses however point to God's nature and His right to use violence. Nothing about the right of Christians to do so. Let's move on.

The LORD is a warrior; the LORD is his name. 2) JESUS IS GOD
A) As Col 1 v 15-17 makes clear Jesus is the God of all scriptures and not just the gospels. Thus he has an army, judges the wicked and is our military captain.
B) Those who believe that it was Jesus who visited Abraham with 2 angels before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah will note that the angels carried out his instructions in extracting Lot and his daughters and then destroying the cities.
C) The judgments of Revelation must also be associated with Jesus.
D) Jesus takes a whip to the moneylenders in the temple

We agree on everything. Let's move on.

3) GOD/JESUS DOES NOT PROHIBIT KILLING
A) Exodus 20 v 13 - says Do not murder.

Keep in mind that often in war, innocent people are murdered. This happens when bombs are dropped on civilian homes, when battle crazed soldiers massacre innocent men, women and children (Haditha), when suicide bombers set off bombs in marketplaces, when guerrillas shoot at soldiers and in the process kill civilians who have done nothing. Killing someone who is not attacking you is an act of murder.

B) Jesus had only praise for the Roman centurions faith and no criticism for his job. (Math 8 v 10)

He also did not criticize the fact that the soldiers under his command treated Jews with contempt and murdered those who tried to live out their faith. In that interaction, Jesus was concerned about the centurion's faith alone.

Jesus did say to His followers that we are to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39) and to love our enemies (Matthew 5:43-48).

C) Jesus permitted his disciples to carry swords and indeed urged them to do so on one occasion.

True, He also did not tell them to use them to attack anyone. In fact, the only time one of Christ's disciples used a sword in violence, Jesus rebuked him.

D) John the baptist also does not condemn what soldiers do - Luke 3 v 14

He also did not condemn adultery, bestiality, murder or many other sins in the account. Does that mean these things are ok? No, in Luke he simply is not recorded as saying anything against these things.

Homosexuality is a sin yet Jesus did not say a single word about it in the Bible (it is denounced in other parts of Scripture). Jesus did say to not use violence though. Going to war clearly means disobeying His teachings.

4) GOD SANCTIONS KILLING
A) Innumerable OT examples - 1 Kings 18 v 40 , Joshua 8 v 1-29, Genesis 14

True, in the OT God ordered also that people be executed for working during the Sabbath. Does that apply today? No, it does not.

Jesus said
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you...

God has in the past sanctioned wars, yes. The Israelites who waged war against the Amalekites were following God. Now He has said we are to love our enemies. If we are to be faithful to Him, we must listen.

B) Hebrews 11 is a list of heroes of the faith from the OT and includes military examples

Agreed. They were following what God commanded from them at the time.

C) We are called to participate in heavenly warfare - Eph 6 v 12 and are in a continual war with our sinful natures James 4 v 1-2.

Agreed. The war mentioned is spiritual war and against the flesh... our flesh. We are to crucify our own sinful passions and desires.

Galatians 5:24
And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

Ephesians 6:12
For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

As Jesus said I am not come to bring peace but a sword - Math 10 v 34.

How true. His followers have faced the sword and other objects of execution and torture. The New Testament records the martyrdom of John and Stephen and the persecutions suffered by His other followers. Following Jesus often does mean facing opposition, whether physical or of other types, both in the NT and today. Many CPTers in the West Bank have been beaten up and severely injured for following Jesus and hungering and thirsting for righteousness by escorting Palestinian kids to school and facing the dangers they do, a young woman in Saudi Arabia who was burnt alive by her relative for leaving Islam and turning to Jesus, Christians who have died in Nazi death camps for feeding and sheltering persecuted Jews, the apostle Paul who was stoned, imprisoned and eventually beheaded under orders of Nero for preaching the Gospel... many many people throughout history have faced the sword for following Jesus.

Christians have faced and will continue to face the sword for following our Saviour and Lord. However we are not ever commanded to use swords against others.

D) As he says in Math 5 v 9 "Blessed are the peacemakers" - effective peacemaking is almost always accompanied by the threat or use of force rather than by appeasement.

Then how did the early church resolve its problems? Peter and Paul even fought, but never physically. In Colombia, Christian peace activists have stopped paramilitaries from massacring innocent civilians by peacefully accompanying them. In some American cities, pastors have managed to get gangs together and stop fighting each other.

E) God blesses earthly armies and soldiers that fulfill his purpose or which honour him. Gideons 300, David against Goliath or his countless other battles, Moses against the Amalekites, Nebuchadnezzars attack on Jerusalem in fufilment of the words of Jeremiah.

True, but this was during the Old Testament times when war was acceptable.

As Romans 13 v 4 makes clear the power of the sword is given by God.

Given to authorities, none of whom were Christian when Paul wrote this. Romans 13 also makes clear that the authorities use the sword to punish evildoers and that the innocent have nothing to fear. There are no such authorities today in our world.

So render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars and to God the things that are Gods: Math 22 v 21

Thanks for that Scripture. We listen to Caesar when he asks for things he is allowed to have, like taxes. When he asks us to disobey God- like worship false deities or kill our enemies or to support injustice or tolerate when Jesus makes it clear we are to hunger and thirst for it... we cannot obey without not rendering to God those things that are His.

Thank you again for your response and my apologies for the delay. God bless you.

 

[TG123]

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.

Ishraqiyun, the Old Testament is God's message to us, like the New Testament. Jesus referred to the Old Testament very often.

Are you sure you know the Lord Jesus?

 

[Ishraqiyun]

Sadly though, many can't seem to grok the difference between predatory and protectionary violence.

I recognize the difference. The later can be more easily justified. I still don't think it's the ideal that Christ taught though.

 

[TG123]

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.

Jesus said we are to love our enemies and turn the other cheek. I can't do the things above and not break His commands.

During the Second World War, many Christians in Denmark opposed Hitler peacefully by staging non-violent protests, hiding Jews from the Holocaust. In Bulgaria, a priest got his congregation to lie down on the tracks used by trains taking people to the death camps, and the transport had to be stopped. Violence is not the only form of opposition.

If someone were about to kill my wife and kids he would have to kill me first. I would try to disarm or restrain him as they made a getaway, or die trying. I wouldn't do nothing. I wouldn't kill him either.

I don't believe in pacifism if you define it as not doing anything to oppose evil. That is in my opinion pathetic and hypocritical. I have 200000 times more respect for a soldier who risks his life in battle than 'pacifist' who sits at home and is proud of being non-violent while never risking anything for his beliefs or trying to live them out. Multiple more times if that person is or claims to be a Christian.

I believe in and have engaged in and will continue to engage in active non-violent action to oppose injustice, and have, do and will keep witnessing to the Gospel as I do so.

I do not identify myself as a pacifist but as a Christian btw. Following Jesus includes non-violently reacting to evil.

 

[Blackguard_]

If someone were about to kill my wife and kids he would have to kill me first. I would try to disarm or restrain him as they made a getaway, or die trying. I wouldn't do nothing. I wouldn't kill him either.

Why do you love the murderer more than your wife and kids?

Choosing the life of a predator over your wife and kids' is monstrous.

 

[TG123]

Why do you love the murderer more than your wife and kids?

Where did I say I love the murderer more than my wife and kids?

 

[Blackguard_]

Where did I say I love the murderer more than my wife and kids?

When you said you'd choose the life of the murderer over the life of your wife and kids.

 

[TG123]

When you said you'd choose the life of the murderer over the life of your wife and kids.

Where did I say that? I said I would restrain him or die trying, not that I would allow him to kill them.

My wife would also be a Christian and we would raise our children to be Christians and obedient to God. Obedience to God includes not using violence in response to evil. If that meant one or all of us dying rather than disobeying Him, so be it.

If someone told you to renounce or curse Jesus, or he would kill you and your wife and kids, would you do it?

 

[Tuddrussell]

If someone told you to renounce or curse Jesus, or he would kill you and your wife and kids, would you do it?

That kind of stuff actually happens mind you. I'm sure God would understand, and you can always pray for forgiveness later. Once they're safe.

 

[TG123]

That kind of stuff actually happens mind you. I'm sure God would understand, and you can always pray for forgiveness later. Once they're safe.

That kind of stuff definitely does happen. God can and does forgive anyone when they ask Him for forgiveness, but it would still not mean that renouncing Him is ever the right thing to do.

 

[Tuddrussell]

What ou are saying is: Letting your family die is better than saving them, even though saving them has no ill effects.

 

[TG123]

What ou are saying is: Letting your family die is better than saving them, even though saving them has no ill effects.

I am not saying I would let me family die if an intruder came to my home. I am saying I would die in their place if I was not able to restrain the attacker. I would do everything to help them get away.

If I was asked to renounce my faith, I would not. Or rather pray for the courage to not do so, ergo for the intruder situation. Disobeying God is always wrong and the ill effect would be in either case that I would have disobeyed my God.

 

[circa02]

Whenever people use that, "a robber's about to kill your family" scenario, why is the attacker always nigh invincible, where only a bullet to the head can stop them? People who get shot don't even die most of the time anyway. It's a fake scenario.

 

[Blackguard_]

Where did I say that? I said I would restrain him or die trying, not that I would allow him to kill them.

You would let him kill them before you'd kill him. You choose his life over theirs. You might allow it in the sense of sitting on your hands, but the limits you place on what you'd do to stop him matters. If it comes down to their lives or his, you'd choose his.

My wife would also be a Christian and we would raise our children to be Christians and obedient to God. Obedience to God includes not using violence in response to evil. If that meant one or all of us dying rather than disobeying Him, so be it.

Pacifism is a monstrous ideology crowning evil the ruler of the world. It is the tool of the devil, not of God.

If someone told you to renounce or curse Jesus, or he would kill you and your wife and kids, would you do it?

Yes. It's not my place to martyr others.

Speaking more realistically though, I'm not going to trust him to not kill us anyway. I'm going to try to stop him being a threat to my family. My answer to "renounce Jesus and I'll spare your lives" would probably be BANG.

I'm not a 2nd century nigh suicidal rigorist. Remember it says in 1 Timothy those who do not provide for their own have denied the faith and are worse than infidels. I would be renouncing God much more by allowing those entrusted me come to harm than spouting out empty words.

Whenever people use that, "a robber's about to kill your family" scenario, why is the attacker always nigh invincible, where only a bullet to the head can stop them?

It's called a hypothetical situation. They are often used in ethical debates to get to the heart of a question and to not get sidetracked by the vagueries of what might happen in real life and other issues.

People who get shot don't even die most of the time anyway.

True, but it's still lethal force and thinking you can "shoot to wound" with any sort of reliability is stupid.

It's a fake scenario

No, sometimes shooting and even killing people is necessary to stop them. It's not fake. You can't always say "I'll just mace/wrestle/taze them". But it's hard to know what will stop a particular attacker, and with the ethical question of "is it right to kill" we use a scenario that assumes killing is necessary to stop them. If you want to argue lesser force is all that is ever needed, that is a seperate issue.

 

[mindlight]

Keep in mind that often in war, innocent people are murdered. This happens when bombs are dropped on civilian homes, when battle crazed soldiers massacre innocent men, women and children (Haditha), when suicide bombers set off bombs in marketplaces, when guerrillas shoot at soldiers and in the process kill civilians who have done nothing. Killing someone who is not attacking you is an act of murder.

However deeply felt this statement is it is utterly false. You are talking about collateral damage as murder. Targeting innocents is murder but not collateral damage in a war. That's just sloppy soldering. There must be accountability for that in a civilised and disciplined army but it is not murder. In the same way the friendly fire incidents in various wars in which Americans have killed British soldiers for instance is not murder but careless or sloppy military practice with extreme consequences. Or the various examples in Afghanistan when tribes men have fired in the air at a wedding and have thereby become the target of military airstrikes because this arms fire was mistakenly perceived as aggressive by circling air units. Again not murder but poor intelligence and target checking by the air units and blind stupidity on the part of the Afghans in the current context. Also your definition fails to allow for just war scenarios when a group of soldiers attacks an enemy position. Just cause one group attacks another does not make them murderers.

He also did not criticize the fact that the soldiers under (the Roman centurion - Math 8 v 10) command treated Jews with contempt and murdered those who tried to live out their faith. In that interaction, Jesus was concerned about the centurion's faith alone.

It is speculation whether this was true of the men under his command or not. Whereas the centurions love of Jews and support of them was common knowledge. Indeed it is more likely that in the case of a man with such understanding of authority that the men under his command were better behaved and more disciplined than you guess. So there was nothing to say there. Jesus did not criticise a soldier because he had no problem with what he did. When it came to a rich young man he had no worries in going straight to the main problem.

Jesus did say to His followers that we are to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39) and to love our enemies (Matthew 5:43-48).

Fine this is our call on the personal level , it is different when acting with state authority. I can love someone so much I will prevent them from committing any more evils that will be held to their account by ending their lives before it is too late for them.

Jesus did say to not use violence though. Going to war clearly means disobeying His teachings.

There are specific incidents where violence was inappropriate and indeed interfered with his mission. That is not a general prohibition on violence. None of Jesus disciples were soldiers and yet they were allowed by Jesus to wear swords is the more interesting point here.

True, in the OT God ordered also that people be executed for working during the Sabbath. Does that apply today? No, it does not.

You are not a Jew nor living in the Jewish theocracy and the Sabbath requirement and laws of jubillee need to be understood in the light of Christs fulfilment of their meaning. Nonetheless the principle of the Sabbath remains for Christians.

God has in the past sanctioned wars, yes. The Israelites who waged war against the Amalekites were following God. Now He has said we are to love our enemies. If we are to be faithful to Him, we must listen.

It is possible to love the people you kill. On Christmas Eve 1914 German and British troops celebrated Christmas together between the trenches. Within a few months these brothers in Christ had mainly been slaughtered at each others hands. One can kill with a degree of sadness for the one who dies and still believe one is doing the right thing as an obedient soldier.

Agreed. They were following what God commanded from them at the time....

True, but this was during the Old Testament times when war was acceptable......
Given to authorities, none of whom were Christian when Paul wrote this. Romans 13 also makes clear that the authorities use the sword to punish evildoers and that the innocent have nothing to fear. There are no such authorities today in our world.

Not one jot or letter of the law will pass away...Math 5. Unless you are a Marcionite heretic you cannot simply dismiss the Old Testament like that. There is continuity and discontinuity and you have not properly reckoned with the continuity.
How can you possibly argue that there are no authorities with the God given power of the sword today empirically? How could you possibly support the disappearance of such authorities as this from scripture? All governments ultimately rule by force. Or do you think everyone would pay their taxes if there was not the threat of coercion hanging over them?

How true. His followers have faced the sword and other objects of execution and torture. The New Testament records the martyrdom of John and Stephen and the persecutions suffered by His other followers. Following Jesus often does mean facing opposition, whether physical or of other types, both in the NT and today. Many CPTers in the West Bank have been beaten up and severely injured for following Jesus and hungering and thirsting for righteousness by escorting Palestinian kids to school and facing the dangers they do, a young woman in Saudi Arabia who was burnt alive by her relative for leaving Islam and turning to Jesus, Christians who have died in Nazi death camps for feeding and sheltering persecuted Jews, the apostle Paul who was stoned, imprisoned and eventually beheaded under orders of Nero for preaching the Gospel... many many people throughout history have faced the sword for following Jesus.

Christians have faced and will continue to face the sword for following our Saviour and Lord.

Some very inspiring personal Christian stories but nothing to do with the exercise of force by the appropriate authorities.

However we are not ever commanded to use swords against others.

I can feel how much you want that to be true but you cannot support that view from scripture and have offered no support for it.

Then how did the early church resolve its problems? Peter and Paul even fought, but never physically. In Colombia, Christian peace activists have stopped paramilitaries from massacring innocent civilians by peacefully accompanying them. In some American cities, pastors have managed to get gangs together and stop fighting each other.

Church government and practices are different from those of civic authorities. Roman authorities saved Pauls life on a number of occasions by a display and sometimes no doubt a use of military might. Paul was affirming of the law and order role of military authorities.

 

[mindlight]

What ou are saying is: Letting your family die is better than saving them, even though saving them has no ill effects.

Why trust a man who would kill a child as a way of coercing his father. There is no guarantee that such a man would not just kill them anyway. To be sure to meet my kids again in the after life I would not renounce Christ.

Abraham also was told to be prepared to give up his child as a sacrifice to God. He did so reasoning that God was able to raise them from the dead. He is reckoned as the father of all those who have faith.

It is the idolatry and reduction of life to the small fragment of it that we experience now that is so questionable here.