Justified Killing?

iceman_2001_ie

A simple question.
Its one that always promotes lively debate among my friends.

If you, or a loved one, are in mortal danger, is it justifyable to kill the aggressor as a last course of action?

One friend advocated the Gandhi principle of non-violent resistance.
The other, the Ted Nugent school of thought.

Personally, I think it is okay.
The fifth commandment is pretty clear "Thou shalt not kill"*, making it a grave sin.
But if you are going to die, and can do something to prevent it, but don't, is it not comparable to suicide, another grave sin.

*I have heard the academic opinion that the literal translation of the original old testament texts giving the 5th commandment as being "Thou shalt not murder". I have not researched this to any great depth, so I don't know if its true.

Zulu

iceman_2001_ie wrote:

If you, or a loved one, are in mortal danger, is it justifyable to kill the aggressor as a last course of action?

No.

The fifth commandment is pretty clear "Thou shalt not kill"*, making it a grave sin.

You're right - it's pretty clear.

But if you are going to die, and can do something to prevent it, but don't, is it not comparable to suicide, another grave sin.

No, it's not comparable. In suicide, you are still killing (albeit yourself), but in principle you break the above commandment. It is the killer that breaks the commandment and is thus responsible.

Essey

If a primary instinct is survival - do you really have a choice. If you don't respect the god force in you to protect it - isn't that a form of suicide? Nope - come after me at your own peril.

iceman_2001_ie

Zulu wrote:

No

Zulu wrote:

You're right - it's pretty clear.

Then why were so many people killed during the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition etc etc... all in the name of God?

I don't want an answer to that question, I'm trying to illustrate how unhelpful and unenlightening your answer is.

I want to know why you think its wrong.
NOT have you give curt answers to a very complicated and morally ambiguous question.

I guess I'll get the ball rolling.

I believe that the most fundamental respect that can be shown to anybody, is the respect for that person's right to life - their right to exist.
If a person threatens your right to exist, you should do everything you can ,to protect that right, to protect your life.
If that means you must kill the person who is trying to kill you, then your should.

I am a Catholic, but being completly honest, I don't know the Bible that well.
I would like the perspective of a Christian who is more knowledgable about the Bible.

Puck

The commandment is "You shall not murder." [My emphasis].
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%2020%3A13;&version=31;

Killing an aggressor as a last resort to save yourself and your loved ones is not murder.

Zulu

iceman_2001_ie wrote:

Then why were so many people killed during the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition etc etc... all in the name of God?

The Cursades and the Inquisition are from a different era, a far more barbaric one. Whats a persons inturpretation of what "God" wanted in the middle ages is hardly a vaild reason to kill.

I'm trying to illustrate how unhelpful and unenlightening your answer is.
I want to know why you think its wrong.
NOT have you give curt answers to a very complicated and morally ambiguous question.

It's not morally ambiguous, or complicated. It's really quite simply - you don't kill. Simple really. The comandments are short and simple for a reason, so they can be easily understood.

I believe that the most fundamental respect that can be shown to anybody, is the respect for that person's right to life - their right to exist.

No one will disagree with that.

If a person threatens your right to exist, you should do everything you can ,to protect that right, to protect your life. If that means you must kill the person who is trying to kill you, then your should.

You shouldn't, that's the point. When are you ever going to be in a situation when it's your life or theirs? ...and if you are in that extream situation - "there is no greater love than to lay down your life for another". Now 99.9% (myself included) will kill to protect ourselves if in that situation, and so be it, God will forgive you, but ideally, if you were to be a perfect christian....

ghostchant

I'm a Catholic, but if a loved one were in mortal danger, they'd be my primary concern - I wouldn't be worrying about what God was thinking, or what he had in store for me either

*Angel*

ghostchant wrote:

I'm a Catholic, but if a loved one were in mortal danger, they'd be my primary concern - I wouldn't be worrying about what God was thinking, or what he had in store for me either

The same for me, I would have to do my best to help them.

JustHalf

Zulu wrote:

The Cursades and the Inquisition are from a different era, a far more barbaric one.

You think that the Crusades and the Inquisition were from a dramatically more barbaric era than this one? Look around you!

Thousands of people die each year - all across the world - due to violence, war and callousness. If anything, the callousness is more frightening than the barbarism. We are indifferent to the suffering of others. We sit back and allow this barbarism to happen.

I am as guilty of this as anyone. Where was I when the genocide in Sudan happened? For most of it, sitting or sleeping comfortably at home. I did nothing.

This inaction is horrible.

Zulu wrote:

You shouldn't, that's the point. When are you ever going to be in a situation when it's your life or theirs? ...and if you are in that extream situation - "there is no greater love than to lay down your life for another". Now 99.9% (myself included) will kill to protect ourselves if in that situation, and so be it, God will forgive you, but ideally, if you were to be a perfect christian....

Bull****. If someone has to be stopped, someone has to be stopped. If killing them is the only way to do it, then that's what has to be done.

Christians are not compelled to roll over while great evil is committed. If a gang was attacking a friend of mine, then I am compelled to help. If that involves me dying so that my friend can live, then so be it. But if, as I last resort, I have to kill... well then I have to kill.

Laying down ones life doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to defend that life. If someone is trying to kill me, then I will try to stop them.

I'm a fairly peaceful, easy going guy. I don't want to hurt anyone, much less kill them. In fact, I wish all people well, even those I dislike. But if it comes to a choice between killing someone, or watching them torture innocent people to death, then if I can work up the courage then they are going to die.

ferdi

iceman_2001_ie wrote:

If you, or a loved one, are in mortal danger, is it justifyable to kill the aggressor as a last course of action?

whether or not its 'right' or justified to kill in this situation does not matter, if someone is harming yourr family member/loved one, your going to stop them one way or the other.

Zulu

JustHalf wrote:

You think that the Crusades and the Inquisition were from a dramatically more barbaric era than this one? Look around you!

Thousands of people die each year - all across the world - due to violence, war and callousness. If anything, the callousness is more frightening than the barbarism. We are indifferent to the suffering of others. We sit back and allow this barbarism to happen.

People on the whole are more "civilised" in todays society. If you don't agree - fine, but I've no intention of getting into an argument about this. If you prefer - replace barbaric with uneducated.

Bull****. If someone has to be stopped, someone has to be stopped. If killing them is the only way to do it, then that's what has to be done.

Call it what you may. The comandment clearly states "Thou shalt not kill", it does not however state "Thou shalt not kill, except if thou art in mortal peril."

Christians are not compelled to roll over while great evil is committed.

Christians are compelled not to kill.

If a gang was attacking a friend of mine, then I am compelled to help.

Indeed - but to kill?

If that involves me dying so that my friend can live, then so be it. But if, as I last resort, I have to kill... well then I have to kill.

Good for you. So would I and 99.9% of others. Jesus however - wouldn't.

Laying down ones life doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to defend that life. If someone is trying to kill me, then I will try to stop them.

No one is disputing that. I'm mearly pointing out what the commandment means. If you kill in selfdefence, I'm sure god will forgive you for breaking the commandment.

But if it comes to a choice between killing someone, or watching them torture innocent people to death, then if I can work up the courage then they are going to die.

...can't you just stop them? Do you really need to kill.

Excelsior

Zulu wrote:

People on the whole are more "civilised" in todays society. If you don't agree - fine, but I've no intention of getting into an argument about this. If you prefer - replace barbaric with uneducated.

So I guess that in the multi-cultural, Olympic hosting Yugoslavia genocide couldn't break out? What about Germany in the 1930's, the most advanced and educated society on the planet? How much more civilised are we now when 7 million children will die from hunger this year as the Western world spends $3,000,000,000 on farming subsidies?

You won't get into an argument about this because the seven genocides of the 20th Century and already one in the 21st Century prove you wrong. The age of technology brought us the NAZIs, Khmer Rogue, CCCP and countless preposterous wars like the Iran-Iraq conflict. Even in our own first world island, we happily spent 25 years blowing the **** out of each other because we wanted our flag and not their flag flying over the buildings! This argument won't stand. Society has not moved on. People are the same, regardless of where they are on the line of time and they are they have the same moral capabilities regardless of their education. Sophistication makes you more sophisticated but not more moral.

Murder is defined as wrongful killing. The commandment is not to murder. Interestingly, initially, the nation of Israel understood this commandment to apply only to themselves. Killing was wrong within the tribes of Israel, but outside their own nation there was much more room to manouvere.

Along came Christ and he heightened every commandment. An eye for an eye (which was initially a limiting guideline, not a permissive one as many understand it) became turn the other cheek.

Certainly there can be an argument made that Christ was a pacifist but that doesn't negate the strong moral argument in favour of war along the lines of the Just War guidelines. Most Christians would interpret going to war against NAZI Germany as not just an attempt to help the Poles and the French but to help the Germans. If the NAZI regime is set upon destroying its nation's own moral fibre, then the Christian can look at the destruction of the NAZI regime as liberation.

Certainly, Christ who emptied the temple cannot be framed as non-violent in any situation. As a result, I think that Christians are called to seek the higher power of non-violence like Martin Luther King but just like that great man, be willing to engage in violence when literally, we are at the end encounter.

So, I think that if it came down to you defending your family or killing the invader in your home, the moral thing is to challenge the invader.

If Zulu could back up why Christ wouldn't sanction killing, I would love to go all pacifist on this one.

Zulu

Excelsior wrote:

You won't get into an argument about this because the seven genocides of the 20th Century and already one in the 21st Century prove you wrong.

No, because it's dragging the discussion away from it's origional intention. Society has moved on, but indeed there are glaring examples of barbaric and tradgic crimes. Amazingly, humans are flawed. :eek:

Pointing out genocide dosen't provide proof that the commandment "thou shalt not kill" means anything else.

Murder is defined as wrongful killing. The commandment is not to murder.

The commandment, as I learnt it is "thou shalt not kill" - there is no room for manover on that one.

Along came Christ and he heightened every commandment. An eye for an eye (which was initially a limiting guideline, not a permissive one as many understand it) became turn the other cheek.

It's funny that you mentioned that - "turn the other cheek", very relevent.

Certainly there can be an argument made that Christ was a pacifist but that doesn't negate the strong moral argument in favour of war along the lines of the Just War guidelines. Most Christians would interpret going to war against NAZI Germany ....

Look. Everyone will agree that in extream times we may need to turn to war. That's not the argument. Christ taught us an ideal; a benchmark as it were. We are expected to aim for that, but not expected to achieve it. God/Christ is aware we commit sins, that we are flawed - thats why he died for us. He himself didn't use force to protect himself from certin death.

Certainly, Christ who emptied the temple cannot be framed as non-violent in any situation. As a result, I think that Christians are called to seek the higher power of non-violence like Martin Luther King but just like that great man, be willing to engage in violence when literally, we are at the end encounter.

That's not true. Christ may have gotten angry/mad, but he didn't inflict violence on anyone.

So, I think that if it came down to you defending your family or killing the invader in your home, the moral thing is to challenge the invader.

You should indeed protect the weak. You should strive NOT to kill.

If Zulu could back up why Christ wouldn't sanction killing, I would love to go all pacifist on this one.

Christ wouldn't sanction killing because he loves all his children equally, and forgives every crime.

Excelsior

Except for your last sentence, you haven't really addressed my points. The hebrew word is ratsach which has no direct equivalent but obviously isn't a blanket prohibition to kill since Acts 11 would show us that we are entitled to kill animals.

Ratsach has been translated as murder in most modern translations (post the 1611 KJV) and murder is defined as wrongful killing. There is killing that isn't murder. An example of a fruitful ongoing debate relating to what this killing might encompass is the euthanasia debate.

Just War, as you have accepted, is complementary to Christianity. Take the Just War principles and apply them to any situations that Iceman_2001_ie might imagine!

Christians are called by the behaviour of Christ in the Garden and by the Sermon on the Mount to use violence only in the most drastic situations and then to use violence proportionately seeking to maintain life where possible and to show mercy at every opportunity. Ghandi and MLK have shown us in the 20th Century how powerful a force peace can be.

But even peace has its limits and that is why genocide is instructive in this debate, even if you don't agree:

Pointing out genocide dosen't provide proof that the commandment "thou shalt not kill" means anything else.

In Sudan, at the moment, there is a genocide taking place. We are sitting on our hands while people are wiped off the face of the Earth. The just and Holy God will judge us for it. Christians should be putting themselves between the militias and the innocent parties and acting as the peacemakers God has called us to be. We are not. Peacemaking sometimes requires more than passive words or encouragement to the oppressed. It sometimes requires the active enforcement of peace by resisting the oppressor. Genocide is just the clearest example of where a Christian should be willing to take up arms to fight the oppressor. Dietrich Bonhoeffer can be our guide here.

What does iceman_2001_ie think?

I completely agree that Christ loves each of us equally and that as all life is God-created and God-loved, we should be extremely protective of it. Christ's forgiveness doesn't really add to this statement though, since He loves even those who haven't repented (the turning away is the entry into forgiveness). I still think there are times in the Fallen world where fighting has to take place and I think that the Hebrew Scriptures supports this explicitly and that Christ Himself admits that He has not come to replace the Scriptures but to fulfill them.

Gurgle

The bible contradicts itself on every single subject, and both sides of every contradiction are open to interpretation.

e.g. 'Thou shalt not kill' - clear, concise, to the point, unambiguous ?
Yet that line can be 'interpreted' as 'Thou shalst not murder', and thats before you even look at another word.

It also says, clearly and unambiguously, 'If you find a witch you shall burn her'(erm, chapter 12 page 378).

But then, whats a witch ?
Someone whos sold their soul to the devil in exchange for supernatural powers ?
Someone who prays to someone other than the 'one true god' ?
Someone who prays to dead people ?

Gurgle

Excelsior wrote:

Ratsach has been translated as murder in most modern translations (post the 1611 KJV)

So they understood the language better centuries later than when it was still being spoken ?

They weren't just re-interpreting to suit their political priorities ?

Excelsior

Gurgle, first of all, under the charter of this board, you'll have to support this:

The bible contradicts itself on every single subject

You also quote something crazy about burning witches, which makes me think you are having a laugh.

But I think I have explained why the ambiguous word ratsach has been translated as murder in my post.

There is space here for disagreement. This is not a primary theological issue. If someone reads the Bible and feels pacificism is the way forward shown to us by Jesus then s/he can happily live alongside the Christian who fears they will be forced into a position of having to fight. Quakers and Anabaptists and Mennonites (pacifist traditions) pray with, worship with and fellowship alongside Presbyterians and Catholics and Lutherans (non pacifist traditions). I think pacifism is the ideal and that there is no space for Christians to be the instigators of physical conflict (be they "pre-emptive strikes" or religious crusades) but there are sadly, lots of places in the world today where the Christian will still have to fight to maintain the best possible world.

neuro-praxis

The bible is a complete and coherent document. The command - Do not murder - is a direct translation from the original text. It's not anybody's personal interpretation. Both Puck and Excelsior have highlighted this.

Murder, as has been painfully explained before, is wrongful killing. And murder only applies to humans. This would imply that there are times when killing may be appropriate. The issue is discerning when those (rare) situations might be.

If it were simply the case that all killing were wrong, then why are there numerous examples in the bible of God's servants being ordered to kill both animals and people?

Maybe Zulu can answer that.

Gurgle

Excelsior wrote:

Gurgle, first of all, under the charter of this board, you'll have to support this:

Gurgle wrote:

The bible contradicts itself on every single subject

OK, I withdraw that statement, there may be some subjects on which the bible does not contradict itself.

Excelsior wrote:

You also quote something crazy about burning witches, which makes me think you are having a laugh.

Old testament somewhere, I'll look it up this evening & post a reference.

Excelsior wrote:

There is space here for disagreement.

AFAIR, the bible was put into writing within 50 years of Christ's death, and translated into every language over the next few hundred years.

It seems that 1500 years later the church scholars claimed they had made a better translation of the original texts than those made at a time when the language and dialect were still spoken.

Tobias Greeshman

[align=justify]I cant help find it somewhat strange that there are people here that would not kill a person in self-defense, if that person would most likely kill you and your loved ones. Are you saying that you would not try your best to immobolise this person, if you end up killing this person, then thats truly unfortunate but are you willing to sacrifice yourself and your loved ones for your beliefs? I know which one I'd choose![/align]

Excelsior

Gurgle wrote:

Old testament somewhere, I'll look it up this evening & post a reference.

You will probably find it is a reference to Monty Pyton's Quest for the Holy Grail. It isn't in scripture. I can see why one could mistke Python for God's word.

Gurgle wrote:

AFAIR, the bible was put into writing within 50 years of Christ's death, and translated into every language over the next few hundred years.

The Bible was written in 3 languages over the course of 1200 years spanning stories that in some cases had already a 3000 year old verbal tradition.

The first Pauline letters and the Synoptic Gospels were written within 50 years of Christ's resurrection but they were still, by today's standards, very rare documents. It was not until missionary activity heated up during the 1800s that Biblical translation really started happening. In 2002 alone, 68 languages received their first Biblical translation.

It seems that 1500 years later the church scholars claimed they had made a better translation of the original texts than those made at a time when the language and dialect were still spoken.

Biblical translations actually get better as the years go on and we find more ancient documents and fragments like the famous Dead Sea Scrolls found in Qumran in 1947. Here is an article about a recent find.

Hebrew is much healthier now, with a nation of speakers than it was in 1611 when the Jewish people were spread across Europe and the Middle East and assimiliating. Today, the process of translation draws on all the disciplines of study at our disposal, is much more democratic since there are a great deal more people involved in it and much more transparent since we are able to assess and question their motives and have access to the documents ourselves.

Gurgle, you are a little mislead on the topic of Biblical translation. No one will dispute that a modern translation like the NIV or NRSV is in a different universe in terms of authenticity to the KJV or the Latin Vulgate.