When is it right to kill in christianity?

[Barbarian-Bob]

I've thought of something for a while, and I come here for answers!

I was watching Boondock Saints a while ago. It's about 2 catholic brothers who kill criminals, mafia and such to make a better world. And I was thinking, the Bible says that you shouldn't kill, but what if *drumroll* you save lives doing it?

Also, if we "assumed" that it was wrong to kill to save others, would it not be an act of good to do the killing yourself? I mean, if someone else killed criminals or whatever they would have the sin on their shoulders, but if YOU did it, knowing that you would get the sin instead of someone else, you would place that sin on your shoulders! You see where I'm going with this?

In addition, David killed many to defend Israel. Does that mean that killing is allowed if you defend your country?

[Zenith Darksea]

This is a complex issue. Thomas Aquinas has much to say on it, but I think that I can give a brief reply here.

Killing is generally very much frowned upon. Now, should you see someone about to be killed (or yourself, indeed) then proportionate force is required to protect them (or yourself). If killing is quite literally the only way to save a person, then it could just about be considered acceptable. Otherwise, it's a big no-no.

Now, what if we're in the situation of those two Catholic brothers? Well of course what they are doing is wrong and sinful. To kill someone on the assumption that someone will die as a result of him remaining alive is not permissible and quite a different situation altogether from the basic one outlined above. In the one outlined above, you know what's going to happen and you know that you have no alternative - it is an immediate and obvious threat. However, in this instance, you are merely assuming (and it doesn't matter how well-founded your assumption is) that the person will go on to commit further sins themselves. Now the essence of Christianity is mercy and forgiveness - in other words the fundamental belief that no matter how great a sinner someone is, they can still change and make amends. To kill someone on the assumption that they will do wrong denies this fundamental belief and is therefore quite un-Christian.

Now, as for David, this is another interesting situation. While Christianity is fundamentally pacifistic in nature, many early Christians were soldiers and soldiers have always been accepted by Christianity. War is allowed if your own country is attacked, and it is the responsibility of the leader of the Oikoumene (or in this particular case the King of Israel) to defend his people if they are attacked. Having said that, war should only be used in self-defence when you have already been attacked and the threat is immediate, obvious, and unavoidable. A war such as the Iraq War however is again deeply un-Christian and should not be pursued, especially considering the amount of destruction that it has indirectly brought about. Ultimately the ideal aim of course is to have all men living together in pacifism and harmony, but we'll have to wait for that.

[Barbarian-Bob]

YES! This was exactly the kind of answer I was looking for. Good post.

Just one more thing. I know you stated very clearly that killing was "not allowed" when you MIGHT save lives. But what if I made the lives of thousands of people better by doing it? Suppose (just for the sake of it) I "removed" Kim Jong Ill, or some dictator somewhere in a Banana republic or a warlord in Africa, and I KNEW (lets assume I knew) that people's lives would be better, would it be accepted?

I know it may seem a strange question, especially after you gave such a good answer, but I thought it would be interesting to know if circumstances could change the attitude of how killing is looked upon.

[Zenith Darksea]

No, it's a very interesting question. My answer would be that you shouldn't do it, for practical reasons as well as moral. We have numerous examples of places where rulers have been 'removed' and utter chaos has reigned as a result (the most famous example of course being Iraq). I'd say that you can never really know whether or not an assassination will have good results.

Now let's look at the moral implications. We'll assume that you can know what the result will be, and people's lives will be improved. Even so, I'd say that it was still wrong, as you are still killing a person without immediate or obvious threat (ie. it's not defensive). Furthermore, the bigger picture must be remembered - God will punish this cruel ruler for his wrongdoings and ultimately will reward the people who have had to suffer under him. If it was vital to people's spiritual well-being that the ruler be removed, then it would be best left to God to do. When men start interfering outside their own jurisdiction on that level, it becomes quite arrogant.

But of course it's a difficult issue, and I may have more to add.

[Barbarian-Bob]

Hmm... you're right. I guess you don't really KNOW if lives will be better. Could be that just another (and even worse) dictator replaces him. And it's probably not up to Man to decide the fates of all those people.

Hmm... I wish I had more to say, but I guess everything's been answered. :laughing:

Thanks again.

And oh, if anyone wants to discuss the matter, I guess this would be the place to do it.

[wilting]

Originally I believe the commandment was "Thou shalt not murder" as oppossed to kill, so I think that can be applied generally to the abrahamic religions. Culturally etc that is the general standard is it not?

[Dromikaites]

Deciding if it's OK or not to kill some "bad guy" who is not threatening anybody with an imminent action depends also on what is the view on Predestination of each of the Christian Churches.

Strictly speaking, killing a person is forbidden, with some notable exceptions like killing in self-defense and for saving others from being killed. Some churches also accept suicide if by this act one saves others (like if a member of the Resistence commits suicide when captured by the Gestapo).

And then Predestination comes into play. According to some Christian churches God decides in advance who would go to Heaven and who to Hell. In this case if God decided in advance you would go to Heaven you could kill whoever you want. Even though killing is a sin, according to those churches it is very likely that before you die you would have the time to repent and God would forgive you. In other words, even though right after the killing you don't feel like repenting, you would do it eventually, before dieing, because God has already decided you would go to Heaven. However you cannot bank on that because you might be among those who were predestined for Hell. Therefore while you don't know what God has planned for you, if you are able to avoid the temptation to sin that might be an indication God predestined you for Heaven. Of course there is allways the risk that you would sin only once but big time and then die without the possibility to repent, in which case you would burn in Hell. However every time you avoid the temptation to sin you are supposed to feel better about your future. The main important point is that the Christian churches that accept Predestination do not give you a licence to kill: you do it at your own risk.

Some other Christian churches think that you have the possibility to decide for yourself if you want to be saved (=go to Heaven) or not. In such case you cannot "count" on God that He'll give you the opportunity to repent before you die. Therefore the safest approach is to refrain yourself from sinning and implicitely from killing unless you really have to.

I hope that helps.

[The Lacedaemonian]

wait just because King David killed, doesnt mean he was bad. look many General Christains killed people. Lionheart, Joan De Arc etc.

[Barbarian-Bob]

wait just because King David killed, doesnt mean he was bad. look many General Christains killed people. Lionheart, Joan De Arc etc.

Yeah, but we don't know how things went with them, you know? Did they go up a floor or did they go down? :devil:

[shenmueguru]

The bible condemns murder - not killing. This then does not condemn accidental killing without content. Killing with intent, murder, is the sin. As for killing in war, I'm not 100%. C. S. Lewis spoke on the issue and said that this is not murder, and I partially agree. However, I do think that you choose to point your gun and fire willingly at the enemy, but I don't see this as complete murder.

[Vanquisher]

Yeah, but we don't know how things went with them, you know? Did they go up a floor or did they go down?

I'm not a christian, but I beleive the bilble never meantions a "hell" existing, in fact the only thing that happens to you if you are bad is you won't make it past Judgement day into the "new" world. Or something like that. Sorry for divirting the subject, just wanted to point that out.

[KALI]

It shouldn't have anything to do with religion. Essentially its question of ethics. Using christianity as your reason for killing at best allows you to transfer the guilt to your god ...and thus avoid the real question, when is right to kill.
As Zenith eloquently posted, its never right to kill...thats why most civilized countries have abolished the death sentence.
The problem with films that glorify killing is precisely what we have here. They make us question our ethics and actions and even cause some of us to act upon our new found wisdom...
Murderous intent in the name of a god cannot be tempered by reason or the rational, it is one of the most odious of homicidal tendencies.
As some of us do not respond to rational thinking and if they threaten ourlives to such a degree, that are only option for escape is to use force ...then regardless of right or wrong we must risk killing.
:hmmm:

[I Have a Clever Name]

To kill someone on the assumption that someone will die as a result of him remaining alive is not permissible and quite a different situation altogether from the basic one outlined above. In the one outlined above, you know what's going to happen and you know that you have no alternative - it is an immediate and obvious threat.

But surely killing somebody before they kill others always relies on an assumption. You don't know if that serial killer approaching the child will drop the knife at the last second having discovered God, had his sanity restored or his conscience catch up with him. Knowledge must be definite and absolute by definition. Now, taking into consideration the fact that the man has killed before and by reading his emotions (or lack of) you must act based on the circumstances. But can you ever know? Certainly not, and this is why in theory such ethical conduct is flawless but in practice is utterly untenable.

You can only ever know when it is too late, after all. Views?

[Barbarian-Bob]

But surely killing somebody before they kill others always relies on an assumption. You don't know if that serial killer approaching the child will drop the knife at the last second having discovered God, had his sanity restored or his conscience catch up with him. Knowledge must be definite and absolute by definition. Now, taking into consideration the fact that the man has killed before and by reading his emotions (or lack of) you must act based on the circumstances. But can you ever know? Certainly not, and this is why in theory such ethical conduct is flawless but in practice is utterly untenable.

You can only ever know when it is too late, after all. Views?

Hmm... I think that's a pretty good point actually. How do you know if some dangerous mugger with a gun or whatever will take your wallet, shoot you and run, instead of just taking your wallet and run?

I guess it comes down to the individual person's judgement at the time. If you genuinly thought someone was gonna kill you, even if they weren't, and you kill that person, I'm sure it could be forgiven, because you perceived the situation as dangerous, and acted accordingly. What more can you ask from a person?

[KALI]

If you genuinely thought someone was gonna kill you, even if they weren't, and you kill that person, I'm sure it could be forgiven, because you perceived the situation as dangerous, and acted accordingly.

Actually no you'd go to prison... In the UK anyway.
But the guy with the knife to the little girls throat...well shooting him also endangers her life. And if he's not quite got to her yet then police shoot to incapacitate.

[Zenith Darksea]

I see what you mean, but at the same time it also matters what the person doing the 'defending' believes the situation to be - if there is sufficient evidence to show that intervention is necessary and the only course of action, the person can be forgiven if the wrongdoer were about to suddenly drop the knife. In that situation there is good reason to believe definitively that action is necessary, whereas in the other situation (where you kill on the off-chance that it will save someone) there is not good reason.

[I Have a Clever Name]

I see what you mean, but at the same time it also matters what the person doing the 'defending' believes the situation to be - if there is sufficient evidence to show that intervention is necessary and the only course of action, the person can be forgiven if the wrongdoer were about to suddenly drop the knife. In that situation there is good reason to believe definitively that action is necessary, whereas in the other situation (where you kill on the off-chance that it will save someone) there is not good reason.

I guess it comes down to the individual person's judgement at the time. If you genuinly thought someone was gonna kill you, even if they weren't, and you kill that person, I'm sure it could be forgiven, because you perceived the situation as dangerous, and acted accordingly. What more can you ask from a person?

Of course, but this is all reliant on an assumption. You cannot make a distinction between killing to save under an assumption and killing to save under absolute knowledge because in practicality you can never truly know.

Frightening as it may sound it must be reliant on the individual and whether they believe their is adequate evidence upon which to intervene. Of course, a lunatic might well come to the conclusion that by killing a woman he sees every day behind a shop counter he would be saving the world from apocalypse. That would be his gut instinct.

[I Have a Clever Name]

But the guy with the knife to the little girls throat...well shooting him also endangers her life. And if he's not quite got to her yet then police shoot to incapacitiate.

I know, but this is a scenario in which we're assuming that in order to save the girl's life we must kill the man or at least entertain a high chance of that occuring.

Actually no you'd go to prison... In the UK anyway.

But God wouldn't throw you into hell. It seems very peculiar from without, but to a Christian this is the fundamental consideration.

[KALI]

or at least entertain a high chance of that occuring.
.

I'll go for the high chance rather than the alternative,
we've got to try not to condone killing on any level and as for God...I'm afriad he might send you into purgatory.

[Dromikaites]

Don't lose the big picture: God would judge one's acts. Since God is omniscient He is supposed to know if one genuinely believed killing was the only option left (therefore God would be able to decide if the act was done with ill intent or not).