Can a Christian kill?

[kenod]

But does that mean a "Healthy minded" person claiming to be Christian can take a life? Yes.
v/r
Q

I agree. Mostly the examples you gave were ones where a person is directly protecting the life of another. Do you feel the same when we justify the death of "innocent bystanders" in the cause of killing the perpetrators of death.

For me, I think this question has something to do with seeing so much of the Israel-Lebanon war on tv. We know our own countries have done much the same in Iraq, and all wars have "collateral damage". The classic example, of course, is the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan. Acceptable?

With Iran & N Korea hell bent on acquiring nuclear capability, how long before we are prepared to again kill civilians to stop this "threat to the world"?

If you see someone in a critical condition, and you fail to give aid, or call aid, and the person dies, did you kill him? Does that relate to the 6 million kids dying of hunger and malnutrition every year?


.

 

[Quahom1]

I agree. Mostly the examples you gave were ones where a person is directly protecting the life of another. Do you feel the same when we justify the death of "innocent bystanders" in the cause of killing the perpetrators of death.

For me, I think this question has something to do with seeing so much of the Israel-Lebanon war on tv. We know our own countries have done much the same in Iraq, and all wars have "collateral damage". The classic example, of course, is the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan. Acceptable?

With Iran & N Korea hell bent on acquiring nuclear capability, how long before we are prepared to again kill civilians to stop this "threat to the world"?

If you see someone in a critical condition, and you fail to give aid, or call aid, and the person dies, did you kill him? Does that relate to the 6 million kids dying of hunger and malnutrition every year?


.

You have to differentiate here what you are blending. Death by indifference, or death by deliberation, or death as a consequence of proximity. You can't put them all in the same pot, because they aren't the same (though the results may be).

Now if one wishes to look at each on its own "merit" fine. But to group them all together, is not.

v/r

Q

 

[kenod]

You have to differentiate here what you are blending. Death by indifference, or death by deliberation, or death as a consequence of proximity. You can't put them all in the same pot, because they aren't the same (though the results may be).

Now if one wishes to look at each on its own "merit" fine. But to group them all together, is not.
v/r
Q

I suppose what I am trying to do is to explore their commonalities, and in the process, intimating that perhaps they really are the same, and we just separate them to ease our conscience. They share more than just an end result. Indifference (among the aware) is a deliberate choice; "proximity casualties" is also a deliberate choice.

.

 

[Quahom1]

I suppose what I am trying to do is to explore their commonalities, and in the process, intimating that they really are the same, and we just separate them to ease our conscience. They share more than just an end result. Indifference (among the aware) is a deliberate choice; "proximity casualties" is also a deliberate choice.

.

Then one must consider the opposite but equally as true, to sit by and do nothing while people die is also a deliberate choice, causing proximity casualties.

People have been guitly of this form of allowing "death" than most other forms over the years...and Christians do not make up a majority of the former...(though just as guilty).

v/r

Q

 

[kenod]

Then one must consider the opposite but equally as true, to sit by and do nothing while people die is also a deliberate choice, causing proximity casualties.

Rather than "opposite", I see that as a corollary.

People have been guilty of this form of allowing "death" than most other forms over the years...and Christians do not make up a majority of the former...(though just as guilty).

"... just as guilty"? Aren't Christians the ones with the mandate to love our neighbour?

.

 

[BlaznFattyz]

not to the hitman, It's nothing personal...just a job. The Sociopath does not regard life as precious. There is no malice in these people (doesn't mean there is nothing wrong with their thinking). They just don't care. To be truly Christian, hell to be human, means one must care for the life of others, before self.

But does that mean a "Healthy minded" person claiming to be Crhistian can take a life? Yes.

v/r

Q

yup

 

[Quahom1]

Rather than "opposite", I see that as a corollary.




"... just as guilty"? Aren't Christians the ones with the mandate to love our neighbour?

.

Agreed, but Christians aren't born that way. Christians are human first, then choose to become Christians. That doesn't mean that the baggage of the past isn't still there, just that they have chosen a path to follow in life. Chosen is the easy part, living it isn't always so. Life and death and threats and obstacles often get in the way.

Christians are not perfect, just a work in progress. Jesus never said, "if one offers you a bullet in the heart, ask for one in the head as well." Common sense says to defend the weak, protect self and others, preserve one's nation and way of life.

But in the other extreme, no, a Christian can't commit pre-meditated murder, or is not excused from a crime of passion, nor death by negligence, nor can they in almost every case, be allowed to kill in mercy. Christians who adhere to the Biblical definition of life, can not abort an unborn child for convenience sake.

v/r

Q

 

[kenod]

But in the other extreme, no, a Christian can't commit pre-meditated murder, or is not excused from a crime of passion, nor death by negligence, nor can they in almost every case, be allowed to kill in mercy. Christians who adhere to the Biblical definition of life, can not abort an unborn child for convenience sake.
v/r
Q

Do you think Christians have the right (responsibilty?) to try to impose these standards on society in general, through legislative means? I am referring specifically to euthanasia, abortion and therapeutic cloning.

 

[Quahom1]

Do you think Christians have the right (responsibilty?) to try to impose these standards on society in general, through legislative means? I am referring specifically to euthanasia, abortion and therapeutic cloning.

What I believe Kenod, is that a Human being of good conscious and faith in God, must stand up and speak their mind, regardless of what the others may say, or what others may threaten.

Can a Christian kill? of course. Should the Christian kill? not if it can be overted by any other means. When do we decide? that is a question left up to the individual, not the state, nor the "majority". Is there a price to be paid? always...

even losing a life while trying to save it has a heavy price to pay...believe me.

v/r

Q

 

[kenod]

What I believe Kenod, is that a Human being of good conscious and faith in God, must stand up and speak their mind, regardless of what the others may say, or what others may threaten.

certainly agree with that

Can a Christian kill? of course. Should the Christian kill? not if it can be overted by any other means. When do we decide? that is a question left up to the individual, not the state, nor the "majority". Is there a price to be paid? always...

When we say these are questions that should be left up to the individual, not the state, we have to consider that state money is nearly always involved in these procedures, eg President Bush vetoed the use of federal funds to support embryonic stem cell research.

The question I am pondering is whether, as Christians, we should support, and actively encourage, government policy that imposes restrictions on certain behaviour?

The moral dimension also needs to be considered ... eg, should the option of having a cloned child be available to those who want it? I have heard it argued from medical grounds, that a cloned embryo would be more likey to be brought to full term by mothers who are unable to carry a baby conceived through IVF.

Likewise, should euthanasia be a legally condoned option, financed by medical institutions dependent on government resources?

 

[Quahom1]

certainly agree with that



When we say these are questions that should be left up to the individual, not the state, we have to consider that state money is nearly always involved in these procedures, eg President Bush vetoed the use of federal funds to support embryonic stem cell research.

The question I am pondering is whether, as Christians, we should support, and actively encourage, government policy that imposes restrictions on certain behaviour?

The moral dimension also needs to be considered ... eg, should the option of having a cloned child be available to those who want it? I have heard it argued from medical grounds, that a cloned embryo would be more likey to be brought to full term by mothers who are unable to carry a baby conceived through IVF.

Likewise, should euthanasia be a legally condoned option, financed by medical institutions dependent on government resources?

I'm sorry. this isn't a political thread. That would be the Politics and Society forum down the hall and on your left...

v/r

Q

 

[Dor]

Aren't you positive there are observant, tithing, respected in thier community Christians included in that grouping? Do we really think today is different than yesterday?

Saying the word Christian and going through the rituals does not make it so.

 

[kenod]

I'm sorry. this isn't a political thread. That would be the Politics and Society forum down the hall and on your left...
v/r
Q

I'm not able to divorce my Christian experience from real life issues.

 

[Quahom1]

I'm not able to divorce my Christian experience from real life issues.

Ok. Since you brought it up. Stem cells. Mr. Bush for example did not, and never has vetoed stem cell research that did not use embryonic stem cells. He is all for adult stem cell research. What Mr. Bush vetoed was the funding for use of stem cell research using stem cells from aborted fetuses. He also never had a problem with embryonic stem cells that come from the umbilical cord discarded after birth. And, he did not make a law to forbid embryonic stem cell research, he simply said the Government won't fund research that draws it's material from aborted babies. And I don't blame him.

As far as encouraging government policy that imposes restrictions on certain behavior...why, yes! Since the government in question is run by the people of the nation, the government is enforcing the will of the nation. So instead of blaming the government, you have to look to the people, and convince them otherwise.

Personally, in a perfect world, I can see no problem with a cloned child (as long as the procedure to create one is "PERFECT". The resultant child would simply be a twin to another human being, but at a different stage of growth. And the soul within the child would still be unique, the personality and character would also be unique...the body would simply contain an identical blueprint to the doner of the cell that was cloned into a human being. (nature clones life all the time). The other issue here however, is what happens if the clone is not perfect, or what happens if the cloning is used for body parts sans regard for the life that was brought into this world? Hey if I can think of such a gruesom thought, chances are others have as well.

Euthanasia, well you bring us right back to the original question. Can a Christian kill? If we walk down that slippery slope as far as who should live because they are considered productive to society (material wise), and who should die because they are taking up too many resources and not providing tangible support to society, then what you are asking for is legalized murder, or assisted suicide, mercy killing. But there will come a time when those to be euthanised, do not wish to be, but the law states that they must...

Again, this is nothing new. It was already done in history. I personally do not want my tax dollars to go to the "art" of inducing death to one who may or may not wish it.

v/r

Q

 

[kenod]

Hey, steady on Q, this is not a political thread you know ... besides, I'm on your side

 

[Postmaster]

Wow what a thread can't believe I missed it.

Take the example of Agios (Saint) Raphael and Agios (Saint) Nicolas 2 Greek orthodox Priests in the mid 1400s practising on the Island of Lesvos. Before Raphael’s death he wrote stuff, much of it about how to be a good Christian and following the Christian path. Both these priests were granted saint hood because they started to appear in dreams of to all the people in a village in Lesvos in the 1950s. Yes very mystical and unexplainable! People began to talk as the saints including a 12 year old girl Agia Irene would visit them in the dreams explaining of how they died. It became apparent that in the 1400s the Ottomans invaded the Island of Lesvos and on there rampage made it to the church the 2 priests were preaching and the girl Agia Irene was worshiping with her parents. And they asked the 2 priests to give up there priest hood and join the ottoman army. They refused and were taken into separate rooms to be tortured until they gave in, remarkably they didn't and died a horrific death. And at the same time saint Irene was forced to join the Ottomans but refused to and was burnt to death with great difficulty in a giant clay vase in front of her parents. A journalist and sceptic at the time decided to investigate and using peoples dreams he went to the so called location of where this was suppose to have happened and discovered relics including the writings of saint Raphael, bones of tortured people, clay vase with bones in etc. Of which an amazing smell of flowers came from the bones and unexplainably too heavy for him to pick up. He went temporarily blind and went into communication with the saint who told him he had no faith in the dreams and the people, till eventually he did and came around. Since then a church was built in there honour and they are probably the most healing saints in the whole of the Orthodoxy faith, there are many many reported stories of them and people all over the Greek world and healing of illness.

http://www.serfes.org/writtings/straphael.htm

I'd also like to ask what do people think of Joan of Arc the patron saint of France? Who killed the British and was regarded a terrorist?

 

[kenod]

I'd also like to ask what do people think of Joan of Arc the patron saint of France? Who killed the British and was regarded a terrorist?

My early 15th century history is a bit shaky, but I think Joan was defending France against an unjustified occupation by England. Although I do not recognize the Catholic concept of saints (the church burnt her and then the church canonized her ... go figure) I regard Joan as a prophetess, acting under direction from God. In my opinion, she was the rallying figure for a just war.

BTW, in case anyone is wondering, Leelee Sobieski was the best Joan ever!

 

[Postmaster]

I'd say she was a prophetess I mean she was prophesied to arrive to save the French, old scriptures wrote of a young virgin girl to save the people of France.. Don't you think it would have been tragic if France was British till today? One of the greatest cultural countries in the world.. Never would have happened under British rule.

 

[Dor]

BTW, in case anyone is wondering, Leelee Sobieski was the best Joan ever!

Actually I prefer Milla Jovovich.

 

[kenod]

Don't you think it would have been tragic if France was British till today? One of the greatest cultural countries in the world.. Never would have happened under British rule.

I'm pretty sure Joan would not have approved of much of modern French culture ... or British ... or American ... or even Australian!

Our me-centred society would conflict sharply with her God-focused piety, I'm afraid.