Inter-Faith Chapel, Now Disc: Made to Worship?

I agree with Lemminglord. I never see lethal force as a means to an end. I also have a huge problem with religious groups or leaders supporting or advocating lethal force. Recently Pat Robertson called for the assasination of the Venezuelan president. Granted, not all Christians would agree with his stance but, a man in his position of influence should be more careful of his words. How does calling for murder agree with Christian theology?

Also, in the context of religion there should NEVER be justicfication for ANY force, lethal or not. People can justify any position, whether or not that justification is socialy or moraly acceptable is a differnt story. Christianity has the commandment "thou shall not kill" Paganism has the wiccan rede, and look at Ghandi and his Hindu stance of non-confrontation.

However, there's the old..."what if you had the chance to stop someone from killing your family if you use force"...this is where things get interesting from a religious stance...now we must look at personal choice...you chose to act based on either conviction or faith...look at the monks that sat in the streets durring Vietnam and burnt to death rather than resorting to force. I personaly would do everything in my power to stop a situation in which my family could be harmed by someone. I'd start by trying to relate to the attackers, then use force only as a last resort. If I had to kill to protect I probably would, that to me is human nature. I would regret ending a life and would probably need psychiatirc help to deal with the reprocussions. My religion, paganism, frowns upon any actions that hurt others, but it also recognizes human nature and celebrates what is human...killing in an act of saving others is, in my opinion, honorable and just as a decent loving human. It does go against almost every religious doctrine, however Religion is a path to enlightenment and a tool. Humans are falable creatures and it is more important to stive torwards an ideal and make mistakes that you learn from...very few followers of any religion are strictly compliant to their religions ideals.

 

Your absolutly right I should have just let it go, but more often than not, I have observed that E_S has the uncanny ability to "step" into a conversation at the most "opportune" times. While it seems to be part of his duty as a moderator at times, his derogatory comments that are sometimes included do little to gain any respect for him.

As far as striving to be right or win the arguement? I didn't think I was. As stated in a prior post, I was perfectly content with the replies that occured immediatly after my initial post, E_S seemed to be beating a dead horse.

 

Alright...everybody hug and make up and on with the discussion....

 

It is my belief that "love your neighbor" doesn't forbid Christians from all acts of violence, but rather it may dictate when such acts are necessary.

One should love all one's neighbors. If a madman is an immediate threat to innocent lives in my community, my love for the madman should require me to seek non-violent means to stopping him, but my love for the community may compel me to use violence if no other options are before me.

What if the threat is to others' freedom rather than their lives? What if the man has committed pre-meditated murder and is safely behind bars; would love for the victim require that justice be served by executing the murderer?

Those are extremely tough questions that have haunted Christians for centuries. We know the command of love, we're just not certain how to apply that command in all circumstances.

 

Nowadays its never Gods will to end the life of a person. If the circumstanses become such that it happens, you would still be considered blood-guilty in Gods eyes. The question is whether or not Gods forgivness would overlook the act. I beleive Gods justice to be perfect and if forgiveness is warranted then he will grant it.

 

I believe it was reading a biography on Mahatma Ghandi that have shaped my beliefs on this.. That and the Buddhist philosophy I've read.

When I am feeling Christian, I definitely see the quakers and menonites as having the right idea. Nothing of this world is worth killing or dying for.

Its more that I believe it and then I hear religions speak of it.

 

BUT...the Commandment is thou shall not kill...not, thou shall not kill except in the following cases... My question is how can you remain true to faith while commiting acts against the commandments are they not the words of God?

I feel I answered this question for myself in my last post (conviction vs. faith, reprocussions) But...since Christianity is a dogmatic religion and the Commandments are the pillars of Christian theology (not to mention their influence on law) I'd like to see what some other people think about LETHAL FORCE & THE COMMANDMENTS.

Mekurian: in that case of no time, I would act and deal with the reprocussions of taking a life.

DarthOB1: Great point about Gods forgiveness...kind of falls into my dealing with the reprocussions and path torwards the regligous ideal.

 

From a Jewish perspective the commandments might be good to look at; clearly there are cases where killing is appropriate in that tradition as God has asked it. So I'd agree with the concept "Don't kill unless God says so." Of course as an Agnostic I'm going to be pretty skeptical of any voices that tell me to kill someone. How do you prove it is God? The bible itself says that Lucifer can assume the appearance of an angel of light... I say be skeptical if you think God might be telling you to do somethign that clearly runs contrary to the commandments you believe he has delivered. I'm not sure how one can verify the identity of the allmighty.

From a Christian perspective, the commandments are history. Love your God and love your neighbor is all that's important. Just my view of it. I know denominations may have other perceptions. There may very well be loving ways to kill; I'm not so sure we can agree on them though!

 

Good points Lemminglord...

Not to divege, it kind of goes along with the present discussion but, how bout this question:

Does ANY religion have the RIGHT to DEMAND force to push their beliefs

For example: the radical mis-use of islam in the Middle East by terrorists, the bombing of abortion clinics or Pat Robertsons' assasination decree.

 

From this Jewish perspective, the killing of people decreed by God was to exact his judicial judgements on such nations and individuals.
Killing was still frowned upon except for the above cases even in the event of an accidental death. In all cases you would be considered blood guilty if you killed someone.

Home owners had to build a parapet around the edge of flat-topped houses to protect persons from falling off. (Deut 22:8) A man had to provide safegaurds to prevent bulls from goring people (Ex 21:29). If a thief was killed while breaking in at night you would not be blood guilty, but if he was killed during the day you would be considered blood guilty.

So the standard remains the same today. Jesus words just nicely sum up and are all encompassing with regards to killng and also towards violent acts against neighnors.

Gods standards have not changed, he just does not expect us to execute his judicial judgements today like he did when the nation of Israel was representing him.He will certainly take care of it when his day comes!

 

What I hear you saying is that the standards haven't changed but he doesn't expect us to follow them anymore?

 

What if the man has committed pre-meditated murder and is safely behind bars; would love for the victim require that justice be served by executing the murderer?

I think this touches very fundamentally on the renaissance of the death penalty in the United States and what it means for Christians. Much of this death penalty boom find its popular support in an extremely problematic desire to appease the families of the victim.

In short, do we conclude the death penalty is right because it will help give grieving loved ones "closure," whatever that means?

I believe that the desire for retributive justice is fundamentally un Christian. Yes, if we love the families of victims we want them to feel better, to heal, but does executing criminals promote the healing of spiritual wounds? Does it create an emotionally healthy framework for processing grief? I don't think so. Psychologically and spiritually this is fairly clear cut. From a Christian perspective we injure a person's soul by offering them the murderer's head on a platter under the justification that it is "what they want". The moment cannot be reconciled with Jesus's teachings.

 

No. I'm not saying that at all.

His standards have not changed. He no longer asks his people to execute his judicial judgements. He is going to take care of that in the near future so we don't have to.

 

The way I think about it is this:

A murderer deserves death, according to the Old Testament. However, Jesus imposes himself between the murderer and the executioner and asks this question of the executioner (and by executioner I mean anyone advocating for the murderer's death): "how will taking this murderer's life affect you? What effect will it have on your soul and your relationship with God? Here's a hint: if you love your neighbor, then you feel implicated in this man's sin. You see it as not just his failing but in part yours as well. This does not diminish individual responsibility. It simply states a fact."

The radicalism of Jesus lies in his insistance that we look at the problem of justice in an entirely different light. It does not mean we promote the rights of the criminal at the expense of the victim. Instead it means that we cannot ignore the spiritual consequences of seeking justice for wrongs against us. Jesus turns his gaze directly on the person who has been wronged and says "beware your desire for revenge. Beware your need for retribution. Beware your insistence on being made whole for damages against you. Those things will not make you whole; they will wound your spirit. They will take you farther away from God."

 

There's a bit of overlap with this current discussion and a thread Jabba and I have kinda hijacked, so I'll just touch on the high points of my particular approach to the question of the use of force.

I agree that there's a difference between justice and vengeance. I believe God's promised to bring justice about at the end of history; still, it's at least possible that He has given the government the duty to handle some issues of justice (obvious things like a minimum of some penal consequence for homicide and perjury), and I also believe that individuals may be empowered to act in extraordinary circumstances.

The Sixth Commandment might be better interpreted as "do not murder," rather than a blanket condemnation of taking human life in all circumstances. After all, the Old Testament makes clear shortly after the Ten Commandments that the breaking this commandment is a capital offense.

Jabba wrote, "Much of this death penalty boom find its popular support in an extremely problematic desire to appease the families of the victim." That may well be true, but my position has less to do with appeasing the victim's family and more with the victim himself. If it is just, capital punishment is just even if the victim is a homeless "John Doe." One must be careful in devaluing the life of the victim.

I'm not sure that I agree with Jabba that love of one's neighbor entails feeling implicated in his sin. If the Bible is correct, God loves us, but I truly doubt that His love reflects or entails feelings of guilt on His part for our sin.

(In general, Jabba says a lot here that I'm not sure is based in Scripture, but that's getting off point.)

 

This is true. However God mandated that the execution of his punishment was required by his followers at that time for breaking such laws. He no longer expects us nor demands us to do so.

 

Indeed, I won't claim that the New Testament requires capital punishment; it is just that I remain unconvinced that it requires its abolition. I bring up the OT penalty just to make it clear that the original text did not forbid the taking of human life in all circumstances.

 

And with that I'll agree.

 

my position has less to do with appeasing the victim's family and more with the victim himself. If it is just, capital punishment is just even if the victim is a homeless "John Doe." One must be careful in devaluing the life of the victim.

I don't see how this in any way relates to the problem of retribution and Christianity. I would argue that capital punishment devalues the life of the victim.

(In general, Jabba says a lot here that I'm not sure is based in Scripture, but that's getting off point.) Clearly, if you thought it was based in scripture we would not be having this argument. I believe, on the contrary, that it arises out of a straightforward reading of Matthew.

 

Life Imprisonment devalues human life as well, does it not?

Perhaps we should just have fines for everything.

Oh? you killed someone? Fine, you owe the government $100,000!

Oh wait, then we are setting a dollar amount for life... that devalues life too..

Oh crap, what about life insurance??? That devalues human life as well..

Man... Tough questions... Tough questions.

 

Too bad we probably can't have a clear headed discussion about how Islam fits in to all this.

"The peaceful submission to the will of God."

It looks so good on paper.

 

Hi, I'm Iguess what would be defined as a secular Jew. I believe in the values of Judaism, but I'm not sure if God exists. My mom is Jewish, but my dad is Hindu.

As for capital punishment, I don't like the idea. It doesn't feel right to kill someone, even if they have killed others. They could always turn their life aroung and do good things. Imprisonment allows for that opportunity while still keeping people safe. If they're not going to change, though, they might rather die than be kept in jail for life.