Is killing ever 'justified'?

[Spiritus Naturae]

I'd pose this query to those of the "Pacifist" persuasion, of course, but anyone can join in if they feel so inclined.

Hypothetical: I hate hypotheticals by the way, but here goes. Would I as a father, ever be justified Biblically if I had to kill in order to defend my family? More specifically my wife and/or child?

This may very well have been asked before but I can't recall.

[Hitch]

I'd pose this query to those of the "Pacifist" persuasion, of course, but anyone can join in if they feel so inclined.

Hypothetical: I hate hypotheticals by the way, but here goes. Would I as a father, ever be justified Biblically if I had to kill in order to defend my family? More specifically my wife and/or child?

This may very well have been asked before but I can't recall.As a father you are obliged to take whatever means are neccessary.

[johnmartin]

I'd pose this query to those of the "Pacifist" persuasion, of course, but anyone can join in if they feel so inclined.

Hypothetical: I hate hypotheticals by the way, but here goes. Would I as a father, ever be justified Biblically if I had to kill in order to defend my family? More specifically my wife and/or child?

This may very well have been asked before but I can't recall.
Killing is justified according to the principle of the double effect. However killing is the result of another end intended.
Principle of double effect – It is licit to do an act whereby is posited a cause which produces two effects, the one good but the other bad, provided the following four conditions are together fulfilled.


That the good effect follow from the cause not less immediately than the bad effect. (Accordingly not by the medium of the bad effect).
And that there be a proportionately grave reason for doing this act or positing this cause. That is, that the good effect be proportionate to the bad effect or compensate for it.
And that the act (whereby the cause is posited) be in itself licit.
And that the good effect alone be intended. (Accordingly, the bad effect alone tolerated.
In the case of war the end is to break the will of the opposition to attain peace. This may and often does require actions that result in killing.
JM

[Ryokan]

My position is that both actions, defending and not defending, are a sin. That is, they drive a wedge between us and God. Original sin, ya know.

[Little Shepherd]

My position is that both actions, defending and not defending, are a sin. That is, they drive a wedge between us and God. Original sin, ya know.
Oh, poppycock! Does the Bible not tell us that God will always provide a way out when we are faced with the choice to sin? If those are your only two options, then one is obviously not a sin. If they are both sinful, then God will provide another sinless option. We never have to sin, and we are never faced with multiple options, all of which are sin. It just doesn't happen.

[Ryokan]

Oh, poppycock! Does the Bible not tell us that God will always provide a way out when we are faced with the choice to sin? If those are your only two options, then one is obviously not a sin. If they are both sinful, then God will provide another sinless option. We never have to sin, and we are never faced with multiple options, all of which are sin. It just doesn't happen.
Really? You think so?

[Little Shepherd]

Really? You think so?
Very much so. Sure, there are times when you may be under duress, and there are times when the sinless action won't lead to a desirable outcome, but the Bible assures us that we will always have a way out when faced with the choice to sin. I don't doubt that promise one bit.

[spitndirt]

I'd pose this query to those of the "Pacifist" persuasion, of course, but anyone can join in if they feel so inclined.

Hypothetical: I hate hypotheticals by the way, but here goes. Would I as a father, ever be justified Biblically if I had to kill in order to defend my family? More specifically my wife and/or child?

This may very well have been asked before but I can't recall.
Yep! Love ALWAYS protects...so 'killing' to protect the innocent is sometimes even 'faithful' I would argue. Of course it would have to be an 'only' option type of thing. Funny you should bring this up since last summer I was put in just such a situation. I had purposed in my heart and mind that 'killing' was the absolute ONLY option I had considering the situation. Luckily, however, another 'way' manifested itself and I was spared actually having to do what I had purposed to do.

Peace

[Berean Todd]

Oh, poppycock! Does the Bible not tell us that God will always provide a way out when we are faced with the choice to sin? If those are your only two options, then one is obviously not a sin. If they are both sinful, then God will provide another sinless option. We never have to sin, and we are never faced with multiple options, all of which are sin. It just doesn't happen.

Wrong, because your only option would not be to kill. You could take out the man's kneecap, disarm him and then tend to him while the authorities arrive. You could sacrifice yourself long enough that your family could escape. You could do many things other than just either kill or be killed.

No, in my opinion, killing by an individual is never correct, although I somewhat still support the death penalty, which is performed by the state for the keeping of the peace. I also recognize the need for war at times by states to maintain peace in a fallen world, but as a follower of Christ I could not ever partake in said war.

[Hitch]

Wrong, because your only option would not be to kill. You could take out the man's kneecap, disarm him and then tend to him while the authorities arrive. You could sacrifice yourself long enough that your family could escape. You could do many things other than just either kill or be killed.

No, in my opinion, killing by an individual is never correct, although I somewhat still support the death penalty, which is performed by the state for the keeping of the peace. I also recognize the need for war at times by states to maintain peace in a fallen world, but as a follower of Christ I could not ever partake in said war.This reminds me of the Quakers. They would loudly preach pacifism but never heistate to call the police. All the messy business is beneath the believer, so he should hire the work done.Some how this keeps the believers hands clean.

LOL

H

[zanetaylor]

I don't know of a Scripture verse that speaks specifically to the question of the rightness of killing in self-defence, etc. The Bible does show various instances of killing and murder. ie Cain killed Able.. that was murder. Biblical armies killed enemies.. that was not condemned as murder by God, and in fact, was ordered by God at times.

The commandment "thou shalt not kill," means wanton murder. Killing a human for either self-preservation or to save the lives of others in imminent danger, cannot be considered "murder" in that sense, do you think?

[stabalizer]

I'd pose this query to those of the "Pacifist" persuasion, of course, but anyone can join in if they feel so inclined.

Hypothetical: I hate hypotheticals by the way, but here goes. Would I as a father, ever be justified Biblically if I had to kill in order to defend my family? More specifically my wife and/or child?

This may very well have been asked before but I can't recall.

The key word is defend. Maybe it should be deliver.

What do you think is coming considering ; "the Lord of Sabaoth" and this comment; Vengeance is mine saith the Lord, I will repay.

God's definition of life isn't necessarily mortality.

More important is a prayer to never be in that position ever.

imo the answer is ; absolutely.

[wiseman]

Wrong, because your only option would not be to kill. You could take out the man's kneecap, disarm him and then tend to him while the authorities arrive. You could sacrifice yourself long enough that your family could escape. You could do many things other than just either kill or be killed.

No, in my opinion, killing by an individual is never correct, although I somewhat still support the death penalty, which is performed by the state for the keeping of the peace. I also recognize the need for war at times by states to maintain peace in a fallen world, but as a follower of Christ I could not ever partake in said war.

If someone is trying to kill you or your loved ones, then animal instinct will come in and you will lash out with everything you have. I don't think you will be thinking about his kneecap. You will be trying to hurt them as much as you possibly can until the threat is passed. Whether killing is right or wrong would not even enter your thoughts.

Another hypothetical: if you were forced to become a gladiator in ancient rome, would you take the life of another man if it was a fight to the death?

Please people, follow the forum rules. This area is a Christian area.

[dizzle]

Wiseman - this is a Christian only area. You might be able to get permission - write one of the moderators.

[slaveofone]

I'd pose this query to those of the "Pacifist" persuasion, of course, but anyone can join in if they feel so inclined.

Hypothetical: I hate hypotheticals by the way, but here goes. Would I as a father, ever be justified Biblically if I had to kill in order to defend my family? More specifically my wife and/or child?

This may very well have been asked before but I can't recall.

I would say if you're pigeonedholed into having to kill someone to defend your family, you've not done an adequate job of either defense, fleeing, or sacrifice. I would say that as a father, you do everything possible to disable your opponent apart from killing him/her, or defend yourself apart from killing him/her, or do everything to escape and take yourself out of harm's way. Incapacitation, disabling, even cripling is not out of bounds, but the moment you take their life to protect your own (or your family's) is the moment you have done more harm than good. As believers, it is better that you give your lives in exchange for the other's than take the other's and forcibly remove all hope and chance of their salvation. You may be sacrificing the life of your family, but your soul is preserved. In their situation, however, you would be keeping your limited material life in exchange for their eternal soul. As the head of your family, it is your responsibily to lead the family in righteousness and thus your responsibility to give their life as a ransom for others if it comes down to it--but also your responsibility to maintain their life so that it will never come down to that.

[NonTrinitarian]

As a father you are obliged to take whatever means are neccessary.

When one looks at history and sees the thousands of Christians slaughterted by the Romans, what is strangley missing is the account where the Christians took up swords to defend themselves.

Actually, that's not true. There is one account where a Christian did take a sword to try to defend someone he loved. But he was told to put his sword away.

[ChrisChillin]

Piggybacking off NT's biblical reference, here's a neat quote..

"The Lord in disarming Peter henceforth disarms every soldier." - Tertullian

[joel]

Wrong, because your only option would not be to kill. You could take out the man's kneecap, disarm him and then tend to him while the authorities arrive. You could sacrifice yourself long enough that your family could escape. You could do many things other than just either kill or be killed.
That's not always true. A man in a rage or on drugs can keep charging at you even when greatly injured.
From what I have heard, military/police/self-defence training says that if an attacker is coming at you to kill you, then you fire two rounds in rapid succession (double-tap) into their chest. At this point, the attacker may still be charging at you--even if their heart explodes, they still can attack you for several seconds--in which case a single shot to the head will take them down.
Now all of that is grotesque, and God forbid that anyone should have to be in such a situation. But my point is that there really are kill-or-be-killed situations. You can sacrifice yourself, but then you will cease to be around to be of further help to your family should they not have enough time (or route) to escape.

You may be sacrificing the life of your family...As the head of your family, it is your responsibily to...give their life as a ransom for others if it comes down to it
Now that is an interesting argument. But does a father really have the right (let alone the obligation) to sacrifice the lives of his family? Would you still say so even if the father's own life is not in any danger? Does it make a difference whether each of his family members is saved? (Then he would be trading the killer's soul for one or more unsaved souls in his own family). What about for people other than fathers?

[axwired]

Please take time read all this message.
The New Testament never "repay toanyone evil for evil "Rom 12:17 ,211Thess,5:15 1 Peter 3:9.The whole point of Christ teaching is to tell disciples that their attitude toward "Enemies" should be Radically Different.Iff you do good to those who do good to you Christ added what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same LK.6:33. Everybody instinctively hate those who hate them and believes they are justfied killing people who might kill them or their loved ones. Christ is saying Be Radically Different. This is why Christ and Paul didn't qualify the "Enemies" or "Evildores" He taught us to love and not violently oppose. Christ didn't say Love enemies until thy threaten you, until it seems justified to resort to violence, or until it seems impractical to do so.Enemies are enemies precisely because they threaten us on some level, and it always seems justifield and practically expedient to resist them, if not harm them when necessary.Christ simply said "Love you Enemies" and Don't resist evildoers" Note that some of the people He was speaking to would before long confront "Enemies" who would feed them and their families to the liones for amusement.
The teaching could not be more Radical, and as child of His kingdome we have to take it seriously. At the same time, what do we do with the fact that most of us know we would not take it seriously, let alone oby it, in extreme situation such as our family coming under attack?
What we must never do, however, is acquiesce to our worldly condition by rationalizing away Christ clear kingdome prescription. We must rather strive every monent of our life to cultivate the kind of mind and heart that increasingly sees the rightness and beauthy of Christ teachings and thus would naturally respond to an extreme, threatening situation in a loveing, nonviolent manner.

Peace in Christ
Axwired

[joel]

...believes they are justfied killing people who might kill them or their loved ones. ...He taught us to love and not violently oppose.
I can see how the Biblical teaching can be applied to myself, but I have a hard time believing that they meant it with regard to attacks on others.
Are you saying that I should sit idly by while witnessing a theft/rape/torture/murder, when it is in my power to use violence to stop it (supposing violence is the only option)? What about the very-often-repeated biblical command to do justice? (e.g., Micah 6:8) Justice is one of the "weightier" matters of the law that Jesus condemns the scribes and Pharisees for neglecting (Matthew 23:23).
A pacifist society (i.e., one that neglects justice) would only encourage and reward evil.

[Teluog]

I would say it's justified only as the very very very last resort. As far as those persecuted Christians in Rome who never took up the sword, i think that would be stupid if they tried to fight back against the Roman army. Being persecuted for the faith is different than when someone viciously attacks you and your family, and it's stupid to just stand there when you DO have the power to fight back in order to bring about a greater good and a greater peace.

[Chocobear]

I'd pose this query to those of the "Pacifist" persuasion, of course, but anyone can join in if they feel so inclined.

Hypothetical: I hate hypotheticals by the way, but here goes. Would I as a father, ever be justified Biblically if I had to kill in order to defend my family? More specifically my wife and/or child?

This may very well have been asked before but I can't recall.

I believe you would be justified. As a parent, and as a human being, you have an obligation to protect your family. If simply wounding the attacker doesn't stop him, and if you don't have another choice, killing him would be justified. Now, if the person is already wounded and he's down, and if you were to walk up to him and beat him to death with a baseball bat, then you'd be guilty of murder.

As believers, it is better that you give your lives in exchange for the other's than take the other's and forcibly remove all hope and chance of their salvation. You may be sacrificing the life of your family, but your soul is preserved.

I honestly do not think a believer would be condemned to hell because they have killed someone for the sake of defending their family! God Himself said that if someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night and you kill him, you are blameless. (Exodus 22:2-3)

And you know what? I find your stance very hypocritical. You do not believe that a father should kill a person who is threatening the lives of his family members. However, you do believe that the father should sacrifice the life of his family? What if the family members are not saved? Would you still insist that the father sacrifice them for the sake of protecting the monster who threatened their lives in the first place? Why should they die so the person who killed them can live?

Quite frankly, God gave us the desire to protect our loved ones for a reason. I am extremely protective of my loved ones. And if someone decided that it would be fun to threaten my loved ones' lives, I would do everything in my power to protect them. If I have to take his life, so be it. I'm not saying that I wouldn't feel guilty afterward. But he put himself in that situation. He knew the consequences of his actions, and he did it anyway.