I think there's a big difference between dying for your faith and just dying needlessly because of some stupid criminal's actions. My life is far too precious -- if I must shoot a robber to escape death or protect my family, then I sure will. And I'm pretty sure I don't need to ask God for forgiveness. He is a just God. Now if someone were to threaten to kill me because of my belief in God, then that's a different matter.
If you feel you won't need to ask for forgiveness that is fine for you, and it isn't for me to judge. I never once saw an example of Jesus killing someone so that he wouldn't be killed, or advising others to do the same. But other people can view things differently. I am not going to say they are wrong, because it is, afterall my belief, and I don't know for certain. I just know what I believe.
Franchiseblade, are you a total pacifist? I wrestled with this question back in my youth when I applied to be a conscientious objector. I finally decided much later that emotionally at least I was a bit of a fighter and probably not just in a purely non-violent way. I thnik the Jews, much as I am accused by some Zionists of being anti-Semitic, when I decry their continual inhumane treatment of the Palestinians, had the right to fight back in the Warsaw Ghetto against the Nazis for instance. BTW I do like Sishir's points about Ghandi the value of public non-voilence as opposed to simply allowing one's self to be killed in his or her home with no witnesses.
good points by Sishir Chang and FranchiseBlade I think if someone was going to kill you, and something happened and you had the upperhand and were in the position to kill him/her to defend yourself, you heart in that moment would be telling you what to do. I am sure that all of us have had that "feeling" right before we do something wrong that tells us we shouldnt be doing it. I think the same thing applies here, just on a much grander scale. If it is truly for the best that you die, your heart would tell you in that moment that you must not kill, even if it be in self-defense. If it is better for the attacker to die, then that "feeling" wouldnt come to you, and you would probably kill in self-defense. Perhaps that "feeling" is God talking to you.
I agree that we react to situations intuitively sometimes. To me, that is no reason to beleive in God. Nor do I think that the idea of "God" explains this phenomenon better than any other ad hoc explination.
Like I said, what I would do, is probably something different. I merely commenting on what I think would be best. I'm not a pacificst, and I seriously wish we could all carry swords and had an accepted code for dueling. I am kind of all over the map. But if I were to really sit down and examine my beliefs as a follower of Jesus, I believe that total pacifism would be the way to go. I remember after the shooting in the Amish school, the way the community was already talking about forgiving the shooter, and their code of pacifism. It was admirable.
It is not that simple. What if the one that poses threat to you does not mean to hurt you, i.e. he is an innocent threat to you? Are you going to kill him in self defense? Consider the following two senarios: 1. You are in an elevator together with several other persons. And one of them is a lunatic. He suddenly pulls out a knife and starts attacking others. Apparetly he does not mean to hurt anyone since he is insane and out of control. You being in the elevator and nowhere to escape, is it moral for you to kill him or wound him seriouly in defending yourself? 2. You are sitting at the bottom of a deep well. Someone throws a third person at you. If he lands on your belly, he survives and you are dead. Suppose you have a ray gun which can disintegrate a human being in a nanosecond. Is it moral/right for you to disintegrate this third person using your ray gun in order to save yourself even though you know he has no intention to harm you? Now consider this person being thrown at you. Suppose he has a regular gun. And he is smart enough to realize that you deem him as an innocent threat and may use your ray gun on him. Is it right for him to act in his self defense by preemptively shooting you so that he won"t be vaporized and can land on you, thus survive? Now you have two persons trying to kill each other in the name of self defense. This example is lifted from Rober Nozick's book, he did not give an answer. Killing or wounding others in self defense sometimes is not so morally clear cut.
I'm not saying you shouldn't feel bad about killing someone in self-defense or ask for fogiveness. I'm pretty sure if I had to kill someone in self-defense I would feel very bad about it. Following Jesus' example though he knew his death was pre-ordained and one of great purpose. Can you say you being held up is going to be the same? If you believe in fate you might choose to believe that it is your fate to die in that way and set an example that forces the murderer to change their life. OTOH though what if it is the murderer's fate to die and his death be the example to others that a violent life leads to a violent death? If given those possibilities isn't your life as the good person to begin with worth something than just dying as an example to the murderer to reform his ways? I'm not going to attempt to define what is a religious experience but that voice telling you not to kill someone is something that is ingrained in most humans. I think it was WWII that the US Army determined that many troops had died without firing a shot, even though there was round in the chamber, because there is an aversion to killing another human that is innate within us. To overcome that training was changed to emphasize rapid firing to get them to react mechanically and shoot rather than give them the time for their conscience to kick in. While conscience is crucial for our survival as social creatures if presented with a situation of personal survival there are situations where conscience has to be put aside. At the risk of sounding like an Internet tough guy I think I've mentioned before that I teach self-defense. One of the problems with teaching people, especially women, self-defense is that you can teach them all sorts of techniques but that doesn't mean they will be able to use them. If you're talking about a survival situation you're talking about doing things that will cause great pain and possibly lead to death. Most people will find it very difficult to do that to another person but the problem is that in a situation where your survival is at stake hesitating for even a fraction of a second might mean the difference between whether you survive or not. The other problem is that studies have shown that women who are abused or raped often internalize the blame and somehow believe that they deserve what is happening to them. So they might not fight back even when they can. What we teach them is pretty much the same as I'm saying here. To believe that your own life has value and that it is moral for you to survive. So I can agree with FB and bchapman that maybe your death might have a higher purpose but that's not something that I think applies in most situations. Maybe you are meant to martyr yourself but consider how often in our society will you be in a situation for martyrdom vs. dying due to individual greed, lust or anger.
Excellent points. You may be right. I actually believe that even if a person chooses to kill in self-defense it could be a learning experience as well. Killing someone might be an example to others that death might be the result. I certainly agree with that. But I think we have more examples today of people dying violent deaths because of a life of crime, that the examples are present. We have few examples of people making a concious effort to not to kill in self defense(as opposed to freezing up and not doing it.) I think that an example might be made by dying, but setting an example isn't the only benefit. If a person is that dedicated, and devout in their faith, then died living by that which they believed in most. It is a good death, and they had the opportunity to choose. Most of us will never have that choice, or chance to die standing by our principles. So it would be a fitting and glorious end to life. My answer probably isn't worthy of the valid points you bring up, but it was just what came off the top of my head. I saw some show on discovery about the WWII stuff. It was amazing. In fire fights all of the people that were killed were killed by only 1 in seven folks. If a fight started, only 1 in 7 would actually kill anyone. The number of people who did the killing grew the further removed they were. Most would drop bombs, and very few would kill in hand to hand combat. The military set about changing it, but that is the way it was in WWII.
excellent points FB you too you know this is dangerously coming close to a destiny vs. free will debate of which we should probably stay away from, as it would go on for weeks, unless it were conducted in person
Wow I knew you were long time member Franchise, but I didnt realize you've been around for that long!
