-8 votes

Are you ready to shoot and kill another human being?

With the second amendment argument going on, most of us are up in arms about the government taking our rights away from arming and defending ourselves. However, one question for all of you here:

Are you ready to shoot and kill another person? He may be an armed intruder into your home. He may have intended to rob you, hurt you and/or your family. He may have intended to kill you or do a number of evil things. But are you ready to shot him and possibility kill him and live with the fact that you have send someone to hell (very likely) for the rest of your life?

Have you gone through the logical steps of defending oneself with a deadly firearm? Are you willing to go through the psychological consequence of killing somebody?

From a Christian perspective, I have heard a very famous and respected preacher (from the 19th century) said that a man of God should never take anyone's life. To those Christian brothers and sisters here, you may agree or disagree, but why and please support your argument with Scriptures.

For non-Christians, what would be your justification for taking a life or not taking a life?




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Yes.

Biblically, it is clear that killing is to be avoided if possible, but it is most certainly justifiable under the right circumstances.

Here is a hypothetical. A madman with an Uzi walks into a school and takes aim at a child. You are there, and you have your .45. Is it more moral to shoot him, or to not shoot him?

As for me, I don't want to. However, I am fully prepared to take the life of another human being. One important thing; when I consider the possibility that I may have to, I force myself to not dehumanize them. I hope that, in the event that I must use lethal force, that will prevent me from being numb to the act.

And by the way

I dont need a gun my bare hands will do.

freedumb is not free!

My purpose

on this planet is to protect my children by any means>no remorse no regrets i will handle that with whatever comes after this life. Maybe im a savage but i could do it my guilt is my own to deal with.

freedumb is not free!

I have made the decision...

I will defend my liberty, and more importantly my children's liberty, from tyranny...If taking a life is necessary, then so be it...I have made the decision and prayed about it, and I am prepared...I will assuredly have a horrible burden to carry psychologically afterwards...I am prepared to live with it...

Bad food, worse weather, please rEVOLution the states so I can bring my family back home!
Rosa Koire for for President!

My justification

A breach of my liberty
... nuff said

Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% fatality rate.
Don't Give me Liberty, I'll get up and get it myself!

Lots of scriptures in the Old Testament justify killing.

However, I would prefer to quote Gandhi, as he did not scourge any money changers.

I want both the Hindus and Mussalmans to cultivate the cool courage to die without killing. But if one has not that courage, I want him to cultivate the art of killing and being killed rather than, in a cowardly manner, flee from danger. For the latter, in spite of his flight, does commit mental himsa. He flees because he has not the courage to be killed in the act of killing.

My method of nonviolence can never lead toloss of strength, but it alone will make it possible, if the nation wills it, to offer disciplined and concerted violence in time of danger.
My creed of nonviolence is an extremely active force. It has no room for cowardice or even weakness. There is hope for a violent man to be some day non-violent, but there is none for a coward. I have, therefore, said more than once....that, if we do not know how to defend ourselves, our women and our places of worship by the force of suffering, i.e., nonviolence, we must, if we are men, be at least able to defend all these by fighting.
No matter how weak a person is in body, if it is a shame to flee, he will stand his ground and die at his post. This would be nonviolence and bravery. No matter how weak he is, he will use what strength he has in inflicting injury on his opponent, and die in the attempt. This is bravery, but not nonviolence. If, when his duty is to face danger, he flees, it is cowardice. In the first case, the man will have love or charity in him. In the second and third cases, there would be a dislike or distrust and fear.
My nonviolence does admit of people, who cannot or will not be nonviolent, holding and making effective use of arms. Let me repeat for the thousandth time that nonviolence is of the strongest, not of the weak.
To run away from danger, instead of facing it, is to deny one's faith in man and God, even one's own self. It were better for one to drown oneself than live to declare such bankruptcy of faith.

self defense is a virtue

Our creator gave us a brain. Not to shoot someone with but to use it to defend yourself against anyone who infringes upon your right to live free.
We humans were never intended to kill each other that is why veterans who return from war are committing SUICIDE every 15 minuts or 37,000 times a year. More deaths a year than cancer or any other terrorist attack. The reasons are vast and diversified. But I bet if you asked any of them would you prefer PEACE the answer would be YES on both sides.I think the President and our focus should be on how do we SAVE lives. How do we stop these wars. Why are we going to war, really? Our soldiers died defending our Constitution. They have earned it. Haven't they/we? Guns are not the problemThe president needs to have better communication skills to stop us all from killing each other. That would be a NOBLE PEACE PRIZE.
Sorry to side track, your question is good, I wouldn't know until it happened, like if some animal were to attack my baby. Yes.

No

But I like your question.

Lord Acton, Lord Chief Justice of England, 1875 - "The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the People v. The Banks."

Hearsay is not evidence

"No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay does not provide good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because they claim other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them."

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Oh, and for the record...

If you said what you just did in court, it would be shot down immediately as argumentative and assuming facts not in evidence.

Wow.

Disregarding your complete lack of understanding of the law, your premise means that we should throw out all history ever.

I kid you not, there is more non-biblical evidence for Jesus' existence than there is for Emperor Tiberius.

Do you know how we know about Alexander the Great, one of the most famous leaders of all time? Three biographies. Two of them were based off of the other, and the one they were based off of was based on earlier biographies we don't have.

The ignorance in your post is truly of epic proportions not seen since Joe Biden last opened his mouth.

That is inaccurate

I'll respond by debunking your debunk attempt.

First, you state in your title "Hearsay is not evidence." That is simply inaccurate. In court, hearsay is often admitted. There are multiple reasons for this. One is that sometimes evidence is offered, but not objected to, and as such it comes into evidence. Aside from that, there are many exceptions to the hearsay rule. So quite often there is admissible hearsay because that hearsay is considered reliable.

The legal definition of hearsay is "an out of court statement, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, not stated under oath." So there are multiple elements to determining what is and isn't hearsay, and these concepts have organically developed in common law (real common law, not talking sovereign citizen trash here) over many centuries. And there is reliable hearsay, dying declarations, and other ways to determine whether something is credible aside from whether one experienced it firsthand.

In fact, experiencing something firsthand doesn't happen to most "triers of fact", whether one is provided hearsay or non-hearsay evidence. Are you saying that only people who witness a murder can offer evidence of it? That doesn't make much sense. You haven't investigated the evidence that does exist, and have set an unattainable standard for the evidence that does exist, and you may not ever be convinced of anything with that kind of logic. And yet, I suspect taht there are many things in your belief system that have very flimsy factual foundations, yet you accept those and don't consider them "hearsay" or questionable. You probably just don't think Christianity is cool, and this is the best reason you can come up with.

If your point is that no one alive was alive when Jesus lived and therefore there can't be any evidence of him, then we should throw out all of our textbooks on history. His existence is noted by Josephus, Pliny the Elder, opposing Jewish sects of his era, and so on. There can be no reasonable doubt that he lived and that there was a raging debate in the Jewish community of whether he was who he said he was.

You simply have very poor and incomplete knowledge of this subject, and haven't thought through it very well.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

The manuscript...

...evidence for the Gospels is more plentiful and dates to a time much closer to the originals and contemporaries, then other ancient texts, such as the works of Plato. Do you doubt that Plato was a real person, as you do Christ? Matthew and John were first-hand witnesses by the way; Mark and Luke were contemporaries with first-hand witnesses. The Apostle Paul was a first-hand witness, on the road to Damascus--but, of course, you will automatically dismiss that as rubbish, right?

And anyway, why not answer the OP's question, since it was addressed to those with non-Christian perspectives as well? (See last sentence in post above.)

NO

When the time comes I'll guarantee I'll get at least two of the bastards. If we all have that attitude we will prevail, this struggle is not about individuals my age, rather it is for our progeny and I'll gladly put it on the line for mine and many others kids.

If not us than who?

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

Our Founders did it, did they not?

NOT looking forward to hurting ANYONE (I feel physically ill at the thought.); hoping that peaceful solutions may work.

But....

What would the Founders do?

Hope I never...

...am faced with that awful, split-second decision; but I will defend my wife and kids if need be.

Yes, Christ did tell Peter to put away the sword in the Garden of Gethsemane (Luke 22:49-53); but that was in the context of Him fulfilling His Father's work through His death and resurrection, which called for setting aside self-defense for a higher purpose.

In earlier verses, we see Christ telling His disciples to go out and buy swords to carry with them on the road (Luke 22:35-39). So, I think using weapons for defense is appropriate, depending on the context and specifics of the situation -- in the Garden itself is not what Christ had in mind.

We should not seek out or make haste to shed blood when it can be avoided.

Proverbs 1:16 - For their feet run to evil, And they make haste to shed blood.

Romans 3:15 - Their feet are swift to shed blood.

Regarding the concern about the slain aggressors going to hell, I share that concern; but I am encouraged that, despite the sorrow of the thought of them being in the outer darkness at all, in the end, all things in Creation will be reconciled to God through Christ, by His peace established on the cross (Colossians 1). I don't mean that this trivializes the death of anyone -- just that it transforms what would be utter hopelessness into ultimate joy in the knowledge that Love will be completely triumphant in the end. Even if you interpret 'aionion', etc. as 'eternal' regarding hell, there is comfort in knowing that He holds the keys to hell, and if anyone has the authority to commute the sentence of someone in the outer darkness who is repentant, it is He.

I would much rather my enemy be reconciled with both myself and their Creator on this end of things. I hate the idea of killing anyone -- even in self-defense. Makes me literally nauseated just contemplating it as I sit here and type.

Leo Tolstoy

and his variant of "Christian Anarchists" would say that Christ's admonition to "turn the other cheek" was an absolute commandment. With this perspective, it becomes immoral to ever use violence, even in self-defense.

Those who believe in limited government violence, as well as anarchocapitalists who believe in self defense, have nothing to fear from absolute pacifists. The pacifist's eschewing of violence makes it impossible for them to interfere with the institutions of law enforcement.

There is a lot of misunderstanding about absolute pacifism. One myth is that it is "pacifists" who are leading the charge for gun control. Nothing could be further from the truth. A true pacifist must necessarily be, not only an anarchist, but, also a political antinomian who cannot support ANY violence used for law enforcement.

Although I am NOT an absolute pacifist, I respect pacifists for their beliefs, and one of the reasons I am an anarchist is that anarchism is the only political system consistent with pacifism. I believe it would be immoral to force a pacifist to support an institution of violence, just as it would be immoral to force someone who believed abortion was murder to support abortion with their resources.

no, no I am not.

but i will if i have to.

Liberty or Death

The same thing has happened

trillions of times in the past....
We will all be reconciled to God in a way we are clear about, and understand. To believe anything else is to be arrogant in something we can't conceive of in the first place.

I've been considering this lately myself

I haven't reached any conclusions, but two things I know:

1) Jesus didn't live, die, and rise again just to saddle us all with an even harder set of moral rules.

2) While it's clear God's character doesn't change, God's commands to his people did change throughout the bible narrative according to circumstances. At one point, the righteous thing to do with kill everything that breathed in a particular village. At another point, the righteous thing to do was let your pagan enemies kill you without fighting back. I could go on and on with examples. Even in Jesus' own words, how many times did he say "you have heard it said... but now I tell you..."? God's commands (or tactics) changed with the historical settings. Same God, same righteousness.

My feeling is that good is always good, but depending on the historical setting, how that good reacts to the actions of evil changes as the actions of evil change. In the 1st century during the advent of the gospel, it was important for the early church to not resist persecution with force. It was a winning tactic, but then Constantine showed up and the tactics changed, allowing Christianity to dominate Europe, often at the point of a sword. Eventually the Feudal system wherein only a few had the right to keep and bear arms gave way to our current system, where we all have that right. So, since God has given us the power of the sword, it's not a sin to use it in doing good.

Just some quick thoughts.

Should have stopped...

"Jesus didn't live...."

You should have stopped there until you can provide some evidence to the contrary. To date, none has been made available just as there has been no evidence that there are alien creatures living on the moon.

Feel free to believe anything you want, but bringing kooky ideas to this forum harms the liberty movement.

How would you like it if people posted that Obama was a reptilian posing as a human and periodically visits Neptune, his birth place? Are you capable of understanding how you taint the liberty movement by posting ridiculous, unsubstantiated BS?

Feel free to worship Michael Jackson, Sponge Bob or Carrot Top. I don't really care but please keep your harmful delusions to yourself and not work to tirelessly to undermine the efforts of those of us who have worked so long to try to defeat the war-mongers and worshipers of big government.

I wish that the DP had a section dedicated to people who wish to go on and on about things for which there is zero evidence and forbid the mentioning of any religious crap in any of the other sections of the DP. That way, the delusional talking ass folks could have a place to discuss how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin and other irrelevant BS.

deacon's picture

the DP does have a forum

it is called RELIGION,and you are on it
and the reason it was created was because of people like you
and yet you come over to it and interjecting your brand of nonsense
instead of staying out of it
the DP folks took the time to create yet another forum to keep the peace here,and you still aren't happy
and calling the people names,how grown up of you

setting your expectations to high,can cause depressiuon

Goodness.

Somebody's got a bee in his mbennett.

You said: "I wish that the DP had a section..."

The DP has a forum called "Religion." That forum was created for the benefit of people who would like to discuss topics associated with religion. I checked before replying to you and I noted that this post is under the "religion" forum. Perhaps your comment got this post moved to that forum, or perhaps it originated there. I don't know.

Are you asking for historical proof that Jesus of Nazareth lived? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Here are Ron Paul’s words: http://www.covenantnews.com/ronpaul070721.htm : “I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.”

You said: “Feel free to believe anything you want, but bringing kooky ideas to this forum harms the liberty movement.”

There is freedom of speech and freedom of religion in this country for a reason. It would stand to reason that those who would like to censor hurt Liberty. Those things are happening before our eyes.

Your words make me think that you would like to see me, Christian, locked up in the funny farm...or perhaps, just burned at the stake. They used to do that to us you know.

...

The mixing of religion

The mixing of religion and politics has always been a bad idea. That is why there is a prohibition of government getting involved in religion in the US constitution. I see those who wear their religious beliefs on their sleeves as being nothing more than divisive and a wedge in the liberty movement. If a person were a porn addict I would not want them bringing their love of pornography into discussions here at the DP either for it is irrelevant and harmful to the cause of liberty.

My suggestion is that those who want to worship Krishna, Mohammad, Confucius, Satan, Sponge Bob or whatever, keep it to themselves for the sake of the cause of liberty rather than hounding the heck out of those who care not to be inundated with the irrelevant superstitions of others.

Let's focus on what beliefs we share and not keep bringing irrelevant divisive issues into discussions which can only hurt the cause of liberty.

There was a time when things were not funded at the FederaLevel

So when you read the first amendment:

"Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Know that at the local level people decided what they wanted to fund and how they wanted the funding used and for what purposes. The amendment says CONGRESS shall make no law. The free exercise of religion has been legislated against.

When Johnson slipped in the tax exempt thingy for churches, churches swallowed the idea hook line and sinker and the freedom of speech is being abridged and the free exercise of religion as well.

It was a Baptist that wrote a letter to ensure that there would not be a STATE church. i.e. a single authorized church the people would be obligated to support. Why? Because Baptists were being killed in America by State Church Priests. They were whipped and flogged to death because they would not pay taxes to support the state church.

Politics and religion have been entwined from the beginning because there was a time when this was a Christian Nation. Remember, Obama said We are NO LONGER a Christian nation. To no longer be something means that we were once something.

However, people are not born Christian. It is a personal decision between a person and God and has nothing to do with being born in America or being born a certain color or being born in a country with a State Church.

I am glad Obama said we were no longer a Christian Nation. That way all the current atrocities cannot be blamed on Christian teaching.
It seems to me that for the most part America has not behaved as Christians as a collective for a very, very, long time.

As far as not entwining religion and politics, I suppose that can be an idea for some. However Christianity is entwined with my very life, my thoughts, and hopefully my actions. So if I as a person get entwined with politics, then I bring Christianity to the table because it is not separate from me.

There is a verse:

Galatians 2:20 KJV
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

I hope that you might take time to read the letter written to Thomas Jefferson when he became president: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danbury_Baptists

People of faith have every right to ensure their civil liberties. For century state churches have killed in the name of their church doctine: http://www.homecomers.org/mirror/index-old.htm

The command that Jesus gave his followers was this:

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Jesus never said or commanded anyone to kill anyone. Teaching is to be done. Those that hear will hear. Those that do not are to be left alone. As far as I can tell, you would like to be left alone. Why insist on entangling politics with religion? Just leave the religious alone, and perhaps they will leave you alone. If they won't leave you alone, then ask them to. If a person who says they are a Christian is ugly to you, please know, that is not the Spirit of Christ.

...

Although there is no question

that those who call themselves "Christians" can do a lot of "hounding," it seems to me that in this particular case it is YOU who are "hounding" and cramming it down others throats.

By the way, discussions of pornography, as well as discussions of religion, are extremely relevant to liberty, as liberty is of value to every honest person, and some of the people on this site believe in God and wish to practice their beliefs in peace, and some of the people on this site are interested in sexual freedoms.

I think

mbennett is actually the bizarro version of PatriotsUnderGod.

A signature used to be here!

When you resort

When you resort to ad hominem attacks that means you lose. Either provide proof of your extraordinary claims or please remain silent. These are critical times and we cannot afford to waste time debating irrelevant BS.

Says the guy

who called all religious people "a$$-talkers."

Read anything about law or how history works lately?