The morals of killing (was Re: Cry baby)

[Guest guest]

This message from Klein arched across the cosmos:

>Killing people that are murdering is not wrong... not only is it

>morally just, but it is sometimes morally imperative. Allowing them to

>continue to murder is wrong.

I'm tired out so this might not make the most sense, and I likely will

overstress and run from the discussion after this *wry chuckle* but I had

to immediately wonder:

Doesn't the above quote suggest that the only way to halt murderers is by

killing them? There is a moral imperative that murder be halted, yes, but

it doesn't say how it has to be halted or that by killing the individual is

the only way.

I'm not thinking in terms of cost-efficiency or how easy/hard it would be

or real-life feasibility or anything else concrete. Just observing and

being curious about the odd " in order to halt murder you must kill " kind of

logic. I think that most countries don't even have a death penalty, and

most of the truly heinous war criminals were brought to court for their

crimes rather than massacred along with the less-powerful underlings, so

evidently it must be possible to halt murder *somehow* without killing the

attacker. (In fact it seems odd that the higher-ups are all allowed to

have trials and often live, while those forced into the military for the

offending country are just killed. If the idea is to halt murder, wouldn't

one kill the official and allow those forced to do the deeds at least

survive for trial to see whether the acts were forced or voluntary?) The

one exception I can think of is where the antagonist is *at that exact

moment* so armed and near the victim that deadly force would have to be

used, but that would be even rarer in wartime than it is in everyday life.

Or my brain could just be scrambled today.

DeGraf ~*~ http://www.sonic.net/mustang/moggy

[Guest guest]

> On a side note, I always wondered if the fact that had cut

off

> the right ear of Malchus meant that he was aiming to cut off his

> right ear, or if he was just a really poor swordsman and lashed out

> blindly.

>

> Camille

In NLP/Neuropsychology, the lateral right possition is " auditory

constructed " while the lateral left is " auditory remembered. " That

may or may not be relivant.

What is relivant is that Jesus said, " If your RIGHT eye offends you,

take if out. " There's mystical and neurological signifigance to the

right eye, as it can be used to do self-destructive yogas by merging

the eye chakra to the crotch chakra. That has the effect of

reversing the natural flow of Kundalini, so that instead of going up-

and-out like it's supposed to, it slams back down onto the root

chakra.

Forgive the spelling errors. I'm using the Yahoo page, as I'm trying

to see if my domain is working.

[Guest guest]

Camille wrote:

> They did not contribute to the problem, they did not help make

> bullets or bombs.

They contributed to the problem by not fighting it, as was the case with

most Germans, who had been trained to be very law-abiding (even if those

laws were made by someone as evil as Hitler).

> Going to war destroys men's minds. It's not humane, it's

> dehumanizing.

In a just war, the alternative is worse.

> Also, the American government took its own sweet time in reacting to

> the knowledge of the death camps.

That was because they were playing the part of the pacifist-- staying

out of it, because it did not concern us. That is precisely what some

people wanted us to do in Iraq-- ignore the million or so Kurds,

Shiites, and non-Baathist Iraqi people that Hussein tortured and killed,

in some cases with chemical weapons. If you are of the opinion that

killing is wrong, this should please you; we didn't, until it became a

war in which we were involved directly.

> They could have bombed train lines that were used to haul the poor

> victims to the death camps. They did not care about who was dying in

> the death camps. They did not care.

It's not that they didn't care, I think... it was that it was not a

threat to us.

> Don't forget that there is plenty of propagandizing done in this

> country, in fact in my US history class I learned that propagandizing

> was invented in the US.

And that tidbit itself sounds like a piece of anti-US propoganda, which

is not uncommon in primary, secondary, and collegiate classes. I am

sure that propoganda existed long before the US did.

> If you want specific reactions to the scriptures I can get the

> background context on them, and disprove your take on them, if you

> like. Christians are not allowed to kill. When cut off the

> ear of Malchus, the slave of the high priest, in the garden of

> Gethsemane, Jesus said, " Return your sword to it's place, for all

> those who take the sword will perish by the sword " ( 26:52)

Catholics are Christians. Catholic doctrine states " Someone who defends

his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his

aggressor a lethal blow. " Catechism of the Catholic Church 1994,

sections 2263-65.

Now, on the background for Luke 22:36 that I cited before:

Rutherford, Lex, Rex [1644] 1982, pp. 159-166, 183-185 (Sprinkle

Publications edition.) Jesus advised his disciples to arm themselves in

view of likely persecution.

I know that there are quite a few Protestant pastors and other clergy

who are licensed to carry concealed handguns, so obviously they don't

agree that " Christians aren't allowed to kill. " That's an overly

simplistic view of the faith.

Regardless, if anyone were to put me in such an unfortunate position of

having to kill or be killed, and my efforts to resolve the issue

peaceably failed, I would do what I have trained to do, and that means

to stop the attack by any means necessary, including the use of lethal

force. If it's him or me, it won't be me, if I have anything to say

about it.

[Guest guest]

admin wrote:

>What is relivant is that Jesus said, " If your RIGHT eye offends you,

>take if out. " There's mystical and neurological signifigance to the

>right eye, as it can be used to do self-destructive yogas by merging

>the eye chakra to the crotch chakra. That has the effect of

>reversing the natural flow of Kundalini, so that instead of going up-

>and-out like it's supposed to, it slams back down onto the root

>chakra.

That is very interesting. I had no idea Jesus was aware

of chakras at the time.

Jane