thrombomodulin wrote:Jaydam
Thank you for the book recommendation you made in a previous post. i have ordered a copy and look forward to reading it. I would like to ask if you would extend the same type analysis as given in the previos post to situations where ethics are not an issue in taking the life of an attacker. the example i have in mind is that of where a wild animal attacks a "innocent" person (e.g. lions, tigers and bears - or in my neck of the woods, more likely a pitbull). i think your analysis implies there would be no sin in watching someone fall victim to an animals power and doing nothing to help them - since God himself holds sole responsibility for their circumstances and chose not to rescue them. The parallel could be made to the adultury case you mentioned that maybe the victim was involved in some wrongdoing and so the attack was simply God's punishment - there was an OT prophet killed for by a wild animal for his disobedience.
my understanding is that genesis 9:6 offers a basis for men to take the life of a murderer, and inference from this that doing so to stop an immediate threat of murder using lethal force is justified. i am not an expert on this issue, and would like to learn more. thanks for starting this discussion
pete
I am no expert, by far.
I don't believe it comes down to leaving someone to suffer their circumstances, but it is about being a Christian to all parties involved.
In the case of the animal vs. human, I have no qualms killing an animal to protect a human. The same might be applied to todays world and say I would likely have no issue with shooting down a drone to save a person.
However, when it is human and human I believe it is different.
We are to be a Christian to both the victim and the evildoer is my point. And being a Christian to them is not as easy IMO as kill the bad guy to save the "innocent" victim.
I believe our godly requirements are to love the victim and the evildoer, and killing one to save the other is not supported in scripture. Therefore, I perform my duty as best I can, if one kills the other it is an independent issue form my duty. In the performance of my duty though I will do my best to place myself in protection of the victim and to express love to the evildoer. This might mean that I die as well.
Again, I have heard the objections:
If you had a chance to take out the bad guy and save the "innocent" victim, but you didn't, then the victim's blood is really on your hands. As in the previous post, I would refute that idea by the understanding that God could certainly stop all killings of "innocent" victims himself, but he does not, yet we do not say the blood of the victims is on God's hands.
Or, what if the victim is not prepared to meet their maker? Well, if I can or cannot kill someone is a separate issue from their preparedness to meet God. Their lack of preparedness is not excuse for me to act differently than I should, IF I believe I am not supposed to kill.
Anyway, this brings us back to, what is our godly duty to both the victim and the evildoer?
If my responsibility to the evildoer is to exemplify the love and mercy God showed me while I was yet God's enemy, and God did not strike me dead, then that is what I must do, even if it costs other lives.
I really do not have an eloquent answer yet, but just more rambling thoughts as I am posting here.