Can violent killing--such as that which occurs in war--be reasonably justified by religious arguments? Or is such justification a perversion of religious belief?

Does it depend on the religion? Or is there an underlying "spirit" to all religions that opposes killing?

Nothing justifies killing.

That being said, if you wanted to make up and belive somthing for yourself that justifies killing, then you could do so, sure. But would it truly justify it?

If you derive your value system from your religion (and it seems like that's how it usually works), then yes, you can absolutely justify killing with religion.

By religious arguments? Sure. Why not? Who am I to say what another religion teaches?

By Christian arguments? I don't think so. I mean, I can see why people would choose to believe war to be acceptable, and their arguments may make sense, but I think they are based on false concepts of what Christianity is and what Christ taught.

Hmmm. Three different answers:)

LP and Nevin: A man runs into a market and blows himself up in the name of Islam, killing 20 otherwise innocent people. Do you believe this can be reasonably justified?

Justified to the man who did it, yes. Justified to others, perhaps not. There is no universal value set, unfornately.

Interesting. We'll have to have a discussion about that. I'll start a topic in philosophy.

Well then, for the sake of continuing this discussion, let's focus on Christianity. Christianity holds Jewish scripture as part of its own, and the old testament seems to condone quite a deal of violence. Can Christianity be used to justify violence? If not, why not?

I don't know if it could be justified from a Muslim perspective, not being Muslim, and not having studied the Koran. However, assuming that Islamic teaching might allow for such things, then it could be justifiable from that standpoint. However, this does not make it justifiable from an ethical standpoint -- but of course, this comes from my axiom that the God of Christianity exists and created ethics in the way that I see them.

It can be used to justify violence, but I think that's a perversion of Scripture. It is true that God used violence in the Old Testament, but Jesus' teachings command us against the use of violence and force, teaching us to love our enemies and do good to those who harm us. I could go into great detail about my non-violent beliefs, of course, if you wanted me to. Is that where you'd like this topic to head?

I should add, however, that although killing remains unethical even if one believes it to be justified, that I do believe that one can certainly be forgiven for it, even if one never recognizes it as wrong (I am speaking from a Christian viewpoint now). After all, I'm sure that we all commit sins that we do not recognize as wrong, and nobody has a perfect sense of ethics.

Well it seems that it would be a slightly different discussion if we were to talk about whether killing is ever justified/ethical. Feel free to start that topic elsewhere.

Here, I'd like to explore more the relation between religion (specifically christianity) and killing.

Can Christianity allow for something like a just war? Nevin says no, because the overall theme to Jesus' message is love and forgiveness.

Certainly Jesus himself did not kill anyone or advocate killing anyone (except for that fig tree). However, is not the God who directed of old testament not the same God who became incarnate?

It's all in the interpretation. I think it would be out of Jesus's character (as presented in most of the New Testament) to justify killing. But the New Testament certainly isn't all of the Christian faith (though that's where the stress is), and Jesus is only one part of the Trinity. Mass violence has been justified by Christian beliefs in the past (the Crusades), so you could say so. It also depends on which Christian you ask.

Every religion bans killing, except I think Islam, which says that a Muslim may kill an infidel. I'm not for sure on that one, so don't quote me on that. The Crusades=Popes wanting power and land and using kings to accomplish that=waste of time and lives.

Islam says that a Jihad is okay. The Jihad isn't nessicarly a killing, it is a holy struggle. One that involves the mind more than anything.

Primeval to me, peace shows more power than war. War drains resources and lives. Psychological threats in the end wind up not being effective for the enemy not falling for it after several times, eg: Charlie Brown and the football.

Yes, it is (well, unless you're a Gnostic), but the Old Testament was a different time. Before Jesus' coming, many laws were necessary in order to atone for sins and to keep the Israelites pure -- such as keeping kosher, not wearing mixed-fabric shirts, sacrificing animals, et cetera. These laws were made unnecessary by Christ's coming -- he is the ultimate sacrifice, making animal sacrifices unnecessary; he purifies us all, making the purity laws obsolete. War is an example of something that was necessary for the Israelites but that was abolished by Christ. In the Old Testament, the Israelites are God's chosen people, and the Israelites are told to love their neighbours and hate their enemies. In the New Testament, however, all of humanity becomes God's chosen people -- and Jesus commands us to love our enemies and do good to those who persecute us. The physical war of the old covenant becomes a spiritual war under the new covenant -- one that is not fought with the weapons of this world. Under the new covenant we are called to be men of peace, to "beat our swords into plowshares and our spears into pruning hooks." The early Church recognized this, and it was not until the time of Constantine that the idea of the just war theory came about, and war became justifiable in certain cases. This view, unfortunately, is still dominant today, and few Christians realize that it is an invention of Constantine, and not of Christ.

Incidentally, I just finished writing an essay for my Christian Ethics class on the subject of when different Christians find the taking of life to be justifiable. I think I may have to upload it here -- we had been planning to have some research papers uploaded a while ago, hadn't we?

I think that's only one interpretation of the words. It's pretty obvious that there are a lot of Muslims out there who interpret "Jihad" in a way that absolutely allows a physical war and killing.

That is the way that I, and incidentally most Muslums, would interpet it.

Perhaps, but that doesn't change the fact that there are a significant amount (even if it's not a majority) that disagree.

I'm not sure that it is even a significant amount.

From the liturature that I've read about it, it is more like 25-20% of people who interpet it in that fashion. We just tend to focus on them alot more.

20-25% of the Muslim population is a lot of people. ;)

You can't always look at just relative numbers.

True. If those 20% are the ones most activly effecting us, it seems more like 100%.

But in regards to this particular discussion, i think delta's point is more valid.

if 20-25% members of a religion say that islam condones killing but the other 75-80% do not, it's hard to say that the religion as a whole condones killing.

No one is saying that the "religion as a whole" condone it. Personally, I'm more of the opinion that there is no such thing, since each person can have his own individual interpretation.

And as YOU see Islam, or Christianity for that matter, do these religions in YOUR interpretation allow for killing?

Christianity as I've come to understand it does not, I can't speak to Islam.

Hinduism allows for killing as the absolute last resort to punishment for a man.

The taking of life should be reserved for a person who does absolutely no good for mankind and hurts more people than he helps. Of course, this becomes an issue of how much must a person do to gain the title of "killable". The question, in my mind, to ask would be: "By keeping the person alive, will he/she do more good than harm?"

The whole scenario is played out in the Mahabharata and the Bhagavad Gita. The entire thing would take too long to type out so I'll provide a link. Remeber the caste system when reading the passage (intellectuals, warriors, traders, and laborers):

Link

I'm afraid I know very little about Christianity, but I though I'd represent my side of the argument.

Interesting idea.


Though I have to say that there is no time in a person's life when they can do no good to humanity, but just my way of thinking.

I completely understand, which is why even now (as most religious ideals are) it is still being debated among religous scholars.

I'll introduce another situation:
Let's say a man is about to kill you and you know you are innocent. Do you fight back with the intent of killing the men? Or what if you don't want to kill them but you accidently or find yourself in a situation where you must in order to surive?

Animal instinct (if you are an evolutionist) will tell us that only the strong survive; survival of the fittest and our natural instincts to survive will kill the men or run away. However, by running away, you only perpetuate what those men are doing, causing more harm to the people they will hurt.

What do you do?

Try to disable the person. Attempt to save myself, certainly, but not at the extent of another human's life. Their injury, sure, but not life.

Okay, let me rephrase that. What if your survival depends on the death of that man? Would you kill him to save yours or would you simply just give yours up?

If I where to say that I killed a man to save mine, I don't think it would be greatly justified for the other man (the dead one) and those who knew/loved him.

It's so much simpler to just have an attitude of "I am the most important person on Earth."

Indeed.

Most relgions teach, however, to be selfless.

Why be selfless and get yourself killed if you can do so much more good for the world?

Of course its much harder to act selfless when you find yourself in that exact situation. Morals and values most likely tend to take a backseat when desperation sets in.

I'm not saying go out and try to get killed, I'm saying that if it is between yourlife and another person's life, it still isn't fair to choose yours. At least it isn't fair to the other person, and those who know him/her and love them.

As LP said, if you take your life to be the most important there is, then sure, do everything you can, even at the expense of others, to live. If not, then think twice before saying that you'd automaticlly choose your life over anothers.

Also, if you don't have this line of thought, it is even harder to act on it if a situation arises, for you've never thought of it.