IronJack,
It is simpler than that. As someone on FR put it, under a tyranny, self-defense is a crime. If globalist church leaders can convince Christians that killing in self-defense, or family-defense, or neighbor-defense, or nation-defense is “wrong”, than the globalists will have sheeple to rule over without hindrance.
What the left confuses in this area, on purpose, is the mission of the state versus the mission of the individual.
The mission of the state is to bring about the just condition, which is the foundation of peace, without which virtuous activity cannot be practiced. And without virtue no man can be happy (Aristotle). Any state which does not enforce capital penalties against capital crimes, which are nicely outlined for us in the Pentateuch, thank you Holy Spirit, such a society is doomed to be reduced to a bloody rubble. Look no further than ISIS or MS-13 for confirmation of this fact.
The individual’s mission is to love God and neighbor (Golden Rule) and reside with God forever in His presence and among His friends (agreed?). Loving God means that you keep His commandments.
Based upon a quick review of all of the comments here, it is obvious to most of the readers here that the scripture passages that speak to “turning the other cheek” clearly refer to insults to one’s pride and dignity, not attacks on our persons that could result in grave bodily harm, psychological harm, or death. Jesus commands us not to retaliate or escalate when offronted with petty insults. No where does He say that one should tolerate home invasions, carjackings, gang rapes, beatings and slayings.
In individual might allow death to occur, a grave evil, so that some greater good might prevail. This is another area where those who do not believe in God or the afterlife are confused. Hollywood regularly presents to us the idea that human life is the greatest good, and many boring plots revolve around the protagonist surviving death against all odds. The Greeks, Jews, and Christians have always held that there are greater goods than life such as; virtue, duty, Faith. An individual can lose his own life for any of these and he will be choosing the greater good.
Those entrusted with the care of the common good, have a duty to protect those under their care, and righteously execute this duty against evil doers even if it means they must deprive the evil doers of their life.
Only the state has been entrusted with the punishment of captital offenders. When an individual does it it must be an emergency condition where there is no other choice. The state which executes capital offenders does a service to society, making more peace and virtuous activity possible.
Some argue that we have the technology to jail all evil doers, so we should never execute anyone. This is an injustice to the victims, who after being violated by the criminals now are forced to foot the bill for the care and feeding of the capital offenders for the rest of their existence. Think of a widow with lots of children who loses her husband to a murderer, then in her poverty must support him till death.
Ultimately some of the stupidest positions on capital punishment come from philosophically confusing the mission of the state with that of the individual. The “Seamless Garment” position constrains the state from killing anyone, even capital offenders, as if the state were an individual, which is simply not the case.
I have to go, much more can be said on this. But if your gut is telling you that preserving human life from conception to “natural death” does not sit well with you, you are right.
Nothing you said contradicts my assertion that sometimes NOT killing is the greater sin. I agree completely with your reasoning re the death penalty, and would go further and say that a failure to execute certain heinous violators constitutes an abdication of justice.
As I said, the decisions aren’t always easy.