Regarding Rev. Paul Hill

9-4-2003 | Self

[2timothy3.16]

Last night Rev. Paul Hill was executed by the state of Florida for killing a man who made his living by killing little babies in the womb. Paul was also convicted and executed for killing a man whose primary function in life was to protect the abortionist.

I know from my pastor that regarding Rev. Hill's actions, he is unsure.

What I'm wondering is what do other religions teach concerning Rev. Hills actions.

I'm really interested in the theology and traditions that make that religions points.

Thanks,
Tim

For my pastors own feelings. Rev. Hill was pronounced dead at 6:08 p.m on September 4, 2003, According to the office of Florida Governor Jeb Bush.

[LadyDoc]

the Christian view of killing a defenseless person (as opposed to direct self defense, or in judicial condemnations for death as punishment) who deserves death could be found in Tolkien:

"...what a pity that Bilbo did not stab that vile creature, when he had a chance!"

"Pity? It was pity that stayed his hand. Pity and Mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been rewarded. Be sure he took so little hurt from the evil...because he began his ownership of the (evil) ring so: With Pity."

"...(But) he deserves death"

"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it....."

A real Christian would have prayed for the doctor's soul, in hopes that he could be saved.

This is not as useless as it seems: Both "Jane Doe" (Norma McCorvey) whose case started abortion on demand, and an early abortion advocate and abortionist, Dr. Nathanson, have become Christians and pro life advocates. Suppose some egotistical activist killed them? Not only would have their present day witness to support life be missing, but their immortal souls would have been danger of hell.

In LOTR, Gollum repents, and then turns back to evil, but because he was spared, the Ring is eventually destroyed, and Frodo's life and soul were saved due to his pity, just as Bilbo's soul was saved from evil by a similar act of pity.

[Buckeye Bomber]

http://www.ptm.org/uni/QandA/0048/abortionDoctor.htm

This a link I found that used scripture to frame the debate, but also expresses some other opinions as well.

Now my opinion:
1) Abortion is taking away the fetuses right to live, which only God can give.

2) Murdering an abortion doctor is taking away that individual's right to live.

3) No individual human should have the right to decide who lives and who dies.

[redgolum]

This case is one of those that pro aborotion and anti church groups love. "See! The Christains are terrorists!"

The simpliest way to see this is two wrongs don't make a right. Yes, the doctor was a murderer, and yes so was the man excuted for killing the doctor.

The question becomes, what do we pro life people do now? Turning it into a gurrleia (sp) war is not the way. We would be slaying the dragon only to become one ourselves.

[Frumanchu]

"Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed..." -Gen 9:6

1)I agree that abortion is wrong

2)I agree that killing an abortion doctor as it occurred in this case was wrong

3)Executing the person who killed the abortion doctor was just under the law.

[FormerLib]

Not to make light of such a serious issue, but one commentator once suggested that he was "morally opposed to the killing of abortionists" and suggested that we address the root causes that lead people to kill in order to protect innocent life. In the end, he declared himself reluctantly pro-choice when it came to shooting abortionists.

[Dusty Rose]

Each of us will face a personal judgment. One has a moral obligation to follow one's conscience. It is God Who judges the heart. Following one's conscience "trumps" all else; HOWEVER, one has a moral obligation to develop a rightly informed conscience according to the Laws of God and the teachings of the Church. One cannot set self as a moral interpreter of Law above and beyond the Church.
To take the life of another, even an abortionist, is wrong.One can never know the future and whether -- for whatever reason -- abortions will or will not be performed again by an individual. By some miracle, and -- yes, miracles do happen -- the "abortionist" could have a change of heart, or s/he could die a natural death before performing the next abortion, or be incapacitated in some way. Only God knows with certainty what the future holds. If Paul Hill really believed in his cause, he would be better off alive fasting, praying, and persuading others during his natural lifetime. The "example" he set as a "martyr" does nothing, and perhaps sets back the pro-LIFE cause.

[sydney smith]

Where is the confusion here? This guy Hill murdered 2 people. OK. He deserves the death penalty. The abortion doctor was not convicted of anything that carried the death penalty. Hill got what he deserved. You can't just decide you're gonna kill somebody because of your interpretation of God's law. That's idiotic. That's what those 9/11 jackasses did.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

He isn't a "Reverend", he is a stinking piece of murderous trash.

[Buckeye Bomber]

What about the bodyguard? He seems to be forgotten in this debate. His killing is a lot more difficult to justify.

[SoothingDave]

To take the life of another, even an abortionist, is wrong.

Always and everywhere? Do policemen do wrong when they shoot and kill criminals who are endagrering the lives of innocent people? What about a citizen with his own concealed weapon? Can he justly use deadly force to prevent the death of innocents?

SD

[SoothingDave]

The abortion doctor was not convicted of anything that carried the death penalty.

So secular law is what we need to look to to judge? What if the law said Jews or coloreds weren't people?

SD

[Onelifetogive]

The abortion doctor was not convicted of anything that carried the death penalty. Hill got what he deserved. You can't just decide you're gonna kill somebody because of your interpretation of God's law.

Didn't we kill lots of German soldiers (on German soil where what they did was legal) to liberate the Concentration Camps?

This included many people who actually executed Jews and many who were simply "guards." Criminal act???

[Dusty Rose]

SoothingDave, Please read my statement in context. I am speaking of the *unlawful* taking of the life of another, as in Thou Shalt Not Kill. The police operate within the law when they protect us; it is their responsibility.

[SoothingDave]

SoothingDave, Please read my statement in context. I am speaking of the *unlawful* taking of the life of another, as in Thou Shalt Not Kill. The police operate within the law when they protect us; it is their responsibility. SD

[SoothingDave]

SoothingDave, Please read my statement in context. I am speaking of the *unlawful* taking of the life of another, as in Thou Shalt Not Kill. The police operate within the law when they protect us; it is their responsibility.

OK, just making sure. We all recognize that police and even common citizens can indeed lawfully and justly take lives when needed to save others.

SD

[2timothy3.16]

Not to interupt, but, your comment: Thou Shalt Not Kill.

Is not a good argument, the kill in "Thou Shalt Not Kill." In the Hebrew means not to take innocent defenceless human life. Neither the abortionist or his armed bodyguard were defenceless.

[2timothy3.16]

I thank you, your arguments are very convincing and just.

[Dusty Rose]

And the question is: Is the abortionist killer JUSTIFIED in his actions because he "saved" the lives of unborn babies?
He may or may not have saved the babies; they may not have been aborted by that particular abortionist, or they may have been aborted anyway by someone else. Killing all the abortionists does not solved the problem of persuading people to cherish life from conception to natural death. Now Paul Hill may have been justified in his conscience and before God, but we do not know that. Objectively, IMO, his action of taking life and becoming a martyr for his cause is wrong. The end -- to save a life -- in this case does not justify the means: killing the abortionist.

[SoothingDave]

And the question is: Is the abortionist killer JUSTIFIED in his actions because he "saved" the lives of unborn babies? He may or may not have saved the babies; they may not have been aborted by that particular abortionist, or they may have been aborted anyway by someone else. Killing all the abortionists does not solved the problem of persuading people to cherish life from conception to natural death. Now Paul Hill may have been justified in his conscience and before God, but we do not know that. Objectively, IMO, his action of taking life and becoming a martyr for his cause is wrong. The end -- to save a life -- in this case does not justify the means: killing the abortionist.

You have summed up my position well. Hill may indeed have felt his actions would be beneficial, but they were not. Anyone "saved" by his action was probably aborted soon anyway. And you are right that force is not going to make people cherish life. So I can see how he might have justified himself, but his actions only serve to set back his cause. And since it is likely that no one was saved, his action is futile as well.

SD