Oooohhh… good post!

My first instinct was number 2 – “take the gun, kill the terrorists but it’s still an immoral thing to do”.

However, after thinking about it for a good while, I’d actually choose number 1. But it’s with conditions.

If I was the only one on the plane and the only life at threat, I’d do nothing. Actually – I’d witness and pray for them and do nothing physical. Whilst I wouldn’t want to die because I’d hate to leave my wife and family behind, I would know that I’d be with Jesus, which is awesome.

To fight back in that instance would be to preserve the life of someone who is saved and take the life of someone who isn’t, which I don’t think I could do.

However, if there’s others on board and if they’re planning on flying into a building, I don’t see how you’d reconcile not intervening with scripture. Obviously, taking the gun and not killing the terrorists but subduing them would be the best option, but you didn’t let us choose that!

Piper has a good article on pacifism: http://slth.info/pacifism

Thanks Jonny. I tidied the link up but it still goes to the same place. I think.

It’s a good article.

Yeah – Paul (who was taking the lecture) wouldn’t let us choose a middle ground. I went for option 1 and could have done with that article on Sunday!

The people who went with option 3 used the 10 commandments as a reason not to kill… but I was never allowed to point out what happens in the OT story after the 10 commandments are given when God often sends people out to ‘remove’ people from the land that God has promised to the Israelites. So I think there must be a difference between the word translated as “murder” in the 10 commandments and “killing”. But I don’t know enough Old Testament Foreign to be authoritative on that.

I think lots of people may go with option 2 because option 1 kind of makes it sound as if you’d enjoy it. Which wouldn’t be the case.

Yeah… I think another important point is about scale.

It’s somewhat easier to say I’d intervene if there was a chance of stopping 9/11 or of stopping Hitler etc. However, it’s a problem we’re unlikely to face.

I think though, that whether something is the right thing to do, it is irrespective of scale. If someone with a gun is going to hurt one person in the street & you have a chance to stop it, do you? I think so.

Reminds me of the good Samaritan. It’s a nice story and is easy to see the merit in him stopping to help the Jewish man. I can’t think that many people (those distanced from the Samaria/Jewish problems at least) would say this is the wrong thing to do. However, had the Samaritan set off earlier on his journey and had arrived whilst the bandits were attacking the Jewish man… those that chose point 3 would have to say that the Samaritan would now be wrong to help. He should sit by and let the Jew get beated, robbed and who knows, murdered, before then helping the bleeding man by the roadside. That would be crazy.

We’re to help the oppressed, the weak and the downtrodden.

I thik I agree with Option 1. However, I’m a wimpy girl, and if I’m totally honest, I think I’d do nothing, and just cry. I don’t know how to use a gun. Also, its not in the options, but what about jus shooting then in the knee caps (Jack Bauer taught me that)? Although I suppose the one that still had a gun on him/her could shoot you even if they had their knee caps shot….Now I feel like I’ve done the worng thing.

Andy, can you get rid of all the spelling mistakes in that please?!

What spelling mistakes?

Worng is a word…

Although, Jack Bauer only shoots them in the knees so that they can’t struggle whilst he tortures them

I was thinking of saying something similar to Susie (apart from the spelling mistaks bit obvousily)(and the knee caps bit). I also suspect that I, like many moral, serious thinking, essay writing people, would spend so long trying to decide what to do and how to use the gun, that the opportunity would be lost.

Do you think that you might get some slightly more likey to happen to lots of us situations to discuss?

PS Congrats on the good solid B – proves you’re not prematurely mature – and that you have a life

I’m an Anglican – shoot one of them!

There were some more likely scenarios too… like the one about Dashing Dick (I kid you not) who is a crook in a parish. Every year he puts on an event for the old people of the parish that includes a slap up meal and a night at the Bingo. Lots of church members go along… should the church promote it?

Also the one about the mother of a sick child in a country where drugs cost money – she has no way of affording the drugs and has tried every legal avenue to get the drugs for her dying child – should she turn to theft to get her hands on the drugs?

I haven’t put in all the details of the above. Maybe I could have a weekly ethical debate. I like that idea!

Next week’s ethical debate – animals – is it ok to kick them if it’s for great comedy effect?

I like the idea of a weekly ethical debate…

The question of the mother stealing to help her sick child is a great one, because I find it’s the sort of question that gets asked a lot.

My undoubtedly flawed argument would point to when the woman caught in adultery was going to be stoned, Jesus said “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. I find this really interesting because Jesus isn’t saying, “it’s ok to commit adultery”. He definitely isn’t. Also, it’s interesting because Jesus is without sin, yet he doesn’t cast the first stone.

Here’s the deal. It’s never ok to sin. If you are stealing because you just want the latest iPod or because you are starving, it’s still sin and, it’s still against the law.

However, this question is being asked to a group of believers. So the question is basically; here is a desperate woman, hungry and starving and struggling to keep her sick kid alive – should she steal? Is it a sin?

The answer is, buy the medicine for her!! Get her some food! How often is the church in this situation where it’s happy to stretch out it’s finger and shout out “sinner!” at the man in the street but not lift a finger to help.

The woman should provide for her child and the church/christians who see her everyday should help her do that. If they don’t, she should still help her child. She should do everything she can to avoid stealing, but ultimately she should help her child. If she isn’t a christian, whether or not she steals to save her child is irrelevent to her salvation. If she steals, she’s sinning. If she doesn’t but still manages to save her child and cheers and breathes the air without a single thought to how great God is for saving the child – she’s still sinning.

Ha – a long answer that hasn’t really answered it clearly! Basically, she should get the drugs for her kid. But the church’s response to her plight shouldn’t be to decide if she’s doing right or wrong. It should be to help her so her kid survives and to tell her it’s all about Jesus so that they may both survive eternally. That’s what Jesus did with the woman caught in adultery.

Also – it’s always ok to kick them for comedy effect.

Um, it’s always okay to kick Jesus and the woman caught in adultery for comedy effect?
Oh, hang on.
Animals.
Yeah.
Anyway, Jonny, ‘the church’s response to her plight shouldn’t be to decide if she’s doing right or wrong. It should be to help her…’ Very well put.
As to the ‘gunmen on a plane’ (sounds like a film. Possibly with Samual L. Jackson) dilemma, I too think probably 1. I’ve just finished reading ‘Waylander’ by David Gemmell. He’s one of my very favourite authors and whilst he writes heroic fantasy (and does it very well), he always manages to sneak some fantastically deep stuff in there. He was a Christian (from Hastings – woo!) and never talked about God in his novels, but all his fantasy realms seemed to feature the ‘Source of All Things’ as the higher power.
Anyway. In the novel Waylander, Gemmell has a bunch of monks decide that they need to throw off some of their pacifistic vows and take up arms against the ‘Dark Brotherhood’ – basically a bunch of evil monks. This causes great division within their order – the Abbot can’t countenance the idea, and neither can many of the brethren. But off the monks go, and they righteously kick unrighteous butt. Near the end of the novel, some of the Order have cause to question their actions – they have shed much blood to defend the people of their land.
As they debate the right or wrong of their actions, one of the monks, Astila, puts forward this argument:
“I am not as intellectually gifted as some of our Order, but bear with me, brothers. I recall a phrase the Abbot used when I was a novitiate. He said: ‘When a fool sees himself as he is, then he is a fool no longer; and when a wise man learns of his own wisdom, then he becomes a fool.’ This caused me great trouble, for it seemed mere wordplay. But after many years I have come to this conclusion: that only in certainty is there moral danger. Doubt is the gift we must cherish, for it forces us to question our motives constantly. It guides us to the truth. I do not know if we chose wisely the path we now walk. I do not know if we are right in what we do. But we walk it in faith.
“I despise the slaying, but I will continue to fight the Brotherhood with all the powers the Source has allowed me. [...] “My biggest fear was that we would grow to love the battle.”
So I think I would take the gun and shoot the terrorists. But it would trouble me.
And I certainly wouldn’t be shouting things like, ‘yeah, biatch, git some!’
At least, I don’t think I would.

You making up for a long absence from the blog, Jack?

Ros…..your turn

Certainly am! From now on, lots of posts from me!
Possibly.
Or not.
Hmmm…

My problem with this ethical dilemma (the terrorists on a plane one) was the “realistic opportunity” part. I find it highly unlikely that there would be a realistic opportunity for me to get a gun off a terrorist. However, that aside, I think I agree with Jack. I would shoot the terrorists, but it would definitely trouble me. Well, I would want to, anyway, but can’t guarantee that I would actually have the bottle to do it, being a bit of a wimp, on the whole.

I love the idea of a load of monks “righetously kicking unrighteous butt”.

Is kicking animals ok if they wake you up from your much-needed afternoon nap? Next-door’s dog woke me up earlier and my first thought was how much I wanted to kick it in the head. I was shocked at myself. And slightly ashamed.

I still wanted to do it though…

Sian – it’s ALWAYS ok to kick animals for comedic effect.

Always.

In fact, I’m kicking a guinea pig right now, just to test if it’s funny.

And it is, isn’t it?

Hmm, interesting, the more I read people’s comments, the more confused I become about what I would do. One thing though – I have held a gun – it was heavy and scary …

I’d like Skye and Pingu’s opinions in the ethics of kicking animals debate

They’re not animals. They’re people.

Although there are times (say, 2 a.m., for example) when Skye’s hogging all the bed AND all the duvet that I could kick her.
That’s right, my dog steals my duvet.

I’m a little late to the game but I’m going with option 1. Of course, I’ve been watching a few action movies/tv shows recently so that may well be informing my ethical radar. Also, realistically, I doubt I could kill 2 terrorists in a dangerous situation without some “collatoral damage” aka civilian casualties.

I’m also disappointed that people are learning about kneecaps from Jack Bauer and not Shepherd Book…

Captain Reynolds: Doesn’t the Bible have some pretty specific things to say about killing, Shepherd?

Shepherd Book: Well yes, but it’s a mite fuzzier on the subject of kneecaps.

I hate to admit it Bek, but ashamedly I do understand that sci-fi reference.

Please can you all refrain from pointing that out to my wife. She already has enough geek ammunition to fire at me.