So... I've recently been obsessed with Doctor Who. (No, no, I'm not going to rant about it. Not really.) I didn't realize how much it was actually influencing me until this evening. (Proves the power of entertainment to actually change a person... but that's another topic.)

First, let me take a moment to do something very brave, and explain that I am very, very much a pacifist. I can't participate on many of my own threads; the assassination thread, for example. I ask questions; but I won't state my own view. I cannot justify any war, any where, or for any cause to myself. I don't usually talk about it; it's my own conviction.

The Doctor (MC of the aforementioned Doctor Who) is not exactly free from innocent blood. He's responsible for the deaths of millions. He kills when he has to. He's committed genocide multiple times. Almost every episode deals with death is some form. And that is exactly what makes the show so powerful; because he grieves over every single life. Bad guy, good guy, friend or enemy, it doesn't matter. Whether it's thousands who perish as a result of him saving the world, or just a single being he grieves over it. He may not see much, but it never goes unnoticed or unmentioned. Everything comes at a price, and the makers of DW make that price abundantly clear to us.

Netflix vanished on me! So tonight I settled down to watch another show, Stargate. I realized my worldview had changed. Whenever they save the world, there's a price too. Shoot and run, leaving a trail of dead enemy soldiers behind you. It never occurred to me to question that before; it's not a deep philosophical show about death. But how many books have you read and how many movies have you watched where random people randomly die for random reasons and no one mentions it again?

No one cares. Even when there are regrets, it tends to be an offhand "For what it's worth, I'm sorry I had to kill him." No one grieves. Not even in real life.

Every day across the sea people die. American troops, yes. Innocents caught in the crossfire. The enemy. We pray for our troops, but is that all you can do? What happened to the sanctity of human life? That any option is better then mass slaughter? Every single human life is sacred. Everyone, guilty or not guilty, saved or unsaved, is a miracle. Every death is a tragedy so great it should never be forgotten.

I don't think I'll ever be able to watch inconsequential deaths again without thinking "You didn't have to kill him!" or "Just drop your guns and run!" I've always thought that the price of war was far to high for the results; and now I see that more sharply then before.

Never think that death is inconsequential. Never forget the price with which the world is saved.

Em was telling me about this when I got her into Stargate this winter... how different the two shows are.

It's a hard line to walk. Stargate is strong military scifi. Doctor Who is almost like a fairy tale, it's definitely not hardcore scifi and the Doctor is a very childlike character (without being childish, most days!). Two different genres.

But at the same time, even though I'm not a strong pacifist, I do prefer the Doctor's style. He takes a third option as much as possible, and it hurts him when he has to kill. (again, most days. He's got issues...) They show pretty clearly what it's doing to him - he's practically shell-shocked after the Great Time War.

I'll note though that even in Stargate they have a character who is much more sympathetic - Daniel Jackson, who cares more about the people who get hurt. (just as long as they're not Gou'alds. No sympathy for them. )

(I'm not really agreeing or disagreeing with you, Katie - just adding some more information. XD)

Interesting post on a blog I read recently:
http://www.speculativefaith.com/2011/06 ... time-lord/

For obvious reasons, I'm not going to participate in this thread. I believe that men and women put their lives on the line in order to preserve the sanctity of life. Christ died to save the world. God also called His people to go to war in order to protect themselves.

I think we should be sensitive to the loss of life. I also believe that we shouldn't become calloused. However, I don't agree that we preserve life by not killing. The Amish will allow men to kill their families and defile their daughters, rather than commit violence. I've never found anywhere in scripture where the Lord smiles upon this and frowns on taking the life of the man who would kill your family.

It's Amish. With an A.

I'm not saying killing is never justified, or that the Amish and Mennonite standpoint of non-violence is right. I'm not saying that we should not fight and kill to defend our homes and our lives; but that such killing should not be taken lightly. "He had it coming to him."

It's about considering a third option.

If I caught someone sneaking about in my house I wouldn't shoot first and ask questions later. I'd take the risk of facing him, asking what he was doing, and giving him a chance to leave.

If I was forced to shoot him, I wouldn't shoot to kill.

If I was forced to kill I wouldn't do it without exhausting all other options first.

If I killed I would never, ever forget it.

I tend to agree with everything here. In military movies I watch, or fantasy or scifi, I find my heart sympathizing with the people who die without being grieved than the people who are actually the MCs. In Avatar, those mercenaries were still humans, just doing what they were told to do. Most of them died because they were the "bad guys". In Star Wars, hundreds of Clone/Storm troopers die, without anyone blinking or giving them a second thought.

That just never felt right to me (Can you tell I'm opinionated on this?)


I agree. Confront him first, and find out what he's doing.

However, I think I disagree with you on the last few parts. If you want, I can elaborate, but there are several reasons why the theory of "not shooting to kill" wouldn't work.

On the last point, again, I'm with you. A human life is precious. If one absolutely must take it, then one should never forget it, lest they take life for granted.

Anyway, that's my take. Back on topic, I definitely agree. In our writing, how do we portray that life, even an antagonist's, is sacred? The main villlain might be pure evil, but can your character show remorse for killing even him?

Most Mennonites do not hold to the Amish's nonviolence beliefs.

Haha, I'm going to avoid giving my opinion on this matter because I don't agree with everything that has been posted, therefore, I wish not to make waves by disagreeing.

As for the actual main post. That was very thought-provoking and well-written; thank you for posting, Vanya.

Mennonite beliefs are a lot more flexible and variant then the Amish. (All Amish are the same, not all Mennonites are.) Where I live that's exactly what they believe.

Ciela... you're probably right.

And again, there are no hard and fast rules. There can never be. Situations are infinite, and no one can say "This is what you should do."



Bethany: you're probably very smart. Five minutes after I started this thread I wondered if doing so was intelligent or not...

Haha, smart isn't the word I'd use...more like extremely timid of opinion-sharing because I know HW is not debate-friendly. And, like I said, I liked the post. I do not think you did wrong by posting it.

Katie, you should post this on the sci-fi side, since it's equally (if not more so) pertinent to that genre.

I will post more thoughts later if I can intelligently organize them.

Thanks for the reminder, Jaynin. It is easier to formulate what one "should" do than be ready to act with whatever option is open. While I'm very steadfast in my stated opinions, I'm thinking I should've worded my post less confrontive.

I don't think the point of Jaynin's post was "should we kill." Both of the shows she referenced deal with death, and a lot of it. If you want to discuss the theology of war and murder, there are other threads for that.

I think the point of Jaynin's post was "do we care when we kill?"

As Jaynin pointed out, Hollywood and literature sometimes glazes over death. Many times casualties are passed over without a thought, and war is depicted as a thrilling adventure where bad guys drop like flies and the good guys escape to the sound of epic music.

(This ties in, I suppose, to the filmmaking trope that bad guys are poor shots... for all the stormtroopers we encounter, how many times do they actually hit something of value besides themselves? Not often!)

On the contrary, the Doctor mourns over death. He kills, but he doesn't do it lightly - and he makes note of it when it does.

What is the Biblical approach? How should we, as Christians, treat casualties? And how does that reflect in our writing? Is it unbiblical to glaze over death like Hollywood? Are we forgetting to give life the weight it's worth? Could we, by giving death and the fallen respect, set our works apart from the world's? Would grieving over the necessary death of war increase the realism and impact of our novels?

Just some thoughts.

I remember one scene in SW Ep. VI where we get that sense of "there are little people getting hurt in this war." An unnamed teddy bear (whatever those cute things are called) falls during the battle of Endor... and his companion kneels over him, trying to get him to wake up... it's then that you realize it's not just the bad guys that are falling, and it's not just the heroes that need to escape alive. Other people are suffering because of this.

Thankee, Leah.

Never write theology posts late at night while strongly influenced by emotion. They tend to not be coherant.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Death happens. Killing is necessary. We've talked about that in other threads. And the logical conclusion that this leads us to is how do we react to that killing? When it's all over, what then? Do we go back and look at it? How do your characters react? Are they callous: "I could slit your throat and never feel a thing." Or are they compassionate?

One of the things we hate in villains is that they treat death casually. They enjoy seeing others die. (typically.) Are our heroes any better? From the villain's point of view, are they any less casual about letting the bad guys die? And so much of enmity is a matter of perspective.

Very good point.

I think the issue of perspective is what Hollywood and literature exploit (intentionally or otherwise). If the characters and the narrative treat death as if it is nothing, most of the audience will follow along. It is in the power of the author to put weight on different subjects, by dwelling on them or glazing over them. That applies to other areas besides death; it's similar to how we moderate violence - revel in it and make a gory deal out of it, or summarize and move on.

How much weight should we be putting on necessary death?

Now that is something I can totally agree with. Death should not ever be treated lightly. It is still death, and death is ugly and a desecration of human life.

And I think you make a good point, Katie, by bringing up the reason we don’t like villains is because they are so casual towards death. I know that is something I use in my villain, with my rewrites. I focus on his lack of concern for those around him, and how easy it is for him to kill and harm.

I noticed what Vanya is talking about while watching Star Wars.

The Republic hesitates to go to war, even if it means a civil split. Suddenly, they have thousands of clones at their disposal, and they're willing to go to war over "democracy".

The clones appear to lack value to the Republic in that they are viewed as a "bought and paid for" kind of thing. Nobody ever asks the clones how they feel about people, because somebody decided to alter their genetics without bothering to ask themselves whether that was ethical.

So we have a race of soul-possessing machines that kill without question because someone decided they were entitled to alter the clones without their consent. Because the clones don't appear to have free-will, they apparently have no more value than a battle-droid.

Bizarre ethics? Try demonic ethics.

Worse yet, is that the Jedi treat the clones no different than they treat droids. As soon as the clones turn on them, the clones become valueless. So the Jedi determine value based on usefulness, which seems to contradict their ideal of the Force. Shouldn't they strive to at least respect the many beings that form the Force? Instead of striving for harmony, or at least non-resistance, they view other beings as a tool to be used or thrown away.

Again, demonic ethics.

Aren't wars based on the same concept? Leaders of countries throw away lives to fight for ideals, despite the fact that the sanctity of life is obviously far more valuable than the ideals those lives are thrown away for?

And here's a catch 22. It's clear that those who violated the life of others give up their own right, so death is a just, and permissible punishment. But can we justify the deaths of those who were not guilty in order to fulfill the goal of justice? In other word, is it right for people to die for crimes they did not commit? No.

But that seems wrong in real life.

WW2. Hitler kills Jews en masse. Hitler and his henchmen obviously deserve death. But is it right for American soldiers to die in order to achieve justice? Can we sacrifice the innocent in order to bring justice to the guilty?

Of course, WW2 was supposedly fought to prevent more slaughter. If that is the case, and sometimes, for some individuals, it was, then of course, freely laying down your life to prevent another's death is noble.

But can we kill soldiers who are not necessarily responsible for future and past atrocities, in order to prevent those future atrocities? Many German soldiers were more or less conscripts. Historical accounts indicate that many German soldiers clearly did not support Hitler's beliefs, and were resisting the army from within. Can we risk killing them for crimes they aren't guilty of?



But in either case, is your hypothetical person morally guilty, or should they merely mourn over the lost lives? If their shooting of the intruder can be justified, they have nevertheless destroyed a sacred life. On the other hand, this person obviously isn't morally responsible for the actions of the psychopath.

I think the right way to look at it is this:

If a death is absolutely, unavoidably, inescapably necessary, then we should carry it out without hesitation. But we should still mourn the loss of sacred life.

Wow, Jordan, thank you. You put that very well. I completely agree.

We seem to talk about war in this thread like it were a matter of self defense, but most wars are started over an ideal. You don't like the current government, but do you have the right to kill the people who don't agree with you in order to set up a new one?

But mostly, do you see your armies as clone armies? Or perhaps you mourn over the friendly soldiers, but do you see the enemy's losses as arbitrary when their lives were no less precious?

Dr. Who does not reflect the most responsible worldview (namely, that of an atheistic dadaism), nor should I say does Stargate. But you must also understand that what Dr. Who considers to be "precious human life" is not at all how we Christians understand it. We believe in a soul. We believe in the imago dei, which grants the being genuine and eternal worth. The writers of Dr. Who, however, sees them only as soulless decomposing matter. They grieve over them because they should and they ought - not because that life is anything special (unless you think the naturally-induced freak accident called "life" is somehow special in a universe of random lifeless matter).

The Christian believes the soul has genuine worth and value, and that death is a totally unnatural phenomenon produced by the Fall. But because the Christian values the human life, he must of necessity value something more than human life. Namely, the One who first gave that life, and Who often takes it back: God.


We are at war. The flesh, the world, and hell are constantly hammering the believer and unbeliever alike. Christ is coming a second time to bring damnation and war, resolving all things in peace at last. Our faith is the only thing worth living for, worth dying for, and yes, worth killing for.

I'm not saying we should shoot everyone who disagrees with us, nor that we are to be war-mongering vigilantes. What I am saying is that we be radicals. The world is earnest to cause war and bloodshed. Don't expect me to throw down my weapons when my family, whether biological or spiritual, is threatened.

We are to have the highest reverence for life, and if we are required to take it - then yes, weep, for God does! But in the words of General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson: ""When war does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard."

This war is not eternal. God will put all to rest. However, peace comes through victory, not compromise, not tolerance.

Deo Volente,
Pavalini

This is actually something that is dealt with, and altered, in the Star Wars tv series. Something I found very interesting.



The American Revolution, when we broke from Britain, is a good example of a war that people think is based on ideals, but was in fact an effort to attain freedom for future generations. It was an act of self defense, because the founding fathers recognized the fact that things would go downhill, the king had violated their trust, and they needed to protect the rights of themselves and their children, before they became slaves to a government.

At least, that is a very simplistic overview, and a blinder view, since there were many other factors.

But, can we put an ideal, like "freedom" over the value of life?

When we talk about killing, we have to weigh all the scales very sensitively.

The example of Thomas Jackson is very interesting since neither side in the Civil War fought over what could be considered
self-defense.

The South fought for an ideal, state's rights, and were under no threat of bodily harm or property violation, except the loss of slaves who technically weren't their property to begin with.

The North fought for an ideal, unity, which was not so different from the ideal of the Republic in Star Wars. (Of course, I shouldn't generalize, because some, like Joshua Chamberlain, were fighting to free the slaves. This wasn't the general case, though.)

To me, neither of these ideals can justify the shedding of blood. So could Jackson justify his statement, "no mercy for the invaders of our hearths and homes", his pronouncement of the Black Flag?

You may put it over mine.

And mine. But perhaps, that belongs in a different thread.

But what I mean is, can you place that ideal over someone else's life? Is that your decision to make?

Sorry, Neil, I'm not actually going to answer that one. Like I said before, I'm not really participating in this thread, I was just trying to put some perspective out there for everyone. I'm a military brat. You all know that. My father, and thus myself, feel very passionately that you should protect your family at all costs, in multiple ways, not just when the knife is at their throats. My father also believes you should protect your unborn grandchildren from being made victims of the government who would oppress them.

So I'm very biased. I'm passionate. We are talking about something the people I love most believe in. Something they fight for. I don't argue the value of human life. But people I love and care about are putting their lives on the line as we speak. *shrugs * I mourn the fact that we have to take life in order to protect life. Doesn’t change the fact that I still feel the Lord is clear about this subject.

I'm actually with Airi on this one, for the first time.

We (should) make war only when we would be committing greater evil not to. I don't know if this should be viewed in terms of economy (the value of the soul vs. the worth of freedom) but everything worth having has a cost. We all die eventually. Are we considering the lives of the next generation who will remain enslaved because this one did not fight?

No, that is, I would not kill an innocent person even to preserve my own freedom. It would be murder.
If some one is unjustly forcing me to do something on pain of death, he is a murderer. I may not be in a position to defend myself, but if I am I will.


I agree that it is wrong to cheapen death, and treat it as some trivial thing. Death is a fearful thing. However we should not fall into the same error as the Israelites when they complained, "Whosoever cometh any thing near unto the tabernacle of the LORD shall die: shall we be consumed with dying?"
Numbers 17:13
Sin is a fearful thing: the wages of sin is death, by the hand of God and man.


We should never be glad that people deserve to die, but we should be glad that people who deserve to die do die. It should grieve us that people sin and it should comfort us that they are punished. Otherwise Heaven is imperfect. Heaven is not a place where we will sit on the shores of the Lake of Fire and weep.

Romans 9
22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Murderers should be destroyed, and will endure everlasting death, to the glory of God, because they have profaned the sanctity of life.

Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

We cannot lightly say "killing sinners is wrong," because we cannot take God's judgment lightly.

1 Samuel 15
2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
9 But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.
22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.
32 Then said Samuel, Bring ye hither to me Agag the king of the Amalekites. And Agag came unto him delicately. And Agag said, Surely the bitterness of death is past.
33 And Samuel said, As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.

I want to ask anyone on the forum: if you were Saul, what would you have done?

Jeremiah 48
10 Cursed be he that doeth the work of the LORD deceitfully, and cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood.


If you have read such a long post, congratulations! This is a very serious subject, and there was much that I needed to say. I sincerely hope that this does not anger anyone. But I doubt that it will on Holy Worlds.

Thank you for the discussion!

In 1 Sam. 15, God explicitly commanded them to kill everyone. Therefore, refraining from killing Agag was a direct violation of God's commandment, regardless of any other issues of justice and murder.

There are other places where God gave that specific commandment, and punishment came when that commandment was ignored. Therefore, if God has explicitly commanded us to kill, we shall. But He doesn't give that commandment in every situation, so we can't make a blanket statement out of it. Just wanted to point that out.

Also, please remember that the focus of this thread is not on "is it right to kill." That is a multi-faceted issue that needs to be explored in context. The focus of this thread is on properly mourning death when it happens.

Obeying Phili and getting back on topic...
I'm not sure if I should have started this thread but I still want to talk about it. So here's some more ramblies.

It's about options. Neil gave an example on another one of my threads, that sometimes kill or be killed isn't always the only options. Going back to my SG-1 vs. Doctor Who examples:

When SG-1 plans a mission they take the most efficient route to achieve their goals. Their goals are noble and worthy and important, often the world is in the balance, and they'll do whatever it takes to achieve the goal, even blowing up ships and bases and killing hundreds of the Jaffa. (They're the clones of the story. )

The Doctor on the other hand will take the risk of the mission failing in order to choose a route that will cost as few lives as possible. It's an important mission! Failure will often result in everyone dying, since these people are in the business of saving the world from disaster.

But it's a risk worth taking, isn't it? It's like the sacrifice thread; the age old moral dilemma of saving the many or the few. If you choose to save the few you run the risk of losing the lives of many, many more. By taking a more risky path to avoid killing you're doing the same thing.

I think it demonstrates faith in the bigger picture. Even if the character doesn't specifically believe in God, I think it's likely he believes in something greater than himself, whether that be justice or destiny or what. Because to take a risk like that I think you have to believe that someone out there will give you the time you need to save the many as well, that something will hold back the oncoming forces long enough for you to save as many as possible.

We as Christians should believe in that far more than others. We can choose, and our characters can choose to take the riskiest path if it means we can save as many lives as possible; even if those are enemy lives. Rather than blowing up the base, you can infiltrate it. Rather than killing, you can run.

I love the time when the Doctor runs... not because he can't fight, but because he won't. If you corner him ("what's the one thing you never put in a trap?") you're a dead man. He's not helpless, and he won't hesitate to kill, but given a choice he'll choose to run. I think, I think we should all run. Run and hide, rather than turn and fight and we can all live to fight another day.

Sometimes that's not an option. I'll say it so you don't have to. I'm not talking about those times. I'm talking about the times that you can choose.

"Then we learned why this man who had fought with gods and demons had run and hidden from us. He was being kind."

That post is pretty much the essence of my feelings and leaves me with nothing else to say.

And, if we do choose to fight, I find it comforting to know that God's will will be carried out.

Which, on a related to note, is bad news for the bad guys, regardless of the Earthly outcome.

Yes, I love knowing that. It means even defeat can be a victory, another advantage we have over the bad guys.

I probably should have included a summary, it would have said this:

I mourn when people become sinners, not when sinners die. Nor will I do anything to spare their lives. I mourn when those who do not deserve to be killed are killed, and I will do all in my power to spare their lives.
I hope that helps.



A good thing to point out. I was mainly making an emotional argument. It seems a lot of people base their thinking on their own emotions, when they should base their thinking on God's emotions.

Thank you for noticing that. I see I needed help clarifying it.

I appreciate that, Tsahraf. I agree on the emotional aspect. I'd also like to suggest that, in some of those instances where God's commandment to kill was transgressed, it was based on materialism. The Israelites wanted to keep some of the people or goods for themselves when they were supposed to destroy it all. But I don't know that that really ties into the sanctity of human life.

It is not right, nor is it realistic, for the good guys (I'm thinking of Star Wars here) to mow down a troop of enemy soldiers and run away without even a twinge of remorse, with smiles on their faces.
When I watched those movies, I couldn't help but stare at the dead Storm Trooper bodies and wonder if they really were bad, if they actually believed in this fight. And I felt a little sad.

One other thing: I cannot stand to watch a show or movie or anything, that plays death for laughs. Death is not funny, no matter who it happens to.

I agree. I do not think I have seen a show like that, for which I am grateful.

I haven't actually watched any actual shows or movies that are like that, but a Youtube clip here and there provided the smallest of samples.

On another note, having this kind of view is mighty inconvenient. I'm rewriting an old novel of mine and in the end the MC blows up a complex, taking out half the city with it. He has very, very good reasons, and I still need to blow up the complex, but... people will die. A month ago it wouldn't have bothered me, it wouldn't have even occurred to me that it would kill so many people and now I'm seriously considering changing my ending rather than have my MC murder that many innocent bystanders in the name of justice.

Which leaves me with a mess of logistical problems.

A moral conundrum always makes a novel more interesting, something has to be done about the antagonists, and not many innocents can be killed. Let the character decide which is the preferred course of action.

(Solution? Use a smaller explosive charge. )

Feed your conflict into the character, Vanya. Instead of changing your plot, have your character struggle with your thought process before and after the act. (If it fits with his character. If it does, you can give the struggle to someone else.)