Okay, well now the point of your story is much more clear. That is a huge huge issue you should have clarified. It raises issues like whether killing in a war is the same thing as regular murdering in a peaceful setting. But, besides from that, the traditional Christian view is that all of mankind are sinners, and so should approach other sinners (even much worse ones) with some degree of humility. I am assuming also in your story (you did not explicitly say) that Reverend Cain himself has not repented for taking part in killing people during his wartime service.
A post comparing honorable combat service by a US service member to murders committed by criminals sets a new low here.
Indeed, The State has monopoly on violence. Stateless Societies were much more violent -- thus States must exist. Nevertheless, many people were in fact rewarded for taking part in genocides.
USA killed about 1.5 million civilians in Korean War and about 1 million civilians in Vietnam War. These were acts of Genocide. Most civilians were killed by areal bombing and long range artillery. State has monopoly on violence.
If you kill somebody you've given them a life sentence, why is 15 years enough? I think people who wantonly kill others should die themselves
There is a distinction between what a person deserves, and what punishment they should get. It's a logical error to conflate the two together. For example, there might be some level of ambiguity over whether the person actually did it, and then some people in this very forum have argued it's not the government's job to impose retribution, and that rather the punishment should be based upon other utilitarian reasons.
Could it be possible that an argument could be made that orderly killing is less wrong than disorganized killing? I mean, at least in a war, a group of people has gotten together, in some sense the organization of society has tried to reach a consensus, and there is some alleged reason for the greater good to kill. And I would also argue that not all the blame for the killing is on the one who actually carried out the act. Certainly the ones who coerced, incentivized, or induced that person to act also share part of the blame. I mean, if a legitimate government is ordering you to kill and threatening to punish you if you don't, then even if you personally feel that the killing is likely not a just one, or even if you have no idea whether the war is even carried out for just reasons, then not all of the blame is on you. Likely still some blame, but you were acting under obligation, which people have to accept for utilitarian reasons.
If there's any real level of ambiguity that's reasonable doubt and we should let the person go. The other two are reasonable objections, but I think your citizen's security in their persons should override that. "If you kill a man you take all he has and all he ever will have". You also impose grief on his family that will never heal and will hurt even more if they know you're free. Your death isn't just retribution, it's closure for his loved ones.
The states that want to kill have crap justice systems. There is a law prof that has his class overturn a death penalty conviction every year. He has said there's a ton more he doesn't have the resources to deal with. The death penalty is revenge, not justice. Nothing more, nothing less. Here in Maine, we don't have the death penalty, and we don't want it. It's doesn't deter crime, so there is no point.
At least in one case I remember it CAUSED a double murder. Guy was a habitual criminal who had screwed up and knew he was going back to jail. He killed two teens in a convenience store robbery because he wanted to commit suicide and didn't have the courage to kill himself, so he said. He got his wish, but two innocent people died to grant it.
Maybe you should discuss your theories with some South Koreans. Particularly some with military experience. Any South Koreans I ever knew would just as soon kill a commie as look at one. And you seem like a commie.
It is possible that his guilt over what he participated in has led him to his deep religious convictions..... The Apostle Paul seemed to be sincerely remorseful for those times when he compelled Messianic Jews to blaspheme....... ... So if his own guilt led him to his deep convictions... then this could add genuine fire to his sermons..... https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/act/26/11/s_1044011 Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them. And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted them even unto strange cities. Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests, At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me. And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. But... just as some Messianic Jews of the first century were skeptical at first if Paul had actually repented.... of course... . there is logic in many of the prisoners being skeptical as well...... I guess that would depend on how he talks about his own actions of the past and how his thoughts about all of that have influenced his own conversion.....???
I am Jewish. I am not Christian. I am only partially observant but I do not use Internet or Electricity on Sabbath.
When our house in Nova Scotia sells and we move to near a synagogue in Ontario Canada I do plan to have a discussion with a Rabbi about my perhaps attending synagogue as a Noahide. The near death experience account and teachings of Orthodox Jewish Rabbi Alon Anava have impressed me greatly. "My Life After Death Experience" with Alon Anava What can we expect when Mashiach come? What will happen the 'day after' the arrival - Rabbi Anava
