(I'm not a great communicator. That being said, I am sure to get a few comments on this entry regardless of whether or not I effectively communicate the thought.)
I say, "Killing is wrong."
After an initial shock and just before disbelief settles in, I am questioned about what exactly do I mean by "killing is wrong"; a subtle negotiation of semantics from both liberals and conservatives alike. What do I mean when I say "killing" and what do I mean when I say "wrong"? And for some, it all depends on what my definition of "is" is. Well, I tend to go for the common interpretations of words. When I say "killing", I mean the taking of another human life. When I say "wrong", I mean there is no justification for it.
That's when all hell breaks loose. It doesn't matter, liberal or conservative, the majority of people are instantly convinced that I am off my rocker. That may be the case, but what is extremely interesting to note is how quickly many try to convince me to consider one kind of killing or another as being okay. In many cases, I am presented with hypothetical situations designed to invoke an emotion, such as the threatening of my wife or children. Perhaps that will appeal to my "sense of justice". I suggest that if I were to justify killing in one instance, pretty soon I could justify any kind of killing.
When asked for the source of my statement, I really have no definitive answer. I arrived at it one day when considering the whole question. I'd like to say that I have received it by "revelation". How can anyone argue against that? They could say that I'm deceived, but that means that they have to argue that it is okay to kill, which makes them wrong according to my statement. Which is where the whole conversation was leading to in the first place--Nobody wants to be wrong.
Every excuse for why killing would be okay is to preserve a moral high ground for us to stand on, so that we will not be accused or condemned based on our actions. But that's just the point, it bases itself in our actions, our decisions, our moral reasonings to preserve ourselves, those things that are already proven to change as they suit our needs to. When I am asked if those specific kinds of killing could be considered "acceptable", I am being asked for leniency--for mercy in my limited human judgment. As if what they might say in that instance is, "I had a really good reason." The premise of which begins with a universal understanding that killing is bad and that an excuse is needed to make it okay.
If I can explain away my behavior, then my being excused from being "wrong" is based on what I have done. Whether you consider that what I did "wasn't as bad" as someone else or whether you consider that my pleading my case was what "won" me the judgment for mercy. But with the totality of all killing being wrong, I am left with no excuse, no out, no escape. What will happen if I kill? I will be guilty; the very verdict attempting to be escaped by those who are asking me to consider that some kinds of killing are permissible.
But, wait. There is hope!
In Romans, Paul talked about how everyone--I mean, EVERYONE--was locked up under the law in disobedience so that God could display mercy for EVERYONE. Jesus died to do away with the problem of sin. A promise that he would no longer consider our failures in this life and hold them against us; somehow dying in punishment for the condemnation that our actions bring upon us, so that we could live without that very condemnation. The same result that others try to achieve with me, by argument, has been offered to us regardless of our own machinations and justifications.
It doesn't matter how "wrong" or "right" we are, there is only one thing that can ever make us right, and it isn't what we do, it isn't how little of the bad stuff we do, and it isn't the circumstances under which our actions occurred. The only justification that we can possibly have that makes us truly righteous, and not merely pretenders to the throne, is what Jesus did for all of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment