Would you rather kill than renounce your religious beliefs?

[Quintessence]

For me, this is less of a "sky made of concrete" question (where'd you get that saying from, @exchemist ?) than "nothing about this scenario makes sense within the context of my religion."

Druidry isn't really a "faith." We don't do that whole "true believer" purity test nonsense. We don't have a holy book. We don't have an authority, much less a highest authority. I mean, there's the Chosen Chief in OBOD, but... they are not an "authority" as much as an organizational administrator, networking asset, and facilitator. Like... a hippie CEO who is all about helping others realize their potential and patently not interested in bossing anyone around.

 

[ChristineM]

I don't do religion and don't do killing.
However if i saw someone committing a serious crime I'd possibly disable them and call the police.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Suppose you are forced, threatened, harassed to join a lynching party or a warring group or publicly denounce your faith. No True Believer™ would ever speak to you again. Suppose also that the highest authorities of your faith have sanctioned the killing and that an interpretation of your Holy Book can be found to condone it.

Mind your decision because if you answer that you will not kill, it means that your inherent morality is more worth to you than your faith.

Dang it, my religion does not have such a book. Could I join a different religion if there was someone that I really wanted to get rid of? If it was just some random person I would have to sadly decline to join up. But you know how it is. certain politicians, certain relatives, stars of TV shows that really bother me. There are some serious candidates out there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dang it, my religion does not have such a book. Could I join a different religion if there was someone that I really wanted to get rid of? If it was just some random person I would have to sadly decline to join up. But you know how it is. certain politicians, certain relatives, stars of TV shows that really bother me. There are some serious candidates out there.

Traitor! You do not know how seriously annoying my aunt can get.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Like islamistic terrorist?

Yep or any religious psychopath for that matter.

 

[Ella S.]

As a Stoic, the closest I have to "holy scriptures" are the writings of ancient Stoic, Neo-Stoic, rationalist, and contemporary Stoic philosophers, who don't agree with each other on everything. The figures that are seen as the most influential in the Modern Stoic movement are ones that I have disinterest in.

I'm already considered to not be a true Stoic by many other Stoics. Half of them think that my beliefs regarding the importance of seriousness, the suppression of emotional expression, and my condemnation of love are too far and constitute a form of dangerous extremism. The other half think my failure to condemn LGBTQ+ movements, my disregard for authority, and my non-conformity are degenerate.

In my opinion, both of these groups have violated the core values of Stoicism. The former has loosened their morality and the latter misunderstands it. So it's fair to say that the disagreement runs both ways. It's to the point that I now usually avoid identifying myself as a Stoic, because I don't want to be associated with these groups that have monopolized the conversation.

Luckily, I think this obsession with Stoicism is probably a passing fad of our zeitgeist, and all of the poseurs will leave for the next trending philosophy. I didn't get into Stoicism because of the manosphere or because of some self-help fraud like so many of them seem to have. I entered Stoicism through my study of philosophy, particularly the history of logic and rationality, and that's where my interest lies.

I don't stop at Marcus Aurelius, I've read Zeno, Chrysippus, Epictetus, Seneca, etc. and even examined Neo-Stoicism through monastic teachings such as Ignatian spirituality. I look to Descartes and Spinoza more than Musonius Rufus. I read about Einstein's contributions to pantheism, a label which was invented to describe Spinoza's beliefs that he adopted from the ancient Stoics.

The "highest authorities" (i.e., the most influential modern Stoics) have interpreted Stoic philosophy in a wide range of ways that I disagree with. Even when I agree with their interpretations of a specific Stoic philosopher, I can often find a counter-point to that philosopher's position made by other Stoic philosophers.

For me, it's not about what the authorities say. It's about what logic dictates. That is the spirit of Stoicism; to live in accordance with reason.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

Suppose you are forced, threatened, harassed to join a lynching party or a warring group or publicly denounce your faith. No True Believer™ would ever speak to you again. Suppose also that the highest authorities of your faith have sanctioned the killing and that an interpretation of your Holy Book can be found to condone it.

Mind your decision because if you answer that you will not kill, it means that your inherent morality is more worth to you than your faith.

If it is in my power, I would do my best to save a victim that is being pursued by a killer who is intent on murder. Judaism, in fact, commands us to do this in order to save the life of the pursued. This commandment is stated in Leviticus 19:16: "You shall not stand by the shedding of your fellow's blood" -- and that includes killing the pursuer if necessary.

It is important to note that we are also taught in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 74a) that, if it is at all possible to save the pursued without killing the pursuer but instead merely injuring the pursuer, than that is the choice we should try to make.

If I were to find myself "forced, threatened, harassed to join a lynching party" I would not participate in killing another human being, even at the expense of my own life for refusal to cooperate. In such a case, Judaic law (referencing again Sanhedrin 74a) states that it is preferable that the one who attempts to coerce me to commit murder should kill me rather than I should submit in the killing of another through such coercion.

This is only my understanding of halacha (Judaic Law). I make no claims to be an expert in its interpretation.

 

[Heyo]

If it is in my power, I would do my best to save a victim that is being pursued by a killer who is intent on murder. Judaism, in fact, commands us to do this in order to save the life of the pursued. This commandment is stated in Leviticus 19:16: "You shall not stand by the shedding of your fellow's blood" -- and that includes killing the pursuer if necessary.

It is important to note that we are also taught in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 74a) that, if it is at all possible to save the pursued without killing the pursuer but instead merely injuring the pursuer, than that is the choice we should try to make.

If I were to find myself "forced, threatened, harassed to join a lynching party" I would not participate in killing another human being, even at the expense of my own life for refusal to cooperate. In such a case, Judaic law (referencing again Sanhedrin 74a) states that it is preferable that the one who attempts to coerce me to commit murder should kill me rather than I should submit in the killing of another through such coercion.

This is only my understanding of halacha (Judaic Law). I make no claims to be an expert in its interpretation.

You didn't answer the question. Would you denounce Judaism if you had to kill for it?

The 613 commandments demand a lot of killing, of homosexuals, "witches", rapists and rape victims, unruly children ... though women are usually excluded from the lynching mobs.
Could you live with the Ultra Orthodox or would you prefer a secular community where the Synagogue is transformed into a museum?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Who are we killing and why? Do we have Nazis to string up like Christmas lights? Sacrificing random virgins? These details matter.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

You didn't answer the question. Would you denounce Judaism if you had to kill for it?

The 613 commandments demand a lot of killing, of homosexuals, "witches", rapists and rape victims, unruly children ... though women are usually excluded from the lynching mobs.
Could you live with the Ultra Orthodox or would you prefer a secular community where the Synagogue is transformed into a museum?

I agree that those passages about killing people who "transgress" in one way or another are horrible. Fortunately, we have the Talmud not only to explain passages in the Torah, but also for having established Judaic laws which made it deliberately difficult and extremely rare for the ancient Jewish courts of law to have actually carried out such executions. Sages in the Talmud tell us, in fact, that if even one execution is carried out every seventy years, that court of law is a destructive one. As I mentioned in my previous post, the Talmud even ameliorates the biblical commandment to kill a "pursuer" -- advising instead to merely injure the pursuer if at all possible in order to save the life of a victim of a pursuer.

Additionally, Jewish religious laws apply only to Jews. Those who aren't Jewish, regardless of how they live their lives, are not subject to Jewish religious judgment. Compare this to Christianity's interpretation of and historical application of biblical laws upon everyone.

Again, I am only giving my understanding of halacha here. As I've already said, I am not an expert in halacha.

So, to answer your question: "Would you denounce Judaism if you had to kill for it?" I don't have to kill for it. But I would nevertheless go to such extremes if I had to in order to save a human life -- any human life, regardless of whether that person is Jewish or not, regardless of whether that person is "godly" or not. Saving a life is a moral obligation in Judaism.

 

[Heyo]

Who are we killing and why? Do we have Nazis to string up like Christmas lights? Sacrificing random virgins? These details matter.

Where would be your threshold? Alleged rapist, rapist who escaped prison on a formality, convicted criminal and you are drafted for the firing squat?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Actually I'm waiting to go out to a pub in Streatham with a Brazilian kitchen, at the invitation of the Brazilian girl who does the cleaning in my house. We did this last year too, before my son goes back to Scotland to resume his studies. I think the cleaning lady is more interested in my son than in me, but that's to be expected.

I went to a Brazilian barbecue in Victoria last March, to celebrate my son’s birthday. I ate more in one afternoon than I’d normally eat in a week.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Suppose you are forced, threatened, harassed to join a lynching party or a warring group or publicly denounce your faith. No True Believer™ would ever speak to you again. Suppose also that the highest authorities of your faith have sanctioned the killing and that an interpretation of your Holy Book can be found to condone it.

Mind your decision because if you answer that you will not kill, it means that your inherent morality is more worth to you than your faith.

What "faith?" My morals and worldview have always been a constant. My religion has nothing to do with it.

Many religions condone killing without a second thought. Some are just more selective than others.

 

[Rachel Rugelach]

Where would be your threshold? Alleged rapist, rapist who escaped prison on a formality, convicted criminal and you are drafted for the firing squat?

Some might say that Nazis are fair game. I highly recommend this book: Gangsters vs. Nazis: How Jewish Mobsters Battled Nazis in WW2 Era America, by Michael Benson. It's a fascinating read written in an entertaining, Jewish "Goodfellas" kind of style.

Gangsters vs. Nazis: How Jewish Mobsters Battled Nazis in WW2 Era America: Benson, Michael: 9780806541808: Amazon.com: Books

Gangsters vs. Nazis: How Jewish Mobsters Battled Nazis in WW2 Era America [Benson, Michael] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Gangsters vs. Nazis: How Jewish Mobsters Battled Nazis in WW2 Era America

www.amazon.com

The stunning true story of the rise of Nazism in America in the years leading to WWII—and the fearless Jewish gangsters and crime families who joined forces to fight back. With an intense cinematic style, acclaimed nonfiction crime author Michael Benson reveals the thrilling role of Jewish mobsters like Bugsy Siegel in stomping out the terrifying tide of Nazi sympathizers during the 1930s and 1940s.

As Adolph Hitler rose to power in 1930s Germany, a growing wave of fascism began to take root on American soil. Nazi activists started to gather in major American cities, and by 1933, there were more than one-hundred anti-Semitic groups operating openly in the United States. Few Americans dared to speak out or fight back—until an organized resistance of notorious mobsters waged their own personal war against the Nazis in their midst. Gangland-style. . . .

Packed with surprising, little-known facts, graphic details, and unforgettable personalities, Gangsters vs. Nazis chronicles the mob’s most ruthless tactics in taking down fascism—inspiring ordinary Americans to join them in their fight. The book culminates in one of the most infamous events of the pre-war era—the 1939 Nazi rally in Madison Square Garden—in which law-abiding citizens stood alongside hardened criminals to fight for the soul of a nation. This is the story of the mob that’s rarely told—one of the most fascinating chapters in American history and American organized crime.

Interestingly, Rabbi Stephen Wise (a prominent Jewish leader in America during this period) had the respect of the Jewish gangsters who organized to disrupt Nazi activities in America. Rabbi Wise ordered them: "We cannot condone killing. There must be no killing." And they obeyed.

 

[exchemist]

I went to a Brazilian barbecue in Victoria last March, to celebrate my son’s birthday. I ate more in one afternoon than I’d normally eat in a week.

Ah this is different: not a big carnivorous barbecue but things like little balls of fried something with cheese or chicken inside, etc. More snacks, to have with beer, than a big sit-down blow-out. A bit noisy last night because the footie was on (Man City vs. Sevilla?) and there was a Brazilian birthday party going on as well. But we did get to meet her English boyfriend, who's an interesting chap who works in cybersecurity for Parliament. There's someone who'll never be out of a job!