When is MURDER justified?

If a police officer kills a criminal because of a threat on his life or others, is it right for him to pull the trigger, and let the hammer slam down the irreversible death of the criminal? If a thief breaks into your house and holds a knife on a family member, are you right to blast his life into history? There is no reason, to not be able to answer these questions as a christian, with the book of life right in front of us. “Yeah, it’s simple ... Exodus 20:13, thou shall not kill, that simple” ... WRONG. The KJV might say “kill”, but translated from Hebrew, the scripture actually uses the word “murder.” The definition of killing is to cause death. The definition of murder is to kill in a way that breaks the law, or is unjust. Well, what is “unjust”?

Killing is justified in warfare. Why would God send out nations to fight other nations, if killing was a sin? That is, because it’s not. God wouldn’t contradict himself. God even commanded certain people to go kill their enemy (Gen. 10-12). When these wars were set, they were just, because they were through means of protection. IF they weren’t to fight, their nation would be taken advantage of, or even wiped out.

“Well, I’m not a soldier and don’t plan on ever being one... is it ever just for me to kill?” First of all, we all are soldiers of the LORD’s army, we are mighty warriors always at constant battle. Killing is justified in self-defense. Similar to the situation in warfare, God does not want people to just stand there and be killed, but stand up and defend their lives. This is how the police vs criminal, and family vs thief situations are justified. IF YOU’RE LIFE IS BEING THREATENED, DON’T JUST STAND THERE...DEFEND YOURSELF!!! “Well, why is it justified, when the thief holds a family member? I am not the one at threat, they are.” You didn’t expect the thief to break into your house, did you? You didn’t know he was going to grab your family member, did you? Then, do you know what his other plans are? NO. What if he will kill you after killing your family member? In addition, if your love isn’t strong enough to even attempt saving their life, are you really a christian? “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”

Now this last one, I will leave for your interpretation.

Capital Punishment is justified. God himself beliefs in it’s concept. Genesis 9:5-6, "And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." Why would the word “demand” be used? Does God command himself of an action? The definition of a command, is to direct with authoritatively, or overlook and dominate. These definitions make it seem to point at a command given to man. This would justify criminal punishment. I want to remind you guys, this is not necessarily what i believe, but its food for thought, rather than just always side with what we are told. we are to be challenged in our thinking, so think about it.

NATURAL.IS.My.fate

The style McCarthy uses fancied my interests, so i decided to research his literary style. This interest initially was birthed, because I found it very interesting that McCarthy constantly refers to the two protagonist as father and boy. He never mentions they’re names. When others are met along the way, they also get title’s, but not names. McCarthy created characters, we would recall not as Frank, Bob, or Joe ... more like Lightning-Man, Shot-guy, Slaves, and the mysterious bearded men. Since McCarthy never really had an interview, but he short Oprah session, we are left to interpret the story without restriction. 

First, I looked up online the nameless style he used. This style was birthed from Naturalism. Naturalism toke place from the 1880’s to 1940’s, using details to show the characters having been formed by it’s inescapable physical, mental, and hereditary areas. The time frame of this style, seems to be possibly lined up with the literature McCarthy might have read in his younger years. He might have been influenced to write in this style, form his favorite literature piece, or author. Naturalism is often criticized for being to bland/blunt. I tend to disagree, at least considering The Road. The blunt and straightforwardness offered, makes the book seem more like a recalling, conversation, or a personal narrative. With personal narrative, I mean as in the narrator reading next to you, as you look down and watch the scene ... sort of a God type thought. 

Naturalism has many definite characteristics, such as pessimistic connotations. Often these would be emphasizing the inevitability of death, which in this case is fitting. “Father” and “Boy” often talk about dying, they see others in the process of death, and the world is constantly revealing more death. 

Another type of naturalistic strategy, is that of creating a tone of detachment. Detachment in naturalist works, as well as The Road, include creating nameless characters. This is done in order to draw more attention to the plot that is challenging the characters. The missing of the names, as a reader also creates a sensation, that something is missing. It is important that McCarthy made us feel like something is missing, because it creates a lost and confused mind. The readers mind is now the same as the characters; we are a part of the story.

Naturalism is also know to make the reader feel that the characters have a predetermined fate and can do little about it. The father and boy’s fat in the apocalyptic world, is obvious that of doomed death. This determinism device is often followed by a shocking/surprising ending. Which to me means, that quite possibly McCarthy might keep the novel, basically death to the very last pages. Within the last few pages, he will save the father and son ... or will he?