a question about Christianity / forgiveness

[Precision]

This is purely hypothetical.

I am writing some fiction and one of the characters is able, willing and very motivated to retaliate (in a huge way) against islamofacist terrorists. Lets say he has watched his family die as well as thousands of other Americans due to terrorist attacks. He is also a devout Christian, but his anger and fear of Muslim conquest, has driven him to strike back.

My question is, does Christianity make room for this type of activity with a path to heaven? Or does this man have to make a decision between, in his view defeating the tide that threatens to overrun his country, his religion and his way of life and the divine afterlife?

Just attempting to create a motivation basis that is solid for the character. In other words, deciding if he accepts that he must do this but it condemns him for eternity or if he has a reasonable redemption path.

[MiddleAgedKen]

I recommend a look into just war theory.

[blackeagle603]

Biblically, the power of the sword (to wage war or to punish evil doers) is given to government. You can take up arms in service to government and self/other defense. But to go out willfully as you describe would be at best licentiousness -- sinning willfully that grace may abound. At worse indication that your conversion is not genuine (a willingness to committ to sinning

Yeah, beyond the question of salvation there is the problem for the person in terms of personal spiritual/emotional effects. Heavy load the accompanying effects on personal conscience.

[MarkD]

It's complicated.

Revenge is forbidden (vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord), so if your character is acting out of desire for revenge he's putting his soul in danger.

Self-defense (or defense of others) is acceptable, with certain constraints (i.e. you cause only enough damage to stop the attack, you don't get to go around putting bullets in the heads of the wounded after it's over).

So for example, if your character learns of a group that's planning an attack, and he's given that information to the authorities who failed to act upon it, he'd be justified in preparing his own response to the attack to prevent innocents from coming to harm. He's be on somewhat shakier ground to conduct a pre-emptive attack on the group. And he'd be wrong to hunt down the attackers after the fact.

Hope that helps.

[Weetabix]

I'd think he'd have to be careful about his motivations as well as his actions.

My first thought was to check with the Principle of Double Effects. St. Thomas Aquinas used that to accept killing an attacker in self defense.
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/ar ... on/2007-05

Whether you could use that would depend on what he was doing and how. Mark and BE touched on that pretty well.

It's a thorny question.

[Netpackrat]

My first thought was to check with the Principle of Double Effects. St. Thomas Aquinas used that to accept killing an attacker in self defense.
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/ar ... on/2007-05

This article is fucking insane.... The author gives serious consideration to the possibility that it may be morally wrong to terminate an ectopic pregnancy and save the mother's life.

This entire topic is doing nothing to give me hope that christianity is somehow going to pull its dogma out of its ass in time to deal with islam while it is still possible to do so.

[Vonz90]

..except we are are sinful fallen beings with the capacity to self justify anything. So have him do anything you want, some Christain has thought or done it. It .at be sinful, but that is why we all need grace..

[MarkD]

Another point worth mentioning: What KIND of Christian is the character? Christianity is hardly a monolithic faith, and different flavors of Christian view the issues of Salvation differently.

For instance, someone from a Calvinist perspective views Salvation as wholly from God, that God's Grace is irresistible, that in effect God has chosen some people for Salvation and not others, that if He's chosen you you're saved, and if He hasn't you're damned. This doctrine is common among traditional Presbyterians as well as many Fundamentalist/Evangelical denominations (as many non-denominational churches). (Not saying I believe this, so please no one get on my case about it. Just reporting something that exists.) Call it a hard predestination. So in this case, once-saved-always-saved, he's going to Heaven no matter what he does in this life.

Someone from a more Catholic tradition sees salvation as a journey (one that, in fact, continues AFTER death). What determines whether you go to Heaven (with a stop at Purgatory) or Hell is the state of your soul at your death. Die with mortal, un-confessed, un-repented sins and you're heading to Hell. Confess and repent, go to Heaven (again, likely with a stop in Purgatory first, as Reparation for the harm done by your sins).

Because the whole topic isn't confusing enough you know.

[Precision]

Thanks guys.
I was kind of looking for what type ofChristian he might be. Definitely not Calvanist or Amish. I was going to have another character do a morality check on him when the plan is rolled out. Do the moral debate

I may or may not go with this angle, but ...

Islamofacists have successfully weaponized a disease and have loosed it on CONUS. Disease is spread much like a cold or the flu, human contact and airborne breathing of a high load of disease vectors. Estimated death rate is 20-35%, greatly exceeding that in some populations. so possibly 50Million deaths US. Not to mention accidental export world wide.

The character is going to create a wholesale retaliation during Rahmadan at Mecca. Looking to kill 2-4Million in a blinding flash of light and destroy a Holy site at the same time.

Character is GOING to do it, question is back story, nagging doubts, do I make him rage insane... all in an effort that to flesh out the story and make it more intriguing.

[blackeagle603]

My first thought was to check with the Principle of Double Effects. St. Thomas Aquinas used that to accept killing an attacker in self defense.
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/ar ... on/2007-05

That doctrinal discussion intersects with the issues in self defense of
a) proportional response
and
b) shooting to stop a threat vs. shooting to kill