When religion becomes evil... [Archive]

LCBOY

2nd May 2003, 10:23 AM

The author is confusing the evil acts of men and "religion turning evil". The question is what makes a Christian a Christian or a Muslim a Muslim. Since I am a Christian I will speak to that. The following does NOT make you a Christian:

1) Born to Christian parents
2) Attend a Christian church
3) Read the Bible
4) Behave morally
5) Be nice to people

The list above is the result of becoming a Christian, not prerequisites to becoming a Christian. To be a Christian one must delcare and believe that Christ died for all man and was physically ressurected. So I disagree that the people who kill abortion doctors are truly Christian because this act is contrary to what it means to be a Christian. It is unlikely that one who has truly commited their life to Christ would commit such extreme acts of violence. It's the same thing with Muslims. The 9/11 terroists were Muslims in name only and not true Muslims.

The author also says that he is an "ordained Baptist minister" and "a practicing Christian". The phrase "practicing Christian" is very odd to me. Are their non-practicing Christians? Just because one is an ordained minister doesn't make one a "Christian". I am sure he believes in God on an intellectual level but by his words I question if he has true life changing, "spiritual" faith in Jesus Christ. I have never Mr. Kimball, so I could be wrong, but it's just my impression from what he said.

Upchurch

2nd May 2003, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by LCBOY
The author is confusing the evil acts of men and "religion turning evil". The question is what makes a Christian a Christian or a Muslim a Muslim.
I'm sorry, LCBOY, but this sounds like a "no True Scotsman" argument to me. In other words, no true Christian would do all this nasty stuff, or if they do, they aren't really "Christians".
Just because one is an ordained minister doesn't make one a "Christian".The above is an excellent example. Why in the world would an ordained minister a Christian religion NOT be considred a Christian? Because his understanding of what it means to be Christian is different than your understanding of what it means to be Christian?

Fact of the matter is, religion can go very wrong, as much as it can go very right. As can politics, art, marriage and any number of human institutions. (even if you don't consider religion to be a human institution originally, its development certainly been influenced by them, right?)

I believe what the article is addressing is when religion does go wrong.

LCBOY

2nd May 2003, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch

I'm sorry, LCBOY, but this sounds like a "no True Scotsman" argument to me. In other words, no true Christian would do all this nasty stuff, or if they do, they aren't really "Christians".
The above is an excellent example. Why in the world would an ordained minister a Christian religion NOT be considred a Christian? Because his understanding of what it means to be Christian is different than your understanding of what it means to be Christian?

Fact of the matter is, religion can go very wrong, as much as it can go very right. As can politics, art, marriage and any number of human institutions. (even if you don't consider religion to be a human institution originally, its development certainly been influenced by them, right?)

I believe what the article is addressing is when religion does go wrong.

Humbly, I have to disagree. I didn't said that a christian cannot perform acts of violence just unlikely. But the acts of violence are CONTRARY to what it means to be a christian. Also, being a minister and having theological training does not make one a christian. It doesn't matter what my understanding of what a christian is supposed to be. I don't define what it means to be a believer, the Bible does. Remember a person is not a beleiver just because they have a title to their name. Someone may know a lot about Christianity and still not be a Christian.

LCBOY

2nd May 2003, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch

Fact of the matter is, religion can go very wrong, as much as it can go very right. As can politics, art, marriage and any number of human institutions. (even if you don't consider religion to be a human institution originally, its development certainly been influenced by them, right?)

I agree with this. But is it that the human institution has gone wrong or the have the people gone wrong?

Upchurch

2nd May 2003, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by LCBOY

I agree with this. But is it that the human institution has gone wrong or the have the people gone wrong? What is the institution if not the people who make it up?

LCBOY

2nd May 2003, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
What is the institution if not the people who make it up?

There is a difference. The institution is the belief system, teaching, philosphy, or ideals. Take marriage for example. One of the tenets of marriage is that one will not cheat on their spouse. Obviously people cheat on their spouses. Does this mean that marriage is "evil" or is it the people?

Upchurch

2nd May 2003, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by LCBOY

It doesn't matter what my understanding of what a christian is supposed to be. I don't define what it means to be a believer, the Bible does. Remember a person is not a beleiver just because they have a title to their name. Someone may know a lot about Christianity and still not be a Christian. Yes, and the bible is so unambiguous about such things. :rolleyes:

Not to be an @ss, here, but what definition do you use? Only new testimate? Both new and old testimate? If I kill gay men (Lev 20:13), does that help show I am a Christian or that I'm not a Christian? If I don't scourge my slave woman after raping her (Lev 19:20), does that make me a Christan or not a Christian?

I don't even know what it means to "scourge" someone.

Bentspoon

2nd May 2003, 11:27 AM

What you are saying is that there is no true Chrisitian until we find the perfect one and then that is a true Christian (I assume that will boil down to the one with the thorns on his head). How can you even know whether you are a true Christian. I am going to guess that you are fallible and that you have done un-Christian things in your life (please let me know if that is patently untrue). Does that make you non-Christian? Clearly you are Chrisitian in your mind. You seem to have confidence in that.

There is always a better Christian around the corner - does that make you non Christian? or would you say there were no people more Chrisitian than you?

Where do you draw the line and how does the Bible define that?

I thought that if you accepted Christ as your saviour then you were Christian, regardless of your acts - he died for your sins - your non-Chrisitan acts. You are forgiven your sins. You are Christian if you accept. Is this wrong?

Where in the Bible is this dilemma cleared up?

By the way, I have read many inputs on this board and you should be aware that there are many atheists here who are not true atheists. I, on the other hand, am a true atheist and I can identify the true atheists in my judgment.

Bentspoon

Wile E. Coyote

2nd May 2003, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by LCBOY
The following does NOT make you a Christian:

4) Behave morally
5) Be nice to people

The list above is the result of becoming a Christian, not prerequisites to becoming a Christian. To be a Christian one must delcare and believe that Christ died for all man and was physically ressurected.

So this means that you cannot expect any kind of behavior from a Christian other than that he believes in the story.

I always thought a true Christian, having been one myself, was someone who took to heart the teachings and philosophy of Christ. I believe that if there was a man named Jesus to whom the many quotes could be attributed, he would have wanted his message about living with others to be heard and followed. I think the belief in him as a savior would have been secondary to the adherence to, or at least respect for, his word.

Skeptical Greg

2nd May 2003, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch

I don't even know what it means to "scourge" someone.

Once you've done it, you won't forget..:D

Upchurch

2nd May 2003, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes

Once you've done it, you won't forget..:D
Yeah, I think this is one of those few things I'm perfectly alright not knowing.

c4ts

2nd May 2003, 01:00 PM

Religion is never really evil. It's the people who are.

LCBOY

2nd May 2003, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Bentspoon
What you are saying is that there is no true Chrisitian until we find the perfect one and then that is a true Christian (I assume that will boil down to the one with the thorns on his head). How can you even know whether you are a true Christian. I am going to guess that you are fallible and that you have done un-Christian things in your life (please let me know if that is patently untrue). Does that make you non-Christian? Clearly you are Chrisitian in your mind. You seem to have confidence in that.

Yes, I am very fallible. Just ask any of my friends and they will tell you everything that is wrong with me. :D

There is always a better Christian around the corner - does that make you non Christian? or would you say there were no people more Chrisitian than you?

I'm not sure what you mean by "better"?

I thought that if you accepted Christ as your saviour then you were Christian, regardless of your acts - he died for your sins - your non-Chrisitan acts. You are forgiven your sins. You are Christian if you accept. Is this wrong?

This is true. When someone gives their life to Christ they are transformed spiritually. When this happens, one has a new sense when one commits a "sin", an act displeasing to God. Do christian people still do "unchristian"things? Of course they do! People do things even though they know it is wrong. Can a Christian commit acts of violence? Yes, they can because just like every person they are flawed. I was trying to say that a Christian who truly loves God is less likely to commit acts of violence. What I disagree with is when this does happen certain people will then accuse all Christians of being that way and that their faith leads then to violence. I believe that the author of article was trying to make exactly that point.

By the way, I have read many inputs on this board and you should be aware that there are many atheists here who are not true atheists. I, on the other hand, am a true atheist and I can identify the true atheists in my judgment.

Wow! How do you do that? Can you teach me?!! :D

Upchurch

2nd May 2003, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by LCBOY

There is a difference. The institution is the belief system, teaching, philosphy, or ideals. Take marriage for example. One of the tenets of marriage is that one will not cheat on their spouse. Obviously people cheat on their spouses. Does this mean that marriage is "evil" or is it the people? I've been trying to think of a good example of an institution that, itself, isn't bad but the people who are a part of the institution have made it so and I think I may have figured one out: communism.

In and of itself, communism wasn't such a bad thing. All are equal, share the wealth, and all that. However, the people who ran it took advantage of the system and thus, corrupted the institution.

I'm not saying all institutions are or will go bad, I'm just saying it's possible.

Ruby

2nd May 2003, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by LCBOY

The author also says that he is an "ordained Baptist minister" and "a practicing Christian". The phrase "practicing Christian" is very odd to me.

I have a problem with that too. I wish he had given a definition of that. I'd just as sooner not practice being a Christian anyway. :)

Ruby

2nd May 2003, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
[B]
I'm sorry, LCBOY, but this sounds like a "no True Scotsman" argument to me. In other words, no true Christian would do all this nasty stuff, or if they do, they aren't really "Christians".
The above is an excellent example. Why in the world would an ordained minister a Christian religion NOT be considred a Christian? Because his understanding of what it means to be Christian is different than your understanding of what it means to be Christian?

If an ordained minister does things that are evil there is no way he'd be considered a Christian. Most of us will agree, regardless of our belief system, what is evil and what is not.

Ruby

2nd May 2003, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Yes, and the bible is so unambiguous about such things. :rolleyes:

Not to be an @ss, here, but what definition do you use? Only new testimate? Both new and old testimate? If I kill gay men (Lev 20:13), does that help show I am a Christian or that I'm not a Christian? If I don't scourge my slave woman after raping her (Lev 19:20), does that make me a Christan or not a Christian?

I can safely say that doing those things would not make you a Christian.

Nyarlathotep

2nd May 2003, 03:18 PM

My take on this issue (for what it's worth) is this: A person who does something bad and just happens to be a member of a church (or any other organization) is just a person doingsomething bad. It doesn't (or at least shouldn't) reflect on that organization.

Ted Bundy was a Republican. Does this fact alone mean Republicans encourage serial murder? Of course not.

However, when someone commits an act of evil In the name of their church (or whatever), or they do it because that is what the religion is teaching them to do. That is when one needs to look at the church as a possible force for evil. I.E. those churches that encourage their people to kill abortion doctors. It might not indict the religion (in this case christianity) as a whole, but it certainly shows that particular sect to be evil, IMHO.

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

2nd May 2003, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Bentspoon
How can you even know whether you are a true Christian.

Clearly you are Chrisitian in your mind. You seem to have confidence in that.

or would you say there were no people more Chrisitian than you?

By the way, I have read many inputs on this board and you should be aware that there are many atheists here who are not true atheists. I, on the other hand, am a true atheist and I can identify the true atheists in my judgment.

Bentspoon

Let the righteous decide.;)

Nyarlathotep

2nd May 2003, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Ruby

I can safely say that doing those things would not make you a Christian.

But many (not all, but many) Christians argue quite loudly for Biblical inerrancy, and those groups would disagree with you strongly

Ruby

2nd May 2003, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by Bentspoon
[B]What you are saying is that there is no true Chrisitian until we find the perfect one and then that is a true Christian (I assume that will boil down to the one with the thorns on his head). How can you even know whether you are a true Christian. I am going to guess that you are fallible and that you have done un-Christian things in your life (please let me know if that is patently untrue). Does that make you non-Christian? Clearly you are Chrisitian in your mind. You seem to have confidence in that.

To me, there is a difference between doing some wrong things and feeling remorse and sorrow for it, and doing evil things and not feeling remorse at all. If a minister committed murder, incest, rape etc., and tried to cover it up while getting up preaching against it, that would make him a hypocrite, and far from being a Christian. Even if he came clean, he would still need to pay for it. All Christians are fallable. All Christians have different levels of conviction. Unfortunately, some do get judgmental and try to push their convictions on others. For instance, some don't drink alcohol, and some do. There are those few who don't drink that try to say all Christians should no drink. There is nothing scriptural to back this up...Jesus drank wine after all, but they are just going on what they feel about the issue. I use that example because I am a Christian who drinks and I've had debates with some Christians who think drinking is a sin.

Anyhow, the bible addresses the fact that as Christians we all have to work out our own salvation. We each have to keep our own convictions to ourselves and not try to put them on another...while not tearing down someone elses convictions.

Ruby

2nd May 2003, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by c4ts
Religion is never really evil. It's the people who are.

You got that right!!:eek: :)

Ruby

2nd May 2003, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
My take on this issue (for what it's worth) is this: A person who does something bad and just happens to be a member of a church (or any other organization) is just a person doingsomething bad. It doesn't (or at least shouldn't) reflect on that organization.

Ted Bundy was a Republican. Does this fact alone mean Republicans encourage serial murder? Of course not.

However, when someone commits an act of evil In the name of their church (or whatever), or they do it because that is what the religion is teaching them to do. That is when one needs to look at the church as a possible force for evil. I.E. those churches that encourage their people to kill abortion doctors. It might not indict the religion (in this case christianity) as a whole, but it certainly shows that particular sect to be evil, IMHO.

I agree. :)

Ruby

2nd May 2003, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

But many (not all, but many) Christians argue quite loudly for Biblical inerrancy, and those groups would disagree with you strongly

I have honestly never met or conversed with a Christian who believes it is ok to kill someone who is gay, or rape and scrouge a woman etc. The OT law was stiff, but Jesus brought change and freedom from the penalty of punishment and death that the law brought.

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

2nd May 2003, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Ruby

Most of us will agree, regardless of our belief system, what is evil and what is not.

Would we Ruby? Define evil or evil acts. Is the definition a moving target, is it "maleable"?

regardless of belief system?

I can't remember atm where I read it, but apparently there is or once was a tribe that has/had been observed to "break" all the Ten Commandments (was it the latest Randi commentary?)

If the 10 Commandments are unknown to a culture would that culture have different interpretations of what is evil? Not participating in a murder would be evil. Not coveting your neighbour's ass and woman would be evil. Not making a graven image would be evil. Not commiting adultry is evil.

In other words not doing the inverse of the tenets of the Ten Commandments would be considered evil.

c4ts

2nd May 2003, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by LCBOY

I agree with this. But is it that the human institution has gone wrong or the have the people gone wrong?

People who have "gone wrong" will alter an institution to serve their own needs, but they will not encourage others to be like themselves. That would create too much competition.

Ruby

2nd May 2003, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe

Would we Ruby? Define evil or evil acts. Is the definition a moving target, is it "maleable"?

Murder, rape, incest, kidnapping,...those are things that are evil. Most people would agree....I hope.

I can't remember atm where I read it, but apparently there is or once was a tribe that has/had been observed to "break" all the Ten Commandments (was it the latest Randi commentary?)

If the 10 Commandments are unknown to a culture would that culture have different interpretations of what is evil? Not participating in a murder would be evil. Not coveting your neighbour's ass and woman would be evil. Not making a graven image would be evil. Not commiting adultry is evil.

In other words not doing the inverse of the tenets of the Ten Commandments would be considered evil.

How can they be held accountable for something they did not know was wrong. We all have the benefit to know that is it morally wrong to murder or rape. We know we will pay if we do it...if we get caught. In a tribe that does not have the teaching and morals that we do, I am not surprised if they run amok.

c4ts

2nd May 2003, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
If the 10 Commandments are unknown to a culture would that culture have different interpretations of what is evil? Not participating in a murder would be evil. Not coveting your neighbour's ass and woman would be evil. Not making a graven image would be evil. Not commiting adultry is evil.

I can't help not jumping in here, but archaologically speaking the Code of Hammaurabi has basically the same interpretation, and it predates the Torah/Bible/Koran. There are some slight differences (I don't think Hammaurabi mentions anything about there being no graven images), but the basics are there. Don't kill other people. Don't steal from them, either. Raping their wives or children counts as stealing. Don't do anything else that would lead them to kill you, (etc)...

Nyarlathotep

2nd May 2003, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by Ruby

I have honestly never met or conversed with a Christian who believes it is ok to kill someone who is gay, or rape and scrouge a woman etc. The OT law was stiff, but Jesus brought change and freedom from the penalty of punishment and death that the law brought.

There are a handful of radical religious groups that believe such things www.tencommandments.org/index.html (http://) . Click on the "against homosexuality" link. I know of this guy because he used to come onto alt.atheism (and I think he still does, under pseudonym) and haraungue about how gays and atheists are the font of all evil and need to be killed

Granted people like this wackjob are on the fringe, but there are still many christians whom I have dealt with over time who will state that the bible is totally free from error and everything in it is correct. Many of them don't know that the bible calls for the execution of gays, rebellious children and such, and if you point it out they will accuse you of twisting the words of the bible around.

My point is that there are christians out there who consider themselves good christians who believe in this sort of thing. They might be a small minority, but they are dangerous nonetheless

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

2nd May 2003, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by Ruby

Murder, rape, incest, kidnapping,...those are things that are evil. Most people would agree....I hope.

How can they be held accountable for something they did not know was wrong. We all have the benefit to know that is it morally wrong to murder or rape. We know we will pay if we do it...if we get caught. In a tribe that does not have the teaching and morals that we do, I am not surprised if they run amok.

This tribe may think those that adhere to the Ten Commandments have run amok.

Murder, rape, incest have at one time or another been justified in history. c4ts reminds us about the origins of the ten Commandments, set up to reduce conflict. In Mesopotamia it may have been advantageous to develop and adopt the codes/commandments otherwise your tribe would be wiped out by those that you offended.

Consider a dated story about the Inui culture. An Inuit man is hunted down by the authorities because he killed a white Christian man that refused to lay with the Inuit man's wife. The Inuit man was outraged that the Christian refused his hospitality. This was grounds to put into practice a punishment for rejecting his generous offer.

Two cultures' values or beliefs have come into conflict. Historically the dominant culture's codes and justice will prevail. From the Christian perspective the values and beliefs of the Inui are deplorable. The Inuit would disagree. The Inui community would deem the man's actions to be just.

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

2nd May 2003, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

There are a handful of radical religious groups that believe such things www.tencommandments.org/index.html (http://) . Click on the "against homosexuality" link.

but there are still many christians whom I have dealt with over time who will state that the bible is totally free from error and everything in it is correct. Many of them don't know that the bible calls for the execution of gays, rebellious children and such, and if you point it out they will accuse you of twisting the words of the bible around.

My point is that there are christians out there who consider themselves good christians who believe in this sort of thing. They might be a small minority, but they are dangerous nonetheless

Anecdotal but:

I have been to churches that have praised God during service for his "wisdom to unleash the aids virus on the gays". They praise god that homosexuals are dying. They refused to consider that HIV can be carried in other groups (never mind that they demonstrated no understanding of HIV, aids, risk groups, and how HIV is transmistted).

Nyarlathotep

2nd May 2003, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe

Anecdotal but:

I have been to churches that have praised God during service for his "wisdom to unleash the aids virus on the gays". They praise god that homosexuals are dying. They refused to consider that HIV can be carried in other groups (never mind that they demonstrated no understanding of HIV, aids, risk groups, and how HIV is transmistted).

I've heard similar things too. Another example that comes to mind is the claim by many christian groups that 9/11 was God's punishment upon the US for taking prayer out of schools and other such "crimes"

Ruby

2nd May 2003, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

There are a handful of radical religious groups that believe such things www.tencommandments.org/index.html (http://) . Click on the "against homosexuality" link. I know of this guy because he used to come onto alt.atheism (and I think he still does, under pseudonym) and haraungue about how gays and atheists are the font of all evil and need to be killed

Granted people like this wackjob are on the fringe, but there are still many christians whom I have dealt with over time who will state that the bible is totally free from error and everything in it is correct. Many of them don't know that the bible calls for the execution of gays, rebellious children and such, and if you point it out they will accuse you of twisting the words of the bible around.

My point is that there are christians out there who consider themselves good christians who believe in this sort of thing. They might be a small minority, but they are dangerous nonetheless

Yes, they are dangerous. I guess that's why some kill abortionists. That is sad and sick.

The link you left does not work!:(

Ruby

2nd May 2003, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe

This tribe may think those that adhere to the Ten Commandments have run amok.

Murder, rape, incest have at one time or another been justified in history. c4ts reminds us about the origins of the ten Commandments, set up to reduce conflict. In Mesopotamia it may have been advantageous to develop and adopt the codes/commandments otherwise your tribe would be wiped out by those that you offended.

Consider a dated story about the Inui culture. An Inuit man is hunted down by the authorities because he killed a white Christian man that refused to lay with the Inuit man's wife. The Inuit man was outraged that the Christian refused his hospitality. This was grounds to put into practice a punishment for rejecting his generous offer.

Two cultures' values or beliefs have come into conflict. Historically the dominant culture's codes and justice will prevail. From the Christian perspective the values and beliefs of the Inui are deplorable. The Inuit would disagree. The Inui community would deem the man's actions to be just.

And you think they are just?:confused:

Ruby

2nd May 2003, 06:28 PM

Ruby

2nd May 2003, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

I've heard similar things too. Another example that comes to mind is the claim by many christian groups that 9/11 was God's punishment upon the US for taking prayer out of schools and other such "crimes"

That is such bull**it!!!

No wonder so many look at Christians in such a negative light with such cruel things being said.

Skeptical Greg

2nd May 2003, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by Ruby

The OT law was stiff, but Jesus brought change and freedom from the penalty of punishment and death that the law brought.

Then he must have took it back with him..

Why should anyone be free from just punishment?

Ruby

2nd May 2003, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes

Then he must have took it back with him..

Why should anyone be free from just punishment?

No one should be free from just punishment. I don't believe that OT punishments were just. I have trouble reading of whole families being stoned because the husband broke one little rule.

c4ts

2nd May 2003, 08:14 PM

That's not nearly as bad or unjust as casting them down into a lake of fire and letting them burn eternally.

Roadtoad

2nd May 2003, 08:28 PM

Central to this is the point that yes, adherents to a religion are perfectly capable of doing evil things.

I know perfectly well that simply having a divinity degree and an ordination certificate don't make you a Christian. Had a pastor like that, who carried on affairs with women in the church, beat the hell out of his wife on a regular basis, and damned all gays to an eternity of burning. Seems to me he was nothing like a Christian, and yet, people showed up every Sunday, and paid their tithes, and listened to his sermons.

Not that other people would EVER become a bunch of slack-jawed troglodytes. After all, that's only a Christian gig, right?:D

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

3rd May 2003, 07:01 AM

Originally posted by Ruby

And you think they are just?:confused:

who are they?

the Inui

the white Christian culture

the Ten COmmandments?

or the inverse of the ten COmmandments?

not sure what you mean by they.

BTW, this was an example to show 2 value or belief systems can clash.

Ruby

3rd May 2003, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by c4ts
That's not nearly as bad or unjust as casting them down into a lake of fire and letting them burn eternally.

I have a major problem with that too!:(

Ruby

3rd May 2003, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe

who are they?

the Inui

the white Christian culture

the Ten COmmandments?

or the inverse of the ten COmmandments?

not sure what you mean by they.

BTW, this was an example to show 2 value or belief systems can clash.

You had said "The Inui community would deem the man's actions to be just. "

Do you think the Inui man was just in killing the Christian?