4 comments on “Moral Dilemma Dialogue: A Time to Kill

  1. Could it be that the vengeance that God promises is carried out at times by His followers here on earth? Deadly force during the commission of a crime or in the aftermath of the crime both result in death – a death that is carried out by the hand of man. Man’s vengeance is temporal; God’s is eternal. Either way, if vengeance is carried out on a dirtbag, I’m not losing any sleep over it. I’ll continue to pray for a world in which these crimes don’t occur.

    • Sorry for the late response! Not much of a dialogue if we don’t reply, huh. I’m not entirely opposed to the idea of God’s vengeance being carried out by his followers on an individual basis. However, I think the New Testament case for such a thing is very weak as Romans 13 is very clear that the governing authorities carry out God’s vengeance on evil-doers. Plus passages in the Sermon on the Mount that I cited, as well as the over-abundance of evidence we have that the early church, the first Christians, were very pacifist in nature.

  2. This nation was founded upon Biblical principles. Our laws say it’s wrong to steal, murder, rape or lie under oath. All these things happened in this movie. Jake Brigance’s dilemma was three-fold: 1. He should have known in advance that Carl Lee was planning something and did not report it to the proper authority.; 2. Could he legally defend a premeditated double murder?; 3. Could he, or should he turn his back on Carl Lee?
    The saving grace actually did come from the law code that would have set the true criminals free, and to me, that is the irony of this movie. The legal definition of temporary insanity is what could and did afford Carl Lee’s acquittal. Jake Brigance’s brilliance in having the jurors imagine their own children in the place of Carl Lee’s daughter gave them the opportunity to empathize, not with a black man who killed white boys, but with a fellow parent. The possible release of the rapists could have put them in a position to repeat their offense on another little girl, (possibility a white one) and had they gotten off on some technicality, they may have had an enhanced sense of invulnerability, increasing the likelihood of a repeat offense.
    For the record, Leviticus 24:20 does not command vengeance, but justice. It admonishes the Israelites to let their justice be balanced. If an eye is injured, only an eye is to be reciprocated, a foot for a foot, and so forth. (read , “Fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; the same sort of defect he may cause in the man, that is what should be caused in him.”) This prevents a miscarriage of justice, say $1000 fine for a .79 loaf of bread.
    When I first saw this movie, I did not know it was set in the ’60s. I am so happy that justice can prevail for a black man in the south in the movies, because in the real world, Carl Lee Bailey would have been dragged out of his house in the middle of the night, beaten to a pulp, castrated, hung, and burned with his fallous in his mouth.
    To Fugious, yes it is very possible that God’s followers are used as His sword of vengeance. How many Phillistines did David kill? But even more, pagans were used to exact discipline on wayward Israelites too. That’s why Daniel spent 70 years in Babylon. Can’t wait to see what happens to America for all the wrong we’ve done.

  3. Pingback: ENG 225: Week 2 Blog Post | gloriaerickson

Care to Comment?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s