A decision of life and death in your hands.........................

by vitty 18 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  vitty

  Someone asked me a question.

  If you found yourself in 1939 sitting next to Hitler, gun in hand and with no repercussions at all for yourself would you....................shoot him...........knowing all that he was going to do.

  It really made me think..............first I said straight away yes, then no. Then after thinking about it for a while, I really didnt know.

  Could I physically shoot someone , even though I knew he would murder and torture millions of people?

  This got me thinking about our beloved Russell and Rutherford. Personally I dont think Russell was evil, although I do think Rutherford was a psychopath.

  I know we cant compare the evil atrocities of Hitler to Rutherford, but he has created some terrible damage to thousands of people.

  I suppose there are 3 suituations here, but considering you personal morality would YOU shoot them and if yes which one and why ...........?

  This is hypothetical cos they are all dead, so I hope im not inciting anyone to murder................
• 

  Crumpet

  No probably not. It would have made him into a martyr - adored by millions and his place would have been leapt into very quickly by someone just as capable of creating misery and evil.

  Could I shoot someone else under different circumstances - well if my life or someone I loved was in immediate danger I'd have to.
• 

  nicolaou

  To adapt a footie joke that's been doing the rounds, let me put it this way.

  You are in a locked room with an angry grizzly bear, a pissed off 30ft python and JF Rutherford. You have a gun but only two bullets. What do you do?

  Answer: Shoot Rutherford twice.
• 

  sass_my_frass

  No question, and with no guilt, but I'd rather do it in 1936 before he got stuck into Poland, and saved those 6 million, or in the early twenties before Nazism was a successful cult. In 1939, any of a dozen generals could have taken the reins and probably wouldn't have made a huge ballsup of 1943.
• 

  AK - Jeff

  I started an almost identical thread a year or so back - only I put myself in 1933 when Hitler was just coming to power in Germany.

  I definately would have shot him to save the ones he would murder in the next few years - not Rutherford or Russell though. Twisted and confused and misleading others is not a reason for murdering them IMO. Admittedly they have created much pain and suffering, even many deaths and certainly ruined lives, indirectly. Many corportate heads have done the same - we would have to execute half the CEO's in the world for that.

  Jeff
• 

  Blueblades

  The woman was showing off her baby, someone asked, what is his name, she responded that his name was Jesus.

  The woman was showing off her baby, someone asked, what is his name, she responded that his name was Hitler.

  What comes to your mind,and what would you do now that you know the outcome of the lives of the two babies. Remember they were once just two innocent babies loved by their mother's.

  According to the Bible Jehovah allowed Herod to kill off all the innocent babies two years of age and under while protecting Jesus. ( I know that this has been questioned historically).

  Blueblades
• 

  AlmostAtheist

  >>Answer: Shoot Rutherford twice.

  LOL!

  I couldn't shoot those guys. They helped wreck untold lives, but I don't think it was their intent. Russell was probably ok, if a whack-job. Rutherford wasn't malicious, he just didn't care. An ass, but not deserving of a bullet from me.

  But then, what of the people that died from lack of transfusion? Which JW leader championed that little gem? Was that Rutherford? Even at that, though, I couldn't see him as directly-enough responsible to warrant killing him. Especially since killing him wouldn't necessarily keep the Org from charging down the path anyway.

  Interesting question!

  Dave
• 

  kid-A

  No. Because Goebbels, Himmler or Hess would have gladly stepped up to the plate, and the outcome would have been the same. The holocaust was not the result of one individual. Its absurd to suggest killing one man would have prevented it.
• 

  vitty

  Kid A

  I think you missed the point a bit. I think its more a question, about our values and how we would do something unexpected that would put our values to the test..................remember it could be anyone..............its about actually pulling the trigger on another human being for the good of thousands of others...........COULD you do it ? Morally
• 

  drew sagan

  No. Because Goebbels, Himmler or Hess would have gladly stepped up to the plate, and the outcome would have been the same. The holocaust was not the result of one individual. Its absurd to suggest killing one man would have prevented it.

  
  I was thinking the same exact thing. Such violence is the result of growing tensions and racial predjuice within the society itself and MANY differant people will take the lead in such hate. If it wasn't hitler, there would have been somebody else to tap into the political power that came from such hatred.