Trigun thread (WARNING-- SERIES ENDING SPOILER!!)

[Kai Robin]

[spoiler]Ok,

I recently finished Trigun, I can imagine with Vash's ridiculously zany personality, cries of "Love and Peace-u" and uber pacifistic ways he's pretty popular in the Christian anime scene, but does anyone besides me thinks in the end he takes his ideals a little too far?

Any battle of sorts where's lives are on the line is the last place you want to wave around silly humanitarian ideals for your opponents. After finally defeating Knives, a genocidic monster of Hitler-esque Stalin-ish proportions, instead of finishing him off when he had the chance, sparing humanity any more threats of apocalyptic proportions, he decides "let me do what REM would think, REM would spatter on how nobody has the rights to take another's life, therefore, I will let my genocidal brother live."

I realize that its only an anime, but such outright stupidity made me want to leap onscreen and toss a nuke at Vash right then. That sillly attitude of his prevented him from killing Knives the first time, and because of it entire towns were wiped out, heck, even Wolfwood, who IMO is far cooler than Vash, dies adapting Vash's ideals (in the anime at least).

Maybe its because I'm much more of a Raito Yagami-justice kinda guy that I find it so ridiculous, what sayest thou? O Members of the Sacred Forum!?[/spoiler]

Moderator Edit: If you're going to include spoilers, please, user spoiler tags. To perform spoiler tags, simply type [*spoiler]The stuff that could spoil the series[*/spoiler]. Just remove the *'s. Furthermore, PLEASE, do not include spoilers or quasi-spoilers in a thread title. I, for one, have not seen Trigun and would still like to without having elements of the series spoiled for me. Just consider the feelings of those around you before posting a thread. I understand that you surely meant to spoil anything and that you're still new, so I understand. Just try to be careful next time.

This goes for everyone who'll post in the thread here after also. For the love of Oreos, please use spoiler tags!!

[Eaglestrike]

Vash and his ideals are similar to Jesus. Of course, God has little problem smiting evil people so Jesus had a bit more room to be such an idealist. I always wished for another episode or two to see how things happen later, maybe Knives changes, that is, after all, what we Christians would like to see, right?

[Radical Dreamer]

..It's been a while since I've seen the end of this series. XD;

[SPOILER]I was under the impression that Knives DID die at the end. I mean, he got shot a bunch of times, and I figured he just died. Or something.[/SPOILER]

Then again, it's been a very long time since I've seen this series, so I can't say that my memories on the subject are correct. I do agree with you though, about what you said in your post. Capital punishment, and all that. XD

[uc pseudonym]

[spoiler]No, he lives. In the proper version (ie not Adult Swim's first run) during the last ending credits you see Vash carrying Knives back with his wounds bandaged.[/spoiler]

Heh. This thread has a rather high potential of being a theological argument, but since we've been loosening the standards on that I won't lock it. In fact, I'm probably going to be unhelpful because I'll be honest about my opinion.

Here is what I think: we never have a right to play God. It is not our place to decide who lives and who dies and to take the role of executioner into your own hands is idolatry. As Christians we follow Jesus, who called us to love indiscriminately. We also follow a God who does not call us to be effective (ultimately the most effective way to stop future death would be to kill everyone now) but one who calls us to be faithful. In the world's eyes that will often look foolish.

Let me also point out the parallels between Raito's position and Knives': both of them kill people because they think they are not worthy of life for whatever reason. Saying that Knives deserves death is rather ironic, in that context.

[Fish and Chips]

[spoiler]I figured Vash left him alive because he was going to try and change Knive's point of view. It's less apparant in the Anime, but in the Manga, Knives isn't just trying to change Vash's views, he's trying to actively show him how futile they are. Makes sense that Vash should want to try and show Knives the light.[/spoiler]

[KhakiBlueSocks]

Okay, here's a random thought:

When you listen to the Japanese track of a Trigun DVD, and Vash says "Love and Peace!" doesn't it kinda sound like he's saying "Love-u and-u PEAS!!!"

See kids, Vash wants us to eat our vegetables! Love your peas!

[Puritan]

Well, I don't intend on making a theological argument, but as UC has stated his position (and the position of one large segment of the Church), I think it reasonable to state the counterposition (one I hold) and how it impacted my view of the ending.

Individuals are forbidden to murder, this is not contested. However it is my position that killing another person is a power given to the State (governments) by God. Specifically, I (and others) interpret scripture as stating the State has been given, by God, the right to exact justice with a sword. There are other aspects and scripture passages to this view, I'd be happy to discuss it via PM, but the basic idea is that the government, and the government alone, has been given the right to wage war and use force, including death, to enforce the laws. Thus, in contrast to UC's view, killing is considered to be wrong for an individual working on their own, but a God-given right of the State. At the same time, however, this ability is balanced by the view that those in authority will be called to account for how they used the power of the government. They have power, and they will be judged for how they use it.

This gave me a rather interesting view of the ending:

[spoiler]On the one hand, I disagree with Vash when he insists that killing is always wrong. I consider it to be an important part of enforcing justice and an important tool of the government, though one that must be used very carefully. Thus, I disagreed with his sentiments. However, at the same time I hold the view that only the state is given this power: we as individuals are instructed not to murder. Thus, in retrospect I have to agree with his decision not to kill Knives himself. He was not the government, he had no right to kill Knives unless he was acting as a duly appointed representative of the government and exacting the government's sentence upon Knives. There is no room for vigilante justice in my view, so his decision was the correct one in the end. So my view was torn, I would want Knives to be duly tried and subjected to the law, but for Vash to just kill him would be a miscarriage of justice and wrong.[/spoiler]

I would like to reiterate that my point in all this is simply to give my opinion of the matter, though I am happy to discuss my views (and I suspect UC would be happy to discuss his), I'm not trying to debate. I disagree with the position of the Peace Churches (as those who hold the position UC has iterated are often called) on this subject, but I understand and respect their position while I disagree with it. Just wanted to give my view of the ending.

[Fish and Chips]

This gave me a rather interesting view of the ending:

[spoiler]On the one hand, I disagree with Vash when he insists that killing is always wrong. I consider it to be an important part of enforcing justice and an important tool of the government, though one that must be used very carefully. Thus, I disagreed with his sentiments. However, at the same time I hold the view that only the state is given this power: we as individuals are instructed not to murder. Thus, in retrospect I have to agree with his decision not to kill Knives himself. He was not the government, he had no right to kill Knives unless he was acting as a duly appointed representative of the government and exacting the government's sentence upon Knives. There is no room for vigilante justice in my view, so his decision was the correct one in the end. So my view was torn, I would want Knives to be duly tried and subjected to the law, but for Vash to just kill him would be a miscarriage of justice and wrong.[/spoiler]

"I'll see you in court, Knives."

Personally, I don't hold with Vash's view. Like Wolfwood, I believe that there are people out there who simply need to be put to death. However, I applaud Vash's commitment to "Love and peace," trying to preserve life for all parties. No if only we could transplant that mentality across all nations...

[Raiden no Kishi]

[spoiler]I, personally, think that Vash's actions were commendable. I can see Wolfwood's view [bust a cap in the psycho and save the world an awful lot of grief], and, were I in Vash's position, don't honestly know what I'd do, but perhaps the message was that there is something redeemable in everyone. Besides, you'd be surprised at the power of some well-placed mercy. For example, I have found that the most effective method my father ever used in raising me was to make me completely aware of where I was in the wrong, and then do something really nice for me, even though I didn't deserve it at all. It broke my heart [and I'm a cynical sonuvagun], and made me want to do the right thing all the more. Again, regardless of whether you think it was a tactically sound decision or not, it was a touching display of undeserved mercy, no?[/spoiler]

.rai//

[Kai Robin]

[spoiler]I, personally, think that Vash's actions were commendable. I can see Wolfwood's view [bust a cap in the psycho and save the world an awful lot of grief], and, were I in Vash's position, don't honestly know what I'd do, but perhaps the message was that there is something redeemable in everyone. Besides, you'd be surprised at the power of some well-placed mercy. For example, I have found that the most effective method my father ever used in raising me was to make me completely aware of where I was in the wrong, and then do something really nice for me, even though I didn't deserve it at all. It broke my heart [and I'm a cynical sonuvagun], and made me want to do the right thing all the more. Again, regardless of whether you think it was a tactically sound decision or not, it was a touching display of undeserved mercy, no?[/spoiler]

.rai//

I think its sweet the way your dad treated you, but you weren't a genocidal mass murderer as a child were you? (I hope not)....uhh Raiden stop looking at me that way.....

Here is what I think: we never have a right to play God. It is not our place to decide who lives and who dies and to take the role of executioner into your own hands is idolatry. As Christians we follow Jesus, who called us to love indiscriminately. We also follow a God who does not call us to be effective (ultimately the most effective way to stop future death would be to kill everyone now) but one who calls us to be faithful. In the world's eyes that will often look foolish.

I would also respectfully disagree with that point. The Jews were empowered to wage war upon their enemies , destruction of enemies of the state is not "murder," murder would be the unabashed destruction of innocent life. In this case, Knives is the enemy of all of man kind, and thus his destruction in the preservation of said peoples is not murder.

I'd say this is one of the more interseting posts i've made in awhile, btw, what is the "line" for "don't argue theology?"

[K. Ayato]

Here's what SirThinks2Much and I were talking about before church tonight.

[spoiler]We both agree that Vash did not kill Knives, since if you watch carefully, Vash deliberately aimed Wolfwood's gun so that the bullet would hit Knives in the shoulder, rather than get him straight in the heart. Our reasoning for that was because Vash no longer needs to be constantly reminded of Rem (notice in the final scenes he's left his red coat behind), since he now has his brother again. Yes, Vash did shoot Knives, but he didn't kill him. He was trying to prove a point. Also with tormenting his brother, Knives was (in a backhanded way, if you will) trying to prove to Vash that although his views are good, they don't always apply to the letter in the real word.[/spoiler]

[mitsuki lover]

The State is given the power of life and death because of Man's sin nature.This is something that should always be remembered when discussing pacifism.If Man
weren't a sinner by nature government would not be needed.
As far as Vash goes,he was always trying to follow Rem's teachings.Wheter or not
Rem was a Quaker or other Pacifist Christian can be debated since we know very
little about her.

[uc pseudonym]

Well, this could have gone much worse. I am glad to see this thread hasn't devolved into bickering.

Well, I don't intend on making a theological argument, but as UC has stated his position (and the position of one large segment of the Church), I think it reasonable to state the counterposition (one I hold) and how it impacted my view of the ending.

Both positions have been stated relatively equivalently, so I won't respond to yours individually and let both stand as they are. I feel the same way as you: I both respect and disagree with the position you have presented.

I would like to reiterate that my point in all this is simply to give my opinion of the matter, though I am happy to discuss my views (and I suspect UC would be happy to discuss his), I'm not trying to debate.

That seems entirely fair to me. And while I would be happy to discuss my position, I am rather cynical about changing minds on major issues such as this. Though I'd rather not become involved in a lengthy discussion that would go nowhere, if anyone has questions or thinks some honest dialog would be helpful I can elaborate.

I would also respectfully disagree with that point. The Jews were empowered to wage war upon their enemies , destruction of enemies of the state is not "murder," murder would be the unabashed destruction of innocent life. In this case, Knives is the enemy of all of man kind, and thus his destruction in the preservation of said peoples is not murder.

I don't see how I can address the issue of killing by governments without plunging this headlong into a theological debate, but I also wanted to respond, so let me be clear in saying that I am speaking only to your specific example.

The Jews were ordered by God at numerous times to wage war on specific enemies, but as far as I recall at this moment they were never given unlimited retaliatory rights. In the same way, God gave a myriad of different conditions, often ones that required them to do things that were unsound military strategy so that it would be obvious that God was acting, not them. The call to war did not apply to all circumstances, as was made obvious by the many times they were defeated because God was not with them.

Where I'm going with all of that should be fairly obvious. I don't think we today have a right to lay claim to conditions God set into place for a specific time. Unless, of course, you believe God specifically told you to kill someone or that God insisted that one government war against another, as in the Hebrew precedent. Again, an argument from the government being a God-ordained system of maintaining order is another matter entirely and one I'd rather not get into here.

I'd say this is one of the more interseting posts i've made in awhile, btw, what is the "line" for "don't argue theology?"

I don't have an easy answer, so I'll just be honest. This rule has been inconsistently enforced. At times we've closed threads if a mod believes the topics cannot be discussed without becoming theological arguments, at others we just watch them closely. Sometimes they're closed at the first negative post, other times we correct the thread and post a reprimand, and some have been allowed to go for a while. Furthermore, many people (mods included) tend to debate theology in the chat. Ultimately it comes down to the situation and the conscience of those who find the thread first. All debate is allowed via PM, of course.

For this thread, I'm operating by the "allow it as long as it remains civil" set of standards. Does that answer your question?

[Raiden no Kishi]

I think its sweet the way your dad treated you, but you weren't a genocidal mass murderer as a child were you? (I hope not)....uhh Raiden stop looking at me that way.....

: : flippin' evil grin : :

: : fiddles with balisong : :

Well, to be fair, Knives wasn't a genocidal mass murderer at the start either. Were there a few screws loose? Arguably. But he really didn't "snap" until the end of the flashbacks.

.rai//