TMLutas takes issue with the "goblin" terminology, and I'm in general agreement with his principle even though I endorsed the term in my previous post.
I think that it should not be easy to kill. I belong to a faith that takes the commandment against murder very seriously. But at the same time it is not a pacifist faith (though our current bishop, God bless him, gets very close). One thing that it would be very much against is the idea of dehumanization. Yes, Saddam Hussein is a child of God, yes Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot all were children of God and special to Him.I don't think it should be easy to kill either; as I agreed earlier, it's a weighty and terrible choice. The reason I'm pleased with the term "goblin" is that it puts villains in their proper place: as ones who have surrendered their natural rights by infringing on the natural rights of others. I'm not passing spiritual judgement on anyone's worth in God's eyes; I use the term to cast such people out of the sphere of civil protection that society and government provide the rest of us. Naming evil-doers "goblins" is simply a convenient way to group together those who are -- justly -- no longer to be accorded the standard rights and privileges of humanity.
Contrary to TMLutas' statement, killing someone isn't "the equivalent of taking a baseball bat to one of God's priceless artworks" and doesn't "destroy[] that priceless handiwork". In Christian theology, no one -- good or evil -- is ever destroyed in the sense of annihilation. By killing someone and removing them from this world you merely pass them onto God for his final judgement. That's certainly a serious issue, and not to be done lightly, but it's an authority that God entrusts to humanity and commands us to use justly (generally administered by government as God's agent of common grace). God reserves the power of eternal judgement for himself.
