Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 86

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,388
    Post Thanks / Like

    Thou Shalt not: Murder or Kill?

    Since I saw this brought up in another thread, and it wasn't explained or defended properly, I thought I would start a new thread specifically about this very topic.

    There seems to be a gross misunderstanding about how the Bible was written, its language, grammar, interpretation, etc...

    The summarized examination

    The 6th Commandment (Exodus 20:13) is "Thou shall not murder". Only a couple versions out of many use the word "kill", because "kill" is not as accurate as "murder".

    The Hebrew word used in Exodus 20:13 is lo tirtzach, which means: to murder, slay, kill premeditated (however, sometimes accidental), as an avenger, intentional slayer, assassinate. In some cases, it also references: to be killed or to be slain. It is used over 60 times in the OT, all of them in the context of above.

    However, there are about 13 derivations of the word "kill" in the Hebrew language (1 in Aramaic) used for the OT. Some held meanings such as avenger, man slayer, slain, but none held as strong a meaning as tirtzach...and certainly, none of the verses that you accuse of being "guilty" of contradiction above.

    A more detailed study

    Furthermore, the Israelites did not have a term that precisely fits our present-day idea of murder, they differentiated among killing, manslaughter, and murder in their legal terminology. You have to remember, that when interpreting, one must follow certain guidelines. The one in particular here, is that of understanding the context and language of the writer...not of us today, as the reader.

    A derivative of the word tirtzach can be found with the meaning of shatter [Psalm 42:11] or slaughter [Eze 21:27]). It refers to a killing that was inherently evil (Judges 20:4; Job 24:14; Psalm 94:6; Isa 1:21; Hosea 6:9). It was also listed in abuses of the covenant community (Jer 7:9; Hosea 4:2) and in lists of curses (Deut 27:24-25). Jezebel committed murder (rasah) against the prophets (1 Kings 18:13), as did Ahab against Naboth (1 Kings 21:19) and Simeon and Levi against the Shechemites (Gen 34:26). However, the same term could also have applied to unintentional manslaughter (Deut 4:41; 19:3-6; Joshua 20:3), blood vengeance (Num 35:27,30), attempted assassination (2 Kings 6:32), and on one occasion it was used for the figurative killing of humans by animals (Prov 22:13).

    "Thou shall not murder" is one of the laws of nature, and was strongly enforced by the precepts given to Noah and his sons, Gen. 9:5, 6. It does not forbid killing in lawful war, or in our own necessary defense, nor the magistrate’s putting offenders to death, for those things tend to the preserving of life. But it does however, forbid all malice and hatred to the person of any (for he that hateth his brother is a murderer ), and all personal revenge arising therefrom; also all rash anger upon sudden provocations, and hurt said or done, or aimed to be done, in passion (see Matthew 5:22).

    Taking a single verse without the whole of scripture is an erroneous way to interpret scripture. There are absolutely no regarded scholars, nor historians who would agree with your mistaken methodology that a single verse may be examined without the context in which it is written. You may as well take the verse "Jesus wept." and conclude that Jesus was nothing but a big cry baby.
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; July 23rd, 2011 at 10:08 PM. Reason: correctly updated to "tirtzach"
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    boca raton, florida.... BUT I WISH TEXAS!!1
    Posts
    258
    Post Thanks / Like
    I saw an episode of Larry King Live a long while back, featuring CNN's own "God Squad" consisting of theologians from Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, and Islam. The caller asked the Jewish theologian how he justifies the relatiation on palestinians in reguard to the ten commandments, and he remarked how the earliest texts in the 10 commandments had the word , and not kill, so retaliation was justified.

    Don't know if I sufficed a good arguement or not (probably not).

  3. #3
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,388
    Post Thanks / Like
    I don't know what your argument is exactly.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    boca raton, florida.... BUT I WISH TEXAS!!1
    Posts
    258
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis
    I don't know what your argument is exactly.
    (at school)

    That a Jewish Rabbi said the earliest texts of the 10 commandments said 'murder'.

  5. #5
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,388
    Post Thanks / Like
    The only word (for kill/murder) I've seen in the commandment in Hebrew, is ratsach. I don't believe it was ever changed in any later texts (but am curious to see which texts they were if they exist).
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  6. #6
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Pray for our troops
    Posts
    5,340
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis
    Since I saw this brought up in another thread, and it wasn't explained or defended properly, I thought I would start a new thread specifically about this very topic.
    Apok,

    I find that non-believers are not open to how one interprets the Bible, ancient languages, translation, etc. as it reltaes Jewish or Christian scripture.

    I think the thread you refer to is the one I started....I actually thought about preparing a defense such as you have here...but then I reconsidered...as non-believers I do not think are inclined to accept such a defense....no doubt they will only accuse us of manipulating the meaning and context of the verse to suit our own opinions.

    After all it says right there in their copy of the Bible "Thou shall not kill". Non-believers I think are inclined to point to such discrepencies as just another reason not to believe...and that is sad.

  7. #7
    breathemusic20
    Guest

    Re: Thou Shalt not: Murder or Kill?

    I like that point. You did a great job.

  8. #8
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,027
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thou Shalt not: Murder or Kill?

    The issue is not 'Murder' vs. 'Kill'. The issue is the arbitrariness of what is to be considered the wrongful killing of another. The Bible is rife with stories of God sanctioning genocide and the wholesale slaughter of entire peoples, and myriad lesser examples. Any and all killing can be justified (and pretty much is justified) in the pages of scripture. God endorsed death is probably the most common theme in the entire Bible (whatever version you pick.)
    Some youths are mouthing off to one of God's prophets. Tsk, tsk. Whatever is a holy man to do? Miraculously bring forth a couple bears to render all 3 1/2 dozen of them to bits. I can picture it now. I wonder how long it took before the last one died... That'll learn 'em.
    How any rational person can read the Bible, accept these accounts as true, and yet maintain that God is merciful, longsuffering, just and loving escapes me.
    Faith is a vice.
    It is a substitute for courage.
    It is the abdication of Reason - the greatest attribute humans possess.
    It is the selling of one's soul for a happy lie.

  9. #9
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,388
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thou Shalt not: Murder or Kill?

    Actually, the issue IS murder vs kill.

    Murder: The unlawful killing of a human being by another with malice aforethought, either expressed or implied.

    Kill: The act of terminating a life

    Murder is a subset of Kill.

    Furthermore, there is a general confusion by those uneducated with scripture to confuse the commandment to mean and say "Murder". This is the cause for the objection. It's a misunderstanding of the nature of the commandment.

    It is always the case that it is wrong to murder. It is not always the case that it is wrong to kill.

    A crimanl breaking into your home and shooting someone and their family, then burglarizing the home, is wrong. That is murder.

    Police officers shooting this criminal as he exists the home and fires upon policie officers, is an act of killing. It is just, not wrong.

    Thus, there are various ways for one to kill and/or be killed. It isn't all lumped into one act and all acts of killing are to be considered morally equittable. We don't do that in a civilized society, and it is not the case with God either.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  10. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, S.Yorks., UK
    Posts
    8,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thou Shalt not: Murder or Kill?

    Murder is clearly wrong.
    While Killing should be avoided where ever reasonably possible; there are special mitigating circumstances, when others' lives would be in danger if this did not happen. In the UK and most of the rest of the 'civilised world', killing in the defence/defense of property is not legally permissable; unless the taking of that property would compromise others' lives and there was no alternative available to stop the felony.

    It is a kind of variation on the theme of, 'Man should not kill, but should not strive officiously to keep alive'.
    "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin.
    Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth.
    'Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt' - Julius Caesar (rough translation, 'Men will think what they want to think')
    Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream? - Homer Simpson.

  11. #11
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,388
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thou Shalt not: Murder or Kill?

    Quote Originally Posted by FruitandNut
    Murder is clearly wrong.
    For those who have an understanding and solid moral standard, of course it is. For many others however, such as those who rely on law to tell them what is moral and what is immoral, they don't see it that way.

    Galendir's post for example, shows us that there are some people who believe that merely because the "state says so", it must be the case.

    Thankfully, there are those who are not followers, and instead seek to reform that which is believed to be wrong.

    Murder is always wrong, of course. But some it would seem, base their morality on the beliefs of others. There is no higher authority that can be used as a standard, only a "rule" that is told to them (or perhaps indoctrinated by) and accepted without question. Thus, resulting in a changing or fluid moral standard. Which of course, is a failing standard.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  12. #12
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,027
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thou Shalt not: Murder or Kill?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis
    For those who have an understanding and solid moral standard, of course [murder is clearly wrong]. For many others however, such as those who rely on law to tell them what is moral and what is immoral, they don't see it that way.
    Newsflash: It's Christians who rely on law to tell them what is moral and what is immoral. The Ten Commandments are laws, no?

    Galendir's post for example, shows us that there are some people who believe that merely because the "state says so", it must be the case.
    Wrongo. You seem to not understand a sentence so simple as "[That the law permits certain acts of killing] speaks nothing to whether such killing is morally justified or not." I'll rephrase for you. The law states what is legal. It does not state what is moral. Is that clearer for you now?

    Thankfully, there are those who are not followers, and instead seek to reform that which is believed to be wrong.
    Like those who bomb abortion clinics?

    Murder is always wrong, of course.
    Of course, by definition. I have never heard of anyone claiming that murder isn't wrong. The problem is getting agreement on whether any given act constitutes murder or not. Christians can look at any act of killing, and as long as they can be persuaded that God sanctions it for some reason, they immediately convince themselves that such an act isn't really murder.

    But some it would seem, base their morality on the beliefs of others.
    And some, it would seem, can offer no rational justification for their morality other than "This ancient book says God is against this so it must be bad."
    There is no higher authority that can be used as a standard, only a "rule" that is told to them (or perhaps indoctrinated by) and accepted without question.
    Are you sure you are not describing Christians here?
    Thus, resulting in a changing or fluid moral standard. Which of course, is a failing standard.
    Unlike the Bible which has always been unambiguously, clearly, and consistently understood, and never reinterpreted through current societal standards, and is so applicable and timely in providing ethical guidance in the fields of medicine, technology, business, international affairs, warfare, politics, etc.
    Faith is a vice.
    It is a substitute for courage.
    It is the abdication of Reason - the greatest attribute humans possess.
    It is the selling of one's soul for a happy lie.

  13. #13
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,388
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thou Shalt not: Murder or Kill?

    Quote Originally Posted by Galendir
    Newsflash: It's Christians who rely on law to tell them what is moral and what is immoral. The Ten Commandments are laws, no?
    The 10 Commandments is ot a Christian Law guide. This is discussed here: http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...94&postcount=7

    Wrongo. You seem to not understand a sentence so simple as "[That the law permits certain acts of killing] speaks nothing to whether such killing is morally justified or not." I'll rephrase for you. The law states what is legal. It does not state what is moral.
    Not in that specific verse of course not. But in others where it defines and provides examples of both justified and unjustified killing, it does. I provided examples and verses in the op.

    The original objection here was that there was a problem w/ the way Christians supported war or capital punishment yet the 10 Commandments said "Thou shalt not kill". It's a problem until we realize that this is not what was written...and instead, a word used to mean unjustified or immoral killing was instead used (see op).

    Like those who bomb abortion clinics?
    No.

    Of course, by definition. I have never heard of anyone claiming that murder isn't wrong. The problem is getting agreement on whether any given act constitutes murder or not. Christians can look at any act of killing, and as long as they can be persuaded that God sanctions it for some reason, they immediately convince themselves that such an act isn't really murder.
    Really? Any support for this? And what is the support that this group of Christians use for defending their position? Is it reasonable? Is it supportable? Is it valid? If no, then what's the problem exactly? It's a false position, chock full of what should be, obvious holes.

    And some, it would seem, can offer no rational justification for their morality other than "This ancient book says God is against this so it must be bad."
    I knew murder was wrong long before I knew the Bible claimed it to be so. I would suspect that most reasonable people would say the same. Where does this innate belief come from? Couldn't tell ya. Some say God. Some say it is a part of our human nature.

    But what does that have to do with the confusion that some have about a specific verse? A verse that some think says X, when actually saying Y?
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  14. #14
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,027
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thou Shalt not: Murder or Kill?

    As I said, "The issue is the arbitrariness of what is to be considered the wrongful killing of another."
    Yes, murder is merely killing that is unlawful.
    If the law permits me to kill my wife if I tire of her, or my children if I don't like their attitude, or a stranger because his hair is too long, then if I do so it is NOT murder.
    This speaks nothing to whether such killing is morally justified or not.
    The 10 Commandments are not some universally applicable moral code, and Christians would do well to stop pretending that they are.

  15. #15
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,388
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thou Shalt not: Murder or Kill?

    Quote Originally Posted by Galendir
    As I said, "The issue is the arbitrariness of what is to be considered the wrongful killing of another.
    It isn't arbitrary. Since we are discussing the Christian context of "murder/killing", we remain in the universe of discourse to discover the applicable definitions of each.

    Yes, murder is merely killing that is unlawful.
    If the law permits me to kill my wife if I tire of her, or my children if I don't like their attitude, or a stranger because his hair is too long, then if I do so it is NOT murder.
    The commandment is that of God's, not the state's. The verse is that of scripture, not of our personal feelings.

    The CONTEXT of the objection that is offered by 'critics' here regarding this verse, is that:

    "God says do not kill, but there is much killing in the Bible."

    So it is within the context of the Bible that we define kill, find that it refers to murder, and determine if God violated that which is considered to be murder. If so, God is guilty of a sin. If not, God is not guilty of committing that which he commands others to not do.

    Whether God has actually committed the sin of murder is the topic for another thread.

    As far as you murdering your wife "legally"...do you believe that morality is defined and determined by law? Or is morality outside the boundaries of law?

    Following the logic in your example, it is moral for me to commit adultery against my wife (since it is not illegal). Do you consider it a moral virtue to cheat on yours? I do not. It is not illegal for us to do so yet it can still be a moral wrong.

    It's unwise to rely on men to tell you what your own moral values are.

    This speaks nothing to whether such killing is morally justified or not.
    Killing in a universal sense is not morally justified. None make the claim that it is the case. There are instances when it is wrong to kill, there are instances when it is right to kill. For this specific verse, we have examples above.

    The 10 Commandments are not some universally applicable moral code, and Christians would do well to stop pretending that they are.
    No Christian has ever claimed that the 10 Commandments are universally accepted. Christians claim that the 10 Commandments are an absolute moral code given to man from God. There's a difference.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  16. #16
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,027
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thou Shalt not: Murder or Kill?

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis
    It isn't arbitrary. Since we are discussing the Christian context of "murder/killing", we remain in the universe of discourse to discover the applicable definitions of each.
    In practical fact, it IS arbitrary. A law stating "Thou shalt not murder." is merely a law that makes it illegal to illegally kill. Well, that's helpful.:?: What distinguishes whether a given act of killing is one of murder or not? Where is this spelled out in unambiguous, comprehensive detail? It isn't. It is up to whatever those who claim to speak for God say it is.
    "God told me that we can have all that land over there, so it's ok for us to kill every inhabitant." "That person is an infidel or a heretic, so we can execute them with impunity." "God told me to offer my child as a sacrifice." As long as one can say "God told me this particular act of killing is ok." then it's not murder, and can be justified according to the law. There are no objective criteria to which one can appeal to judge these claims.
    The history of Christianity, and even those events recorded in the Bible, is full of examples of putative men of God, killing for all manner of reasons, and justifying it by claiming it is God's will. This command against murder has seemed to offer no impedance whatsoever. WE now look at many of these acts, and judge them as immoral. We judge them from our society's standards because this commandment is impotent to offer any real criteria by which to assess the morality or justifiability of any act of killing. Even according to the "guidelines" you offer in your opening post, the cold-blooded drowning of Andrea Yates five children by her own hands would not qualify as a violation of the 6th Commandment any more so than many other acts of killing sanctioned by God in the Bible.

    The commandment is that of God's, not the state's. The verse is that of scripture, not of our personal feelings.
    Exactly. And as long as one can claim "THIS act of killing is acceptable to God", one can dismiss the commandment as inapplicable.

    The CONTEXT of the objection that is offered by 'critics' here regarding this verse, is that:

    "God says do not kill, but there is much killing in the Bible."

    So it is within the context of the Bible that we define kill, find that it refers to murder, and determine if God violated that which is considered to be murder. If so, God is guilty of a sin. If not, God is not guilty of committing that which he commands others to not do.
    Actually, much of the objection is to the hypocrisy of Christians in how they selectively apply the commandment. Christians seem to think (and often claim) that if society would just follow this moral command of God, there would be less killing in society, and they conveniently ignore the far more copious killing recorded in the Bible, and historically perpetuated in the name of God, justified by appeals to these very same Biblical accounts of God-endorsed slaughter.

    As far as you murdering your wife "legally"...do you believe that morality is defined and determined by law?
    No, but Christians apparently do. Does the term "Divine Command Theory" sound familiar?
    Or is morality outside the boundaries of law?
    I think so. I can't justify abhorrent acts merely because some putative God allegedly gave them the thumbs up and thus absolved them as being a violation of his law and therefore not immoral.

    Following the logic in your example, it is moral for me to commit adultery against my wife (since it is not illegal).
    IF I were arguing that it is the law that determines what is moral (such as the Divine Command Theory), THEN it would follow that if an act is not illegal, then it is not immoral. I, however, do not subscribe to such an arbitrary system. It is precisely such a system that critics are objecting to when they bemoan the hypocrisy of Christians lauding their commandments as some high moral standard, the source and context of which is a God so given to violence and gratuitous slaughter.

    It's unwise to rely on men to tell you what your own moral values are.
    I agree. Yet, this is exactly what Christians do when they defer their moral judgment to ancient words written by men, translated by men, and interpreted by men claiming that they are the words of God. Thus the quote:
    With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” -- Steven Weinberg

    No Christian has ever claimed that the 10 Commandments are universally accepted. Christians claim that the 10 Commandments are an absolute moral code given to man from God. There's a difference.
    I didn't say Christians claim that the 10 C are universally accepted. To insinuate that I did is not only disingenuous, it's also just stupid.
    I said Christians would do well to stop pretending that the Ten Commandments are some universally applicable moral code. This means exactly the same thing as your second sentence. "Absolute moral code given to man from God" = "Universally applicable moral code" They are NOT an absolute/universally applicable moral code any more than are any of the other laws that made up the covenant between an ancient Israelite nation and its god, so conveniently abandoned today.
    Faith is a vice.
    It is a substitute for courage.
    It is the abdication of Reason - the greatest attribute humans possess.
    It is the selling of one's soul for a happy lie.

  17. #17
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,388
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thou Shalt not: Murder or Kill?

    Quote Originally Posted by Galendir
    In practical fact, it IS arbitrary. A law stating "Thou shalt not murder." is merely a law that makes it illegal to illegally kill. Well, that's helpful.:?:
    The op addresses this. This law is saying that you should not kill premeditatedly, as an avenger, intentional slayer, or assassinate. There are various forms or types of killing Galendir. This verse is saying that these forms of killing are wrong. Plain and simple.

    What distinguishes whether a given act of killing is one of murder or not? Where is this spelled out in unambiguous, comprehensive detail? It isn't. It is up to whatever those who claim to speak for God say it is.
    Wrong. I provided examples and verses in the op. Here it is again:
    Furthermore, the Israelites did not have a term that precisely fits our present-day idea of murder, they differentiated among killing, manslaughter, and murder in their legal terminology. You have to remember, that when interpreting, one must follow certain guidelines. The one in particular here, is that of understanding the context and language of the writer...not of us today, as the reader.

    A derivative of the word ratsach can be found with the meaning of shatter [Psalm 42:11] or slaughter [Eze 21:27]). It refers to a killing that was inherently evil (Judges 20:4; Job 24:14; Psalm 94:6; Isa 1:21; Hosea 6:9). It was also listed in abuses of the covenant community (Jer 7:9; Hosea 4:2) and in lists of curses (Deut 27:24-25). Jezebel committed murder (rasah) against the prophets (1 Kings 18:13), as did Ahab against Naboth (1 Kings 21:19) and Simeon and Levi against the Shechemites (Gen 34:26). However, the same term could also have applied to unintentional manslaughter (Deut 4:41; 19:3-6; Joshua 20:3), blood vengeance (Num 35:27,30), attempted assassination (2 Kings 6:32), and on one occasion it was used for the figurative killing of humans by animals (Prov 22:13).

    "Thou shall not murder" is one of the laws of nature, and was strongly enforced by the precepts given to Noah and his sons, Gen. 9:5, 6. It does not forbid killing in lawful war, or in our own necessary defense, nor the magistrate’s putting offenders to death, for those things tend to the preserving of life. But it does however, forbid all malice and hatred to the person of any (for he that hateth his brother is a murderer ), and all personal revenge arising therefrom; also all rash anger upon sudden provocations, and hurt said or done, or aimed to be done, in passion (see Matthew 5:22).

    "God told me that we can have all that land over there, so it's ok for us to kill every inhabitant." "That person is an infidel or a heretic, so we can execute them with impunity." "God told me to offer my child as a sacrifice." As long as one can say "God told me this particular act of killing is ok." then it's not murder, and can be justified according to the law. There are no objective criteria to which one can appeal to judge these claims.
    If you are referring to events that are recorded in scripture, it is simply a misunderstanding of events. One that I think has been addressed in other threads, but may be buried. If you are referring to individuals who make such claims today, then your claim is false as it has no support by the claimant. Claiming something doesn't make it true.

    The history of Christianity, and even those events recorded in the Bible, is full of examples of putative men of God, killing for all manner of reasons, and justifying it by claiming it is God's will. This command against murder has seemed to offer no impedance whatsoever. WE now look at many of these acts, and judge them as immoral. We judge them from our society's standards because this commandment is impotent to offer any real criteria by which to assess the morality or justifiability of any act of killing. Even according to the "guidelines" you offer in your opening post, the cold-blooded drowning of Andrea Yates five children by her own hands would not qualify as a violation of the 6th Commandment any more so than many other acts of killing sanctioned by God in the Bible.
    Of course it would. How could it not? What evidence is there that she was doing God's work? Also, you may want to refamiliarize yourself with the case. I recently made an indepth post about it in another thread (but cannot recall which one atm).

    Exactly. And as long as one can claim "THIS act of killing is acceptable to God", one can dismiss the commandment as inapplicable.
    Of course we can. Is it really God's wish or not? What evidence do we have for this? What evidence is against it?

    You seem to believe that as long as someone does something in {insert deity here} name, then said person is justified and who are we to question it...after all, they were doing {deity}'s work. You don't see the flaw in this line of reasoning?

    Actually, much of the objection is to the hypocrisy of Christians in how they selectively apply the commandment. Christians seem to think (and often claim) that if society would just follow this moral command of God, there would be less killing in society, and they conveniently ignore the far more copious killing recorded in the Bible, and historically perpetuated in the name of God, justified by appeals to these very same Biblical accounts of God-endorsed slaughter.
    Ancient events recorded in scripture are dealt with elsewhere. I don't see the relevancy of how they apply to us today and the moral code and application of "Do not murder" (vs "Do not kill").

    No, but Christians apparently do.
    Support please.

    Does the term "Divine Command Theory" sound familiar?I think so. I can't justify abhorrent acts merely because some putative God allegedly gave them the thumbs up and thus absolved them as being a violation of his law and therefore not immoral.
    Me either.

    IF I were arguing that it is the law that determines what is moral (such as the Divine Command Theory), THEN it would follow that if an act is not illegal, then it is not immoral. I, however, do not subscribe to such an arbitrary system. It is precisely such a system that critics are objecting to when they bemoan the hypocrisy of Christians lauding their commandments as some high moral standard, the source and context of which is a God so given to violence and gratuitous slaughter.
    Is this slaughter you refer to, the annihilation of tribes/civilizations in the OT? Or do you have any modern examples? If it is only ancient history, it's best for another thread because it isn't as black and white as you would have us believe. Context, historical perspective, military tradition, culture, etc... all have a play in it.

    I agree. Yet, this is exactly what Christians do when they defer their moral judgment to ancient words written by men, translated by men, and interpreted by men claiming that they are the words of God. Thus the quote:
    With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” -- Steven Weinberg
    That's super, but irrelevant and not applicable here.

    They are NOT an absolute/universally applicable moral code any more than are any of the other laws that made up the covenant between an ancient Israelite nation and its god, so conveniently abandoned today.
    Let's take the specific "Thou shalt not murder." How is this not universally applicable? In what society, religion, culture is it moral to murder? And in that society, religion or culture...is it a flourishing, healthy, moral group?
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  18. #18
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, S.Yorks., UK
    Posts
    8,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thou Shalt not: Murder or Kill?

    Quote Originally Posted by Galendir
    As I said, "The issue is the arbitrariness of what is to be considered the wrongful killing of another."
    Yes, murder is merely killing that is unlawful.
    If the law permits me to kill my wife if I tire of her, or my children if I don't like their attitude, or a stranger because his hair is too long, then if I do so it is NOT murder.
    This speaks nothing to whether such killing is morally justified or not.
    The 10 Commandments are not some universally applicable moral code, and Christians would do well to stop pretending that they are.
    Thou shalt not kill - as in the 10 Commandments refers to being the prime malicious source of killing when there is no issue of self-defense or saving others.

    If I am about to shoot a child and you cannot reasonably stop this from happening except to shoot me; I would view this as myself committing 'moral' suicide. My immoral/wrong action led to my death.
    "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin.
    Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth.
    'Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt' - Julius Caesar (rough translation, 'Men will think what they want to think')
    Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream? - Homer Simpson.

  19. #19
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,027
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thou Shalt not: Murder or Kill?

    Quote Originally Posted by FruitandNut
    Thou shalt not kill - as in the 10 Commandments refers to being the prime malicious source of killing when there is no issue of self-defense or saving others.
    Malicious in what way? Wrongful, unlawful? That's a bit self-referential don't you think? With intent to cause injury? So, if we kill those people because we want all their stuff, and that's the most efficient way to get it, and it's nothing personal, then it's not malicious and so not a violation of the commandment, right?
    I don't think you can justify this interpretation of the commandment based on scripture. If this is all it means, then God and his favorite servants are certainly guilty of breaking it repeatedly.
    Faith is a vice.
    It is a substitute for courage.
    It is the abdication of Reason - the greatest attribute humans possess.
    It is the selling of one's soul for a happy lie.

  20. #20
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Sheffield, S.Yorks., UK
    Posts
    8,862
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thou Shalt not: Murder or Kill?

    Quote Originally Posted by Galendir
    Malicious in what way? Wrongful, unlawful? That's a bit self-referential don't you think? With intent to cause injury? So, if we kill those people because we want all their stuff, and that's the most efficient way to get it, and it's nothing personal, then it's not malicious and so not a violation of the commandment, right?
    I don't think you can justify this interpretation of the commandment based on scripture. If this is all it means, then God and his favorite servants are certainly guilty of breaking it repeatedly.
    Galendir - (If) the Creator God has created us through the 'laws of nature', evolution etc., then surely He who gives can take without the label of being a murderer. By your argument he would be 'guilty' of murder everytime anyone dies, even naturally. After all if He set up the 'laws of nature' that ulitimately lead one way or another to our deaths, then by your definition He is a 'murderer'. Sounds a bit kinky. Christians believe that God does not terminate our 'essence' anyway, that our 'essence/soul' is eternal from it's inception.

    Yes, I do agree that theists, regrettibly, use God's name to excuse their aggression, but I most strongly feel that such action does not bear the marks of His imprimatur/consent/approval.
    Last edited by FruitandNut; January 30th, 2005 at 10:10 PM.
    "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." - Anais Nin.
    Emitte lucem et veritatem - Send out light and truth.
    'Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt' - Julius Caesar (rough translation, 'Men will think what they want to think')
    Kill my boss? Do I dare live out the American dream? - Homer Simpson.

 

 
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •