Christians: To kill or not to kill?-_--__-_ (Jesus, exodus)

[dawny0826]

Originally Posted by Faint

First, Genesis 9:6 claims that "Whoso sheddeth man's blood,by man shall his blood be shed"

Then one of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 says "Thou shall not kill".

Later, Lev. 24:17 says "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death."

And sometime after that, Jesus is quoted in Mark 10:19 as advising his follower, "Do not kill", and sometime after that to turn the other cheek if they are attacked.

Questions:
1) Why do you think that God can't seem to make up his mind on the subject of killing people? Do you consider these passages as contradictions?

2) Do you think that God kills anyone (by action or inaction), and if so is it fair for him to not follow his own commandment?

3) Can a Christian kill someone in self-defense (or in defense of another) without violating the rules of his/her faith?

You're asking Christians, right?

1. In the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, we ARE instructed not to kill. But I personally, interpret kill as murder.

2. I think that God is above ALL. And again, I interpret "Thou shalt not kill" as "Thou shalt not murder". God actually established in the OT that the punishment for certain sins would be death. I am currently reading through Leviticus...and just last night read about God's laws on sexual immorality. Most sexual offenses resulted in either being cut off from one's people or death.

3. I don't think self-defense would equate to murder. If someone is attacking me...I'm not in the wrong...I'm innocent. And I feel that when Jesus referred to "turning the other cheek"...He was instructing us how to conduct ourselves when faced with negativity (in all shapes and forms) from others. For instance, if someone is belitting you...instead of lashing out in return...we are to turn away...

[Deut 13:1]

Originally Posted by dawny0826

But I personally, interpret kill as murder.

You're not alone.

[Faint]

Originally Posted by Deut 13:1

*sigh* you have the biblical understanding of a 3 year old.

Mmm...still, that's better than the name-calling bitterness of old age, eh?

Originally Posted by Deut 13:1

6. Whoever sheds the blood of man through man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God He made man.

Yes it does, but if you ever read the entire torah, you'd also know there are court procedures outlined to do this.

So according to the translation, ratsach is "killing without cause". Man may kill other men as long as they have cause to do so. But cause is determined by the court, so what was sanctioned back then, we modern folk might now consider murder (stoning girls to death for yelling while getting raped, for example). With this in mind, the translation difference between "kill" and "murder" seems to be pointless anyway.

Originally Posted by Deut 13:1

Ignoring what Mr. J says on the topic, a defensive war was ALWAYS permissible. Not only that, it was obligated for you to go kill/murder (pick whichever word) them if you knew they were coming to kill you. Offensive wars were different, to go on an offensive war one would have to go see the High priest who wore the Urim V'Tumim, who in turn, would consult w/ G-d. Permission was also required by the High Court before the King could launch an offensive war against any other country. Now, assuming the High Court and G-d both say go for it, then before you invade the other country, you must follow the TNK's code of warfare. This included, giving the city or country a warning that they would be attacked, they could surrendor if they liked, you also were not allowed to rape women, although to my knowledge pillaging was allowed, you were not allowed to use Sherman's technique during the Civil war of destroying the crops/trees.

Most of the time people went on offensive wars for pilaging.

Right, right, but Christians aren't supposed to ignore what Mr. J says, and doesn't his new edict basically nullify what was permissable in the past?

[Deut 13:1]

Originally Posted by Faint

Mmm...still, that's better than the name-calling bitterness of old age, eh?

I'm not old.

Originally Posted by Faint

So according to the translation, ratsach is "killing without cause".

Is that how you define murder?

Originally Posted by Faint

Man may kill other men as long as they have cause to do so. But cause is determined by the court, so what was sanctioned back then, we modern folk might now consider murder (stoning girls to death for yelling while getting raped, for example).

Sorry, you'll have to do better then that, stoning women who screamed while getting raped were NOT stoned, so your blatent attempts to lie are dully noted:
Devarim 22: 22. If a man is found lying with a married woman, even both of them shall die the man lying with the woman and the woman. So shall you clear away the evil from Israel.
23. If there is a virgin girl betrothed to a man, and [another] man finds her in the city, and lies with her,

24. you shall take them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall pelt them with stones, and they shall die: the girl, because she did not cry out [even though she was] in the city, and the man, because he violated his neighbor's wife. So shall you clear away the evil from among you.

25. But if a man finds the betrothed girl in the field, and the man overpowers her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.

26. Whereas to the girl, you shall do nothing the girl did not commit a sin deserving of death, for just as a man rises up against his fellow and murders him, so is this case.

27. Because he found her in the field. The betrothed girl had cried out, but there was no one to save her.

28. If a man finds a virgin girl who was not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found,

29. the man who lay with her shall give fifty [shekels of] silver to the girl's father, and she shall become his wife, because he violated her. He shall not send her away all the days of his life.

With this in mind, the translation difference between "kill" and "murder" seems to be pointless anyway.

Originally Posted by Faint

Right, right, but Christians aren't supposed to ignore what Mr. J says, and doesn't his new edict basically nullify what was permissable in the past?

I like to think of Mr. J as cancelling them...

[Aqualung]

Originally Posted by Faint

Fine, sis, but this doesn't answer my question about turning the other cheek. If someone attacks you, Jesus seems to say you should turn to let them hit you again. Is that not so? Do you think Jesus/God wants you to kill in self-defense? And why would you think that, given the evidence showing otherwise? Jesus' quote specifically says, "do not resist an evil person". Doesn't that mean you basically lay down your arms?

He says if somebody hits you, you should turn the other cheek. He doesn't say if someone tries to kill you, let them, and let them steal your stuff and rape your wife, while you're at it.

[Faint]

Originally Posted by Deut 13:1

I'm not old.

Haha--oops, my bad--I totally thought you were some kind of old preacher citing all those passages.

Originally Posted by Deut 13:1

Is that how you define murder?

No, that's how I read "ratsach" is translated.

Originally Posted by Deut 13:1

Sorry, you'll have to do better then that, stoning women who screamed while getting raped were NOT stoned, so your blatent attempts to lie are dully noted:

Argh...I can't type today. Sorry, wasn't trying to lie. Yes, true, I quoted that wrong. I meant to say "stoning girls for NOT yelling while being raped", which in MY moral opinion qualifies as injustice and thus murder. What if the girl is too scared to scream? What if she is unconscious? In both cases she should be killed?? Is that what God wants?

Originally Posted by Deut 13:1

Devarim 22: 22. If a man is found lying with a married woman, even both of them shall die the man lying with the woman and the woman. So shall you clear away the evil from Israel.
23. If there is a virgin girl betrothed to a man, and [another] man finds her in the city, and lies with her,

24. you shall take them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall pelt them with stones, and they shall die: the girl, because she did not cry out [even though she was] in the city, and the man, because he violated his neighbor's wife. So shall you clear away the evil from among you.

25. But if a man finds the betrothed girl in the field, and the man overpowers her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.

26. Whereas to the girl, you shall do nothing the girl did not commit a sin deserving of death, for just as a man rises up against his fellow and murders him, so is this case.

27. Because he found her in the field. The betrothed girl had cried out, but there was no one to save her.

28. If a man finds a virgin girl who was not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found,

29. the man who lay with her shall give fifty [shekels of] silver to the girl's father, and she shall become his wife, because he violated her. He shall not send her away all the days of his life.

I'm glad you quoted these...they just back up my arguement that the courts' cause for killing back then were no more just than outright murder. In each of these scenarios, the woman has done NOTHING to warrant death (there is also something to be said about forcing a girl to marry the man who raped her, but that's for another thread).
As I said before:

Originally Posted by Faint

With this in mind, the translation difference between "kill" and "murder" seems to be pointless anyway.

Originally Posted by Deut 13:1

I like to think of Mr. J as cancelling them....

Same difference. You were implying that what was permissable in the Torah is the model of how Christians should live their lives. I am pointing out that Jesus allegedly overturned many of those old rules. So your previous argument basically goes nowhere.

Originally Posted by Aqualung

He says if somebody hits you, you should turn the other cheek. He doesn't say if someone tries to kill you, let them, and let them steal your stuff and rape your wife, while you're at it.

I'll repeat the quote: "do not resist an evil person". How do you interpret that? What is *not resisting* to you? Only resisting sometimes? Resisting when you feel like it? Jesus says do not resist evil, which undoubtly implies allowing evil to have it's way (or at least physically, judging by the context). He also models this kind of behavior personally by allowing himself to be tortured to death by people I would describe as (you guessed it) E-V-I-L.

[Popeyesays]

My faith clarifies Jesus' instruction in this way:
"We must speak of things that are possible of performance in this world. There are many theories and high ideas on this subject, but they are not practicable; consequently, we must speak of things that are feasible.
For example, if someone oppresses, injures and wrongs another, and the wronged man retaliates, this is vengeance and is censurable. If the son of 'Amr kills the son of Zayd, Zayd has not the right to kill the son of 'Amr; if he does so, this is vengeance. If 'Amr dishonors Zayd, the latter has not the right to dishonor 'Amr; if he does so, this is vengeance, and it is very reprehensible. No, rather he must return good for evil, and not only forgive, but also, if possible, be of service to his oppressor. This conduct is worthy of man: for what advantage does he gain by vengeance? The two actions are equivalent; if one action is reprehensible, both are reprehensible. The only difference is that one was committed first, the other later.
But the community has the right of defense and of self-protection; moreover, the community has no hatred nor animosity for the murderer: it imprisons or punishes him merely for the protection and security of others. It is not for the purpose of taking vengeance upon the murderer, but for the purpose of inflicting a punishment by which the community will be protected. If the community and the inheritors of the murdered one were to forgive and return good for evil, the cruel would be continually ill-treating others, and assassinations would continually occur. Vicious people, like wolves, would destroy the sheep of God. The community has no ill-will and rancor in the infliction of punishment, and it does not desire to appease the anger of the heart; its purpose is by punishment to protect others so that no atrocious actions may be committed. 270
Thus when Christ said: "Whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the left one also,"[1] it was for the purpose of teaching men not to take personal revenge. He did not mean that, if a wolf should fall upon a flock of sheep and wish to destroy it, the wolf should be encouraged to do so. No, if Christ had known that a wolf had entered the fold and was about to destroy the sheep, most certainly He would have prevented it.
[1 Cf. Matt. 5:39.]"
(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 269)

Regards,
Scott

[Faint]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

My faith clarifies Jesus' instruction in this way:
Thus when Christ said: "Whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the left one also,"[1] it was for the purpose of teaching men not to take personal revenge. He did not mean that, if a wolf should fall upon a flock of sheep and wish to destroy it, the wolf should be encouraged to do so. No, if Christ had known that a wolf had entered the fold and was about to destroy the sheep, most certainly He would have prevented it.

Does your faith have Biblical sources for this interpretation, or is this all speculation? How does "do not resist an evil person" possibly translate to "do not take personal revenge"? That's quite a leap.