Thou shall not kill!

[URAVIP2ME]

Killing someone who is not a threat to anybody qualifies as murder to me.
I guess I am just more ProLife than you and most Christians are.
Tom

Self defence is because someone is a threat to one's self or another.
However, there is a BIG difference between killing, murder and an execution of the sake of justice for the righteous.
As far as pro-life, in God's eyes it is a High Crime if a person has an abortion for selfish reasons such as just because of wanting to get rid of an unwanted child.

 

[columbus]

Self defence is because someone is a threat to one's self or another.

Self defence isn't someone choosing death for someone else. It's choosing not to be the one who dies, after someone else has chosen death for someone. Little to do with capital punishment.

However, there is a BIG difference between killing, murder and an execution of the sake of justice for the righteous.

No there isn't. Executing people because vengeance feels good is killing because it feels good.

As far as pro-life, in God's eyes it is a High Crime if a person has an abortion for selfish reasons such as just because of wanting to get rid of an unwanted child.

That's not from God. It isn't even Scriptural. There is no reason to think God opposes abortion, except for people who put Words into Gods mouth.

I started a thread about this. Nobody ever brought up a single verse, because there aren't any. People just make things up and attribute them to God.
Tom

 

[BSM1]

l know. You completely dodged the questions I asked.


Why would you be ok with executing someone for a perfectly legal killing? Maybe your definition of murder is closer to mine than you will admit?


I am asking you questions that I believe illustrate the irrationality of your definition of murder.
Tom

If this is a perfect legal killing, then why are we wasting time discussing it?

 

[columbus]

If this is a perfect legal killing, then why are we wasting time discussing it?

Because your definition of murder is pretty inadequate.
You seem to be dismissing the killing of Badawi as legal, but then advocating the illegal assassination of his executioner. Your meaning for the word murder seems as squishy and subjective as most people's.
Tom

 

[blü 2]

Your date is a bit off.

According to genetic and fossil evidence, archaic Homo sapiens evolved to anatomically modern humans solely in Africa, between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago, with members of one branch leaving Africa by 60,000 years ago and over time replacing earlier human populations such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus.

I said Genus Homo hunted animals (as discussed in the article I linked, which says 'probably ... H. habilis'). I didn't say species H sap lived 2m ya.

 

[blü 2]

Because your definition of murder is pretty inadequate.
You seem to be dismissing the killing of Badawi as legal, but then advocating the illegal assassination of his executioner. Your meaning for the word murder seems as squishy and subjective as most people's.
Tom

You, like me, dislike this aspect of their public morality, hence this aspect of their laws. (Not that 'legal' and 'moral' are the same, of course.)

But since it was a lawful execution by a lawful authority, in context here there's not much more to say.

 

[Thief]

Thou shalt not kill.....
ascribed by Moses?
authored by God?

not a moral issue?

and no matter what we say among ourselves....
we will stand before God and heaven and make our excuses

I think it's a spiritual matter

 

[Grandliseur]

and the Carpenter was seen on shore.....asking His followers as they fished....
Have you no meat?
Cast your net.

and the net was filled to breaking

fish as meat?
blood a problem?

Good luck with that one. I have never seen or heard of bleeding fish. In cases of mammals who live in the seas, and may qualify as fish in that sense only, perhaps avoiding their meat would be possible for most of us. For Eskimos, well, God didn't speak to them as such. There are always exceptions to the rule. He didn't tell us to die if we didn't have any other food source. Again, it is simply doing what we are told if obedience is possible.

 

[BSM1]

Because your definition of murder is pretty inadequate.
You seem to be dismissing the killing of Badawi as legal, but then advocating the illegal assassination of his executioner. Your meaning for the word murder seems as squishy and subjective as most people's.
Tom

It is not inadequate at all and it is not my definition; and in no way is it subjective. Murder is defined by law in whatever jurisdiction that has that enacting power. This means that you can go down to the courthouse, open one those big books, and read what defines murder according to the law. Murder is not whatever you want it to be, it is what the law says it is. You yourself said the killing of Badawi was legal. Doesn't mean you have to like it, but until the law in that country is changed you have to accept it (or try to burn that country to the ground).

 

[Thief]

Good luck with that one. I have never seen or heard of bleeding fish. In cases of mammals who live in the seas, and may qualify as fish in that sense only, perhaps avoiding their meat would be possible for most of us. For Eskimos, well, God didn't speak to them as such. There are always exceptions to the rule. He didn't tell us to die if we didn't have any other food source. Again, it is simply doing what we are told if obedience is possible.

I buy frozen tilapia
and when thawed.....the 'juice' runs red
and when in the store I choose the bag where in the flesh is red.....not pale
the lack of color indicates the fish were starving for air

I suspect the code of restraint was intended to reduce infection suffered by lesser forms

Not having microscopes.....how would early Man know anything of micro-problems?

so.....Someone knew
and laid down edict to stay the course of illness and disease

of course, Man would learn to take on that chore for himself
too bad he's not real good at it
( have you heard of Kevin's Law?)

 

[Grandliseur]

have you heard of Kevin's Law?

I have now.

In regard to the law about not eating blood, there are specific ways of killing goats, cattle - set out. Thus, it is simply again - just doing what we are told. I don't mind eating a rare steak, whether it is cooked or somewhat rare, the content is the same. As long as I keep away from eating blood directly, I feel that I am doing what I can to be obedient. I am a city person and have never lived in a place where I had to kill my own meat.

To me it is not a matter of fish containing blood. There is no edict for fish so to say. In that way, the fish you mentioned, can be eaten without any problem. Most people who eat sashimi, cut away the parts that look gross. If cooked or fried, the problem doesn't appear.

 

[Glaurung]

By definition murder can only be what the state defines because murder is a legal term.

I don't deny that murder is a legal term. What I reject is the claim that its definition is exclusively defined by the state. Again, there was a time when 'spousal rape' was (by legal definition) an oxymoron.

By taking this line you're effectively saying that the commandment against murder can only prescribe insofar as the state shall define murder. That's clearly against the obvious intent of the text, which is a moral prohibition against any unjustified taking of human life. Legal definitions by any state are besides the point.

Try getting someone arrested for murdering an animal. Can't happen. Why? No law on the books that describes the death of an animal as murder.

But what has that to do with the Ten Commandments? They're not legal arguments, they're moral prohibitions. What is legal isn't any test for what is moral.

(Also, wouldn't your instance of murder as a purely legal term defined by states effectively mean that the state itself is incapable of murder? When North Korea butchers a family for some minor infraction or straps people to bombs you don't consider these things to be 'murderous'?)

 

[Mister Silver]

"Thou shall not kill" unless god informs you to kill, of course.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

As far as pro-life, in God's eyes it is a High Crime if a person has an abortion for selfish reasons such as just because of wanting to get rid of an unwanted child.

Verse?

 

[blü 2]

As far as pro-life, in God's eyes it is a High Crime if a person has an abortion for selfish reasons such as just because of wanting to get rid of an unwanted child.

Yahweh's view of abortion and infanticide can be found in Hosea 13:

16 Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.​

 

[DavidFirth]

Verse?

Thou shalt not murder.

 

[columbus]

Thou shalt not murder.

How can abortion be murder if you equate breath with life?
Tom

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thou shalt not murder.

So you say ...

For others, those who might prefer an informed opinion, see Schiff's Abortion in Judaism.

 

[Thief]

I have now.

In regard to the law about not eating blood, there are specific ways of killing goats, cattle - set out. Thus, it is simply again - just doing what we are told. I don't mind eating a rare steak, whether it is cooked or somewhat rare, the content is the same. As long as I keep away from eating blood directly, I feel that I am doing what I can to be obedient. I am a city person and have never lived in a place where I had to kill my own meat.

To me it is not a matter of fish containing blood. There is no edict for fish so to say. In that way, the fish you mentioned, can be eaten without any problem. Most people who eat sashimi, cut away the parts that look gross. If cooked or fried, the problem doesn't appear.

as someone having followed new testament for a while....
I look back on that episode of Peter on a roof top
and approached by an angel, with a sheet full of goodies
which Peter called unclean

the angel took all of it away
and then returned to offer again.....the same as before

again Peter said ....nay

the second time around the angel rebuked Peter ....
you declare what has been sent down from heaven.....unclean
and took away the offering ...not to return

not wanting to digress further......
I see Man as that creature given dominion over all

the command Thou Shalt not Kill
was to stay that dominion played against one's fellow man

might makes right
is not the way to go

 

[Grandliseur]

as someone having followed new testament for a while....
I look back on that episode of Peter on a roof top
and approached by an angel, with a sheet full of goodies
which Peter called unclean

the angel took all of it away
and then returned to offer again.....the same as before

again Peter said ....nay

the second time around the angel rebuked Peter ....
you declare what has been sent down from heaven.....unclean
and took away the offering ...not to return

not wanting to digress further......
I see Man as that creature given dominion over all

the command Thou Shalt not Kill
was to stay that dominion played against one's fellow man

might makes right
is not the way to go

Cannot naysay that.