Thou Shalt Not Kill - Except......?

Thou shalt not kill is actually more closely translated as, "thou shalt not murder." If killing was the criteria for sin, we'd all be liable every time we stepped on an ant, ate a carrot, or accidentally killed a fly from poison monoxide coming from the fire we started to keep warm.The reality is that killing is far different from murder. I think we all know that intuitively. If you are sleeping soundly in your home and are awakened by a masked man who kicked down the door, you have the right to defend your life, home, and property. However, if you are the masked man, you have no right to either kick down the door of someone else's home or endanger their lives. If you are killed in the course of your evil deeds, are the people held accountable? Should they be?In the Bible, we see the terms distinguished clearly when we read about King David. David was many things-- a king, a warrior, a murderer, an adulterer, a philanderer, etc. However, when David fought the Philistines, he killed them in the course of battle. When he had Uriah killed on the battlefield, he murdered Uriah.There are just and unjust killings. This is true in many cases. I'm in the minority on this issue, though I don't think they are wrong for holding to this view. I don't agree with the penalty, even though I understand that it is instituted by the virtue of the sanctity of life. "Whoever sheds man's blood by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God, He made man." -Genesis 9:6This belief was later expounded when the Law of Moses was instituted. A life for a life, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for tooth. Its a law of recompense and reciprocity, in that, whatever you do to others, so shall it be measured back to you.It wasn't until the sermon on the mount given by Jesus did we begin to consider that the law and personal value can be reconcilable. Jesus in no way was trying to replace the law, but rather, was giving a discourse on how we should personally feel towards those who wrong us."The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

​

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

​

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

​

"No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin." -John 8:3-11 No, because we allow for the government to fulfill its duty, which is to serve its citizens. There is nothing wrong with the Law, however, Jesus wanted us to view it in personal terms. Jesus submitted to the Law, which is why He said, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." He's saying, if you want to live by the Law, be prepared to live by it and to die by it because you are guilty just as she is. So, by all means, cast your stones, but don't be surprised when the stones are cast back at you.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

What? First of all, God exiled Cain and accursed him to be a restless wanderer. This says nothing about his ultimate disposition, just like it doesn't about any of us. If God struck us down the instance we sinned, we'd all be dead. I don't understand what you are saying. You seem to be shifting back and forth that God isn't the judge, but that He is. And that God doesn't want us to kill, but He does...?Murder and killing is two different things, which is why we have distinguishing terms in the law. We have justifiable homicide, manslaughter (in three degrees), and murder (in three degrees). But maybe I'm not understanding you. If so, can you clarify?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

The law is perfectly on the matter. Its the circumstances for each individual case that are hazy. But that's really a side issue. We are infallible and we aren't going to know all the details of a certain case. We have detectives to piece as many clues together to paint the best picture we can get without having actually witnessed the event. When it says that morals are absolute, it means that they are unyielding in its application. Obviously, the next question is: Well, if there is a God and His law is final, then how is it that we can live?Somebody has to pay the price. God then becomes the ultimate sacrifice so that the law is paid and that we can be reconciled to Him, as far as it depends on us. This is where relativity comes in and has skewed our views. The law is permanent and is easily recognized by anyone. But through clever manipulation people can become swayed by a relativist argument. My conscience would tell me that though I would be justified, there is a better way. My conscience would scream at me which is my indicator that I must not do that."There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers." -Proverbs 6:16-19 He may believe he is correct, just as a relativist may believe that there is no such thing as absolute morality. Their sincerity on the matter doesn't determine whether or not they are in the right."All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares." -Romans 2:12-16We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do”this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God”through Jesus Christ our Lord!" -Romans 7:14-25 So? Saying that you agree with moral absolutes is the intelligent decision. That doesn't mean that they follow them. I could know every word in the Bible and believe that it is true. But what's it worth if I don't follow it? What's knowing about it supposed to do, except condemn me because I'll have no excuse on the day of my judgment? You find it morally repulsive for me to espouse moral absolutes. What is that supposed to mean to me if all morals all relative? If all morals are relative, and you know that, then what purpose is there in trying to defame my beliefs?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

There is warfare and there are acts of criminal conduct. Do you not see the error in your own rationale? If you espouse that morals are relative then you give yourself no basis to criticize anyone else's beliefs. Indeed, you are trying to get me to sympathize with your views on relativity, all the while esteeming your own beliefs higher than that of any one else's. So let me just ask you: Is it wrong of God if He committed genocide? We'll deal with theological assertions you've made after you answer this simple question. If you say, "I personally believe that it is wrong, but right and wrong are only concepts that we devise. It isn't either right or wrong. Its only wrong for me." To which I would reply, "Well, I think its right. And since morals are relative and abstract concepts, case closed. There's nothing left to discuss."

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

God does condone capital punishment, as evidenced by the scriptures. However, He also condones mercy. The whole point of the gospel is that we deserve to die, but are offered reconciliation. Thanks for clarifying. The Law was given to Moses, not just that he was given the opportunity to delegate in the stead of God, but it was actually given to him. That's why there is a distinction between the 613 ordinances next to the 10 commandments."You shall love your neighbor as yourself." -Leviticus 19:18"If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.

​

For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

​

Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!" -James 2:8-12 God doesn't want to judge a single soul. He wants obedience above all. And when we fail, which He knows we will, He would rather show mercy instead of punishment, though it is due to us. God can judge us all right now if He wanted to. He does not want to punish any one, but you have to understand the purpose of the Law. The Law is in place, 1. So we understand what He wants. 2. To break our pride in thinking that we can keep the entire law all of our lives.What was the first sin? What is the sin that given all the scriptures and the discourses given by Jesus does He abhor most? He abhors pride. There is nothing wrong with the Law of Moses, but the New Covenant, prophesied by Moses himself, has come. And we are not under the law if we are under grace. And we know that we are following the spirit of the law if we love God with all of our heart and mind and soul. The second is like it. We shall love our neighbor as ourself. If we were to do that, would we not fulfill the obligation of the law naturally, instead of going through mechanized rituals? Indeed, this is what stumbles most orthodox Jews to this very day. You're not understanding me. I agree with what you say, which is why I don't endorse capital punishment. However, capital punishment is not wrong because God has given that to Moses. But if we go by the law, we are accountable to it. See, Jesus is saying, "Yep. You're right. According to the Law you can stone her. Go ahead and do that in accordance to the Law. Oh, but, by the way. Aren't you being a bit hypocritical when you yourself are a sinner in need of mercy?" The message rang home and convicted their hearts because they all left one by one."John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' "From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." -John 1:15-17 I agree with testing the spirits."Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

​

You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood." -1^st John 4:1-6 Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : fix italics

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Right, but that's my point. Somebody alluded to the commandment that we are prohibited from killing. I was arguing that if it means we are not supposed to kill, then we all are indictable-- even strict vegans. Yes, obviously the commandment pertains to the murder of humans. Its also a safe bet that in modern UK times you'd be jailed for breathing directly on the intruder. Hell, I heard of a story here in the US where an intruder trying to gain access to the residence by the skylight on the roof. Turns out that he fell through and got hurt. Somehow, some way, he won the case. I don't know if this is an urban legend. I looked on Snopes but couldn't find a reference. Sounds like somebody else is getting irked by the current state of affairs. I think this whole PC thing has gotten way out of control. Anyway, this is a side issue. Back to the topic at hand. I'm in no position to judge God who knows all the circumstances involved. And since God is the very measure of what goodness is, I doubt that we can speak one ill-gotten word about Him that wouldn't immediately be refuted when we go to be with Him. But to answer your question more directly, if morals are absolute, then what do you care if He killed all the first born children in Egypt. Take it seriously? In what way?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

quote:

---

If you espouse that morals are relative then you give yourself no basis to criticize anyone else's beliefs.

---

Tell me how you really feel about it. So its all about culture and time? Next year from now murder may perfectly acceptable by collective standards? Relative morals means that we all make up our own at our discretion. Even the Bible has some of those and give them not as commands, but as concessions. But imagine if that was the only standard. A true relativistic society is total anarchy. At some point, our moral view is going to be attacked by someone whether we believe in absolutes or relativism. If morals really are restricted to personal belief, that is an absolute phenomenon. But aside from that, since none of us are right or wrong, then there isn't anything left to discuss. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

quote:

---

So let me just ask you: Is it wrong of God if He committed genocide?

---

My gosh man, make up your mind. Now its immoral for God to do whatever He pleases? If its wrong by absolute standards, then God is wrong, in which case, something is even above God. If its wrong by relative standards then that's your opinion and nothing more. I don't know what more can be said about it other than, thanks for sharing. Then give it time, it'll be back in style. Fashion and morals are retroactive. Just give it a few years and you'll be in agreement with God's judgment by water. Why is that fortunate as opposed to it being what it is?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

So? Haven't you ever heard that everyone in jail is an innocent man? There's always some sort of justification in their mind. Their sincerity doesn't mean that it measures up to God's standards. I don't know Osama so I can't say what his disposition is. All I know is that what God says makes an a lot of sense when you compare it to with sociology of human behavior.

quote:

---

If you espouse that morals are relative then you give yourself no basis to criticize anyone else's beliefs.

---

There's a lot of power in that tiny little conjunction, "if." It change the entire meaning of the sentence if it weren't present. Nonetheless, I did infer, based on your post, that you endorse relative morality. I have deduced that because there are only two options from which to choose from. Well, three actually.1. All morals are relative.
2. All morals are absolute.
3. Some morals are absolute and some are relative.Which belief best summarizes your views on the subject? Some people say that God committed genocide with the Flood. Then what would you say? I don't want to put words in your mouth. What qualities makes somebody a bibliolatrist and who gets to decide that?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

I've got an even better one. Lets suppose the freedom fighter/terrorist barged through two different families door and accosted them. One family is strict pacifists. The freedom terrorists brutally murdered the whole family except for one. The other family was all about peace too, but he reasoned that every man at some point has to fight against evil. The man who fought back saved his entire family and killed the freedom terrorists.The pacifist criticizes the other man for adding to the violence by trying to combat violence with more violence. He denounces him as a warmongerer and a hypocrite. The other man denounces the pacifist for allowing his family to be slaughtered while he sat and did nothing. He calls him weak-willed, a coward, and somebody who doesn't know how to pick his battles. He says to the pacifist: "I fought for what was inmportant. And because I did, my family was spared, while you sat and did nothing. You are immoral for sitting there and doing nothing! You're a coward! The pacifist say, "My morals are still intact because I didn't allow the irrational feeling of anger consume me. My family is in a better place than both of us because we stuck by our laurels. You're just a hatemongerer and you add to the problem."Which one is right and which one is wrong? Or are they both right, or both wrong? Or is no one right and no one wrong? Were the freedom terrorists right or wrong? Did they serve their sense of justice, or should justice find them?Is there an answer to the paradox or is it all conjecture? Society seems to play no real role in it. Case in point: The parable I've just given can be applied to our country right now, where one group says that a preemptive strike against another country is wrong, while the other half says that its more of a crime to let your enemy steamroll over you. Same society, same time frame, diametrically opposed viewpoints. Looks like we're right back to square one. If morality is relative then it doesn't matter what any of us think. If its absolute then we'd all better make sure we're living in accordance to that code. Which is it? Is it both? Can both exist? This is what I think: God knows what's going on, completely, and I don't. Because Father knows best, I'm going to allow for Him to lead me to the Promise Land. Really the argument was made to pit relativist views against itself. I'm sorry that everyone read into it more than that. The point is, if you say that God is wrong, that's either your opinion, you are absolutely right, or you are absolutely wrong. If its just your opinion, then take a number. We all have one. If its absolutely right or absolutely wrong of God, then what makes that the absolute standard if not God?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

Because people that commit these acts know that it is unlawful. So if and when they are caught, they'd be most likely to make excuses for why what they did wasn't really immoral, but actually an instance where they purged the immoral from their midst. If you make your points clear, others won't have to fill in the blanks for you. I agree that its wrong. What, though, makes it wrong?

quote:

---

Some people say that God committed genocide with the Flood

---

. Two-step and dodge? I asked you an incredibly simple question which warrants an incredibly simple answer. But, hey, maybe if you can pass off my response as a dodge, it'll masquerade your own. Oh, looks like it didn't work.

quote:

---

here's a lot of power in that tiny little conjunction, "if."

---

quote:

---

Do you not see the error in your own rationale? If you espouse that morals are relative then you give yourself no basis to criticize anyone else's beliefs. Indeed, you are trying to get me to sympathize with your views on relativity, all the while esteeming your own beliefs higher than that of any one else's.

---

"If" you do this, then you invariably give up "this" position. LOL! What's the problem? Secondly, I then went on to say that I do believe you espouse moral relativism based on your past responses. Alright. What, then, makes a moral absolute? Does not the law have to be higher than those subject to it if it is dispensed absolutely? What criteria must exist for a moral to be absolute? What kind of backlash can we expect for breaking this moral code? You don't need to view it in mystical terms, but rather, what kind of consequence (cause and effect) can we expect as a result from going against this absolute? Actually, that's an example of relativity since the criteria isn't simply that someone reveres the Bible as the Word of God, but that gives excessive reverence to it. Again, I'd have to ask what makes it excessive and who gets to make that determination?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis