I'm curious as to how every religion that I've ever read about lists killing as a sin, yet somehow religion finds a way to make it OK. All types of killing from murder to sacrifice, so long as it is done in the name of said religion. Which raises a whole other question (for another thread) of why religion nurchers such fierce loyalty no matter the obvious potential negative ramifications. Who thought of that? An infallible God, or men? But back on topic using the ten commandments for example. Not killing is listed as a commandment. Not a suggestion, not with caveats, but a clear commandment. How does one reconcile breaking a commandment?
Although I go with the stOxian position on this one, that it is irreconcilable BS, I'll take a whack at it anyway: God said to do (such and such), and since he said it, it must be right, and anyone who interprets the ten commandments otherwise is obviously wrong. I find it ironic that "Obey me" is not one of the 10 commandments. From the way they spout off about it, you would think that it is #1.
Our government says, though shalt not kill, and bombs the crap out of people. Our law says though shalt not kill, and the police shoot people every day. Lets face it. Some people need killing it. You know it, I know it, the government knows it, and god knows it. But generally speaking, yeah killing is wrong.
Actually browntwn the original wording of that commandment says though shalt not murder. It didnt say though shalt not kill. There is a big difference between the 2. If someone comes into your home and threatens to kill your family and you end up killing that person to save your family that is called killing and not murder. Actually the buddhist faith is awesome for its passive beliefs against the killing of any creature and this is why I respect that part of their beliefs so much.
Hey hey hey you can't say what God thinks! First of all there are already tons of people out there who make a VERY GOOD living getting people to believe they know what God thinks. So that job is taken. But I guess if God does know that he can't very well go back and admit he made a boo boo with the whole "though shalt not kill" thing. There's also version Allah who is against killing innocent people.... unless they're fucking infidel pigs.
Attacking and killing an enemy soldier in war is also murder. A practice widely accepted by old and modern religions. Crusades anyone? I don't recall all soldiers who fought in the crusades being immediately excommunicated or shunned as heretics or even being told they were going to hell upon their return.
Where did you read the original? I'd love to see the original that you think you are quoting from. Can you please tell us all where you get such authority as to tell us all what the original language of the Ten Commandments is? As far was what words like "murder" and "kill" mean, we could argue about definitions but what does English have to do with it? What did GOD write in the stone, EXACTLY AS HE WROTE IT, in the exact LANGUAGE? P.S. Feel free to read all the different interpretations the different religions have for the Ten Commandments. But, I certainly agree that God did not intend to forbid someone from killing someone who was attempting to mortally harm their family. Wiki is not some authority, but it shows you the varied opinions of the language by different religions. Even within them there are many differences. Most people read the commantment, even with the word kill over murder, to have the same meaning. As in to kill unjustly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments
As I have said many times before when debating certain passages in the bible such as the aramiac meaning of "peter" and "rock", there are certain words in aramiac and hebrew in which their full meaning gets lost in the translation. "Thou Shalt Not Kill: Does God Violate His Own Commandment? by Rich Deem Introduction The sixth commandment is "Thou shall not kill."1 Atheists claim that God violated His own commandment in ordering the destruction of entire cities, just to allow the Jews to have a homeland in the Middle East. The Bible confirms that God ordered the killing of thousands of people. Isn't this an open and shut case for the hypocrisy of the God of the Bible? Is all killing the same? One thing you have to love about atheists is their extreme appreciation for the King James Version (KJV) translation. The KJV was translated in the early 17th century using an archaic form of modern English. In the last 400 years, English has changed significantly. Unfortunately, the vast majority of those who read the KJV (both believers and unbelievers) are unqualified to know what the text means in many instances because of word meaning changes. In attempting to demonstrate the contradiction of God's commands to Israel and the sixth commandment, atheist cite the KJV translation, "Thou shalt not kill." However, like English, Hebrew, the language in which most of the Old Testament was written, uses different words for intentional vs. unintentional killing. The verse translated "Thou shalt not kill" in the KJV translation, is translated "You shall not murder"2 in modern translations - because these translations represents the real meaning of the Hebrew text. The Bible in Basic English translates the phrase, "Do not put anyone to death without cause."2 The Hebrew word used here is ratsach,3 which nearly always refers to intentional killing without cause (unless indicated otherwise by context). Hebrew law recognized accidental killing as not punishable. In fact, specific cities were designated as "cities of refuge," so that an unintentional killer could flee to escape retribution.4 The Hebrew word for "kill" in this instance is not ratsach, but nakah, which can refer to either premeditated or unintentional killing, depending upon context.5 Other Hebrew words also can refer to killing.6-8 The punishment for murder was the death sentence.9 However, to be convicted, there needed to be at least two eyewitnesses.10 The Bible also prescribes that people have a right to defend themselves against attack and use deadly force if necessary.11" I hope this helps George oh really? So if someone is coming to invade your country and to kill you and you defend yourself its called murder? Then next time you go back into your home why not just leave all your doors open and let any robbers come in and then tell them you can do whatever they want to you, but you will not defend yourself against them. Thats crazy. Any human being will defend themselves in that situation.
Now now pingpong. You've got to read what I said. I said ATTACKING (as in offense) and killing an enemy soldier is still murder. Christianity was the aggressor in the crusades. Do some backpedaling then come back and try to explain that one away.
Whose backpeddling. This is why I have always hated war and I have debated the crusades with many of my fellow catholics, so I havent backpeddled on anything, just as I would never backpeddle on one of the greatest atheists of all time Stalin and Lenon who killed millions, just as I havent backpeddled when it came to the iraq war as most of my fellow catholics supported it. Almost every religion has gone through its dark ages and some are still in it now. Brwnttown, I suggest you go back and read my post fully and not just a few words of it. I allready stated the exact word used for murder in the original hebrew text. If you know anything about the bible it is translated from the original hebrew and aramiac language. Is this too hard for you to understand? If so there are many free courses online to understanding that the bible is translated from hebrew and aramiac. What you are doing is being rhetorical by asking the same question again that has allready been answered, and im being worse by actually answering the same one again. Again, I say please read my answer fully
You made some absurd claim that the word kill was not in the original but that the word murder was. After pointing out that neither word was in the original you still have not been able to quote the exact words that ARE in the original. Yes, I know it is not English. The reason you are not doing this is because there is no original to refer to. You, like everyone, are forced to rely on what other say was the commandment. The whole point is how silly it was for you to declare that one version was "wrong" and then provide you own made up language in its place, which has no more authority, and call it the original. It is typical of religious people to declare that they are right and everyone else is wrong even when they have zero authority for their position.