Can we not just take it at face value for once?

Question

'Thou shalt not kill'

It's taken from the Bible, but this is echoed in many different ways through many different religions.

I have asked why it still happens (in God's name) before, and I was basically told that it's ok to kill someone if it is for the protection of self.

For me, that means that I then have the freedom to break ANOTHER Christian commandment and judge for myself who is right and who is wrong.

When I commit this act of killing another, it seems to me that not only have I judged, I have also decided not to love my neighbor.

Not just Christians, but so far I'm not clued up enough to be able to apply this across the board. I only know that it does apply, rather than the words I need to explain so.

By the way, I'm not Christian, but I just use the Christian words that are the ones I know. Not picking on any faith in particular.

My own idea.

Take no life. Period

"Thou shalt not commit murder"

So murder does not involve killing?

The one instance in which I can condone the death of any creature is for food.

This is how it is apparent in nature.

Animals do not kill through hate. Does that mean they are more noble than ourselves?

johnny.zondo:

ummm... yes, and no.

I am in support of our troops (all of our countries). After all, they do not create the situation of death in which they are placed. They really do not have much choice in the matter.

For them, it is kill or be killed. Kill for survival, which refers back to the honor in nature's way.

But were the 9/11 attacks in aid of survival?
The Salem witch trials?
Pearl Harbour?

People on people, for politics or religion is in my opinion wrong.

It may lead to honor for some (like the soldiers), but it should not reach that situation.

csucdartgirl:

Which is worse:
Somebody who kills a person who is capable of killing them, or someone who kills a person with no defence.

When I fight back against an aggressor, I take away some of the wrongness of their actions.

If you hit me with a baseball bat, and concussed me a little, it causes me hardship.
But if I were to then pick up the bat and hit you with it, breaking your skull open and killing you, I would have unnecessarily taken a life.

Meanwhile if I were to recover and forgive you, you would then have the oportunity to learn from my example.

Answer 1

Hey Johnny....My husband is a soldier, he doesn't condone killing, not ALL troops are that way.....some ARE good ppl, some just don't have their heads on right......As for you sweet heart, I agree, the only killing that is done should be for survival.....for food.

Answer 2

Pretty fundamental - no killing. It's a big no-no. Of course it is when you get into the grey areas having to do with survival that it becomes more challenging to truly live by it. Easy enough not to kill and elephants, lion, tigers or bears today and probably to not kill any humans, too (for most of us). Once you get down to spiders and cockroaches and mosquitos it is harder to maintain the practice.

Rev. Kusala of the International Meditation Center in Los Angeles has a really great answer for this stemming from his years as a volunteer chaplain for the LAPD. You cannot escape the bard karma of killing, but you can temper it with right action. Never kill out of anger, hatred or fear, only out of service and duty to others.

Answer 3

It's true, no life should be taken but what if someone out of his name tries to kill you? In my opinion we should all be ready to handle situations as those by knowing how to defend ourselves and neutralise the potential attacker without having to kill them.
It's complicated still. You'd have to be in a situation of extreme danger to know what you would do. It's easy to judge from the safety of the home. I do not support this war nor any other one but let's see, what could have been done to prevent the Nazis from taking over? You see, as I see it it's not a question with an easy, straightforward answer.

Answer 4

It says do not murder - not do not kill.

Sometimes people have to kill to protect themselves or their family or their country. Sometimes people are killed because of capital punishment. These things were permitted in the old testament and are permitted today.

Murder is much different than killing. Murder is premeditated malice. Get it? got it? good.

Answer 5

Interestingly enough, one of the passages that stands out most in my memory of reading the old testament is when we are told that God wants us to choose to BE killed rather than TO kill -- in other words, do not defend ourselves against the threat of death.

I kinda have a hard time with this. I choose life. If I do not defend against another's attack on me, would I not then in a sense be committing suicide?

In a perfect world, yes, no killing, no murdering, would be fabulous. But we are so far from perfect.

I would defend myself and if it came down to it, where those who are in the army of my nation could no longer defend against enemies on my home soil, I would defend my right to live free -- and if I had to, would kill to do so, if the "other" was intent on killing me.

(((((Retro))))) -- I LOVE YOUR NAME!!!!! THANK YOU!!!!

Answer 6

the bible does have loopholes where doing something is permissable by the same standards modern law opperates although there were specific cityes or towns where you could go if it was like murder during self defence. but if you were being attacked you wouldnt deffend yourself any way ? i would but that still doesnt mean you intended to kill them its the intent to do something which makes it wrong not the intent to deffend yourself

Answer 7

I am trying to understand your question. Specifically the part that says "I was basically told that it's ok to kill someone if it is for the protection of self."

Do you suggest that if someone is trying to kill you, and you defend yourself because you don't want to die, and the attacker ends up dying because you fought back that you have done wrong/bad???? Help me out here.

Answer 8

actually ive asked this before and got some interesting answers.

i got into a debate with a guy who was one of those hardcore "support our troops" guys.

so i threw out the question that asks wether god saw soldiers who kill for their country as bad for breaking one of his ten commandments.

of course like a good little moron the guy insisted that the soldiers were still wonderful people in the eyes of god. i called him on his inconsistency and he vainly tried to defend his position.

i insisted that "thou shall not kill" means you do not kill. period. the ending of one persons life by the hand of another person...regardless of the situation.

so i think many christians (not by this persons example but in general) do not take it at face value. as a matter of fact its a commandment thats surprisingly flexible...

depending on your political perspective of course.

Answer 9

What sort of people need to be told not to kill?
And who wouldn't defend themselves, quite naturally?
As an Atheist this just seems like the right thing to do: defend yourself but try not to kill anyone.

Answer 10

I am not religious and I agree with you 100% - killing is just wrong. The self defence argument has been hijacked by religious extremists to justify their murderous actions.