A sizable percentage of Christians have put forth that the commandment in the Bible should read “Thou shalt not murder” instead of “Thou shalt not kill”.
Was this murder, or is any death ordered by God a justified kill? Would you kill without question if God told you to, and if so, would it have to be heard aurally or would a voice in your head be good enough? Would you want some sort of evidence that the accused deserved death?
Is this much of a debate? Obviously it’s murder regardless of what your “God” tells you. Anyone who says that he would kill because God told him to should be locked up as a dangerous lunatic.
The quoted passage of Samuel is quite informative as to the nature of obeying God and the business of killing;
After the Lord commands Saul to destroy and kill;
Bolding mine.
In other words, in Christian/Jewish scripture it’s made clear that obeying the word of God is far, far more important than any scruples you may have about killing.
Very clever of you to post this on a Friday while the Jews are away…at least those that don’t get to this by this afternoon.
Most of the killing ordained by God in the Bible occurs in the OT. It’s a bigger problem for Jews than it is for Christians, since most Christians adhere to some sort of “that was then but this is now” contortion and fall back on the paradigm changing when Jesus came along and said, “But I say unto you…” etc etc.
The Jews, on the other hand, have a lot of scripture for which there has never been any formal or informal renouncement, contorted or otherwise.
To your question: are you asking a religious question or a practical one? If it’s a religious question, the answer is that it’s OK to kill if God tells you to kill, and the Bible is full of examples of him telling the Jews to do so. I have elsewhere on various SDMB threads used the book of Joshua as the best example of wholesale slaughter ordained by God and executed by Jewish armies.
If it’s a practical question, anyone who kills because God ordained it is psychotic, by definition. Whether or not such a killing is murder becomes a legal problem.
Then it is not morally wrong to carry out that order, because God can supersede his own commands.
If the state owes is basis/foundation to God, then it is not legally wrong either.
If the state is secular, then it may legally be murder, and you may have to face the legal consequences of that action. You can either hope that God will intervene or that he wants you to stay incarcerated for his own purposes, and you can expect that he’ll make it up to you later.
It would remove one reason that carrying out that order would be morally wrong, but I don’t think something is automatically moral just because God says so.
I was the one who pointed it out. You responded to me here.
I’m not a Christian, I’m an atheist Jew. I didn’t point out what it “should” read, I pointed **what it does read.
**
The actual translation of the Hebrew is “thou shalt not commit murder”, not “thou shalt not kill”.
What you are not grasping is that the word “murder” denotes an unlawful killing of a human being. In a bronze age tribal society which got its law directly from its religion (from the Law), that which was commanded in the Torah was lawful. Likewise, any revelations which were thought to come from God were also lawful, as He was the source of the Law, after all. So to kill in accord with that culture’s legal precepts could not, by the standards of the time, be murder.
Thus the prohibition against murder was not a prohibition against killing, but a prohibition against killings not sanctioned by the law. Whether or not we have the same legal system, today, is immaterial to the context and denotation of the Commandment’s use in ancient times. Applying the religious prohibition to modern secular jurisprudence is like trying to use alchemical texts to split the atom. If you were going to update it, it would be “thou shalt not take a human life except in accordance with the legal rules and procedures for the legally justifiable homicide in your system of jurisprudence.”
We need to be clear about what we mean by murder in this context. I assume we’re talking about murder in a colloquial sense, since I think we all agree that the legal question of whether something is murder is decided by our secular legal system. So, by murder, do we mean “an unjustified killing”?
A person could rationalize to themself that killing another is justified because of God’s will. People have certainly claimed to have done so. I don’t think there’s any debate there.
As for what a particular person needs to come to the conclusion that God wants them to kill, that would depend on how they communicate with God. Are you polling for opinions, or do you want to know how people in the past have claimed to communicate with God?
I’m a Christian and if I believed God was telling me to kill someone, I’d get myself committed for a psych evaluation because thinking God is talking directly to you, or that you yourself are devine, are common delusions.
It’s not entirely impossible God might choose to speak to someone in modern times, but it’s been a long while since God has personally told anyone to smite people so you would have to wonder about that being used as the message to break his silence…
I guess I should have stated that since God is the one saying “Thou shalt not kill,” He is the one creating moral law. Therefore (in my argument) something is automatically moral just because God says so.
Worth noting that, by definition, ‘murder’ is always forbidden and unlawful. If you’re ever in a position where killing someone is not against the law (of man or God) it is not murder.
I don’t think so. That undercuts the entire claim that God’s decrees = morality. If God’s decrees represent some sort of absolute morality ( a common claim ), then they’d be consistent. If God is saying “Don’t kill; well, OK, kill this guy” then we are talking about God’s opinion of the moment, not some absolute morality. If the claim is that morality is defined by what God commands, not only does that mean that there’s no absolute morality that God’s following, but it means that his follower’s behavior isn’t at all moral; “do what you are told regardless of consequences” is about as amoral a stance as I can imagine.
Perhaps the similarities between “God the Father” and “The Godfather” aren’t a coincidence . . .
It’s not clear to me how “do what you are told regardless of consequences” is different then any of the ten commandments. In fact it’s similar to a common interpretation of “honor your parents”. Why is it amoral?
For the same reason that carving up small children just because Mom says so isn’t moral either. Morality is about right and wrong, and if you don’t care about consequences you are amoral.
That is the whole point. Govenment gets to decide who gets killed for the … correct … reason. In the OT, God was the Govenment.
Murder is the killing of people for individual reasons.
I turn on the BS meter at full power, though, when people tell me they talk to God. I am not saying some people can’t, but there are a few people that are really out there on the edge. They can sound good, but they bear watching.