sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
But that's not what the Hebraic texts say.A child of God has no enemies, therefore, they don't murder or kill. Literally, legally, in wartime, anywhere.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
But that's not what the Hebraic texts say.A child of God has no enemies, therefore, they don't murder or kill. Literally, legally, in wartime, anywhere.
I read it as he's a church all by himself. Never mind that Jesus prayed that we all be one church.I guess what he's saying is he is a church because he is a part of the Body without them having to physically assemble together?
By unintentional I meant like not realizing someone's head was behind you when you swing your axe to chop a tree. That is not an evil act. It is a sad one.We do disagree; and, I see where youre getting at.
I dont know of Jewish Law. Any Law that says the act of killing in itself is right is one I disagree with bot unintentional (impulse from self defense) to intentional (malice or war).
I don't see why that should follow. People get amputations all the time to save their lives.In my view, Im seeing how the body is naturally designed to do. To interupt tah, in itself, is wrong.
There is no such thing as a right to live. Who gave you this right? If someone wants to live in a way that contradicts G-d's will, he has forfeited G-d's will to keep him alive.Because he is a has the right to live. If I had a child, I would never kill my child because he disobeyed me or contradicted my rules. It is immoral.
That's pretty clear.If I believed that God is an external being amd Creator who has the right to take life as well as create it, I agree with you. I dont share that faith, though.
The intent is to perform an act that is contraindicated by Law. Therefore the action is bad.Killings that are necessary does not justify that the action itself is right.
Example only: Relate it to homosexual acts. The religious arguement does not look at the gay couples intent which is good but the action. They say the action is bad regardless the intent.
I diagree with that example, but if you put killing in place of homosexual acts, I agree completely.
But that's not what the Hebraic texts say.
I read it as he's a church all by himself. Never mind that Jesus prayed that we all be one church.
It's not a moral directive, though. It's a legal directive. The point being, to the ancients who wrote the texts, there was a difference between killing and murder.
This isn't about apologetics. It's about exegesis. That simply isn't what the text says. Once we figure out what the text actually says, then we can go to context and figure out what the writer meant to say. I'd be more than willing to bet that, in this particular case, the context will bear out that the writers didn't mean what you're saying they mean.Sure, to the literal and natural. I once was blind.
To the spiritual and inner man, they are all about the brain and conscious and what occurs inside. Now I see.
No one is killed by amputations. I dont see the relation.I don't see why that should follow. People get amputations all the time to save their lives.
The right exists because you are here. As soon as you are born you have the right to your own body and right to live. I have a right to live just like the atheist beside me. Disbelief doesnt take away our rights to to live. Its just the laws of life. Anyone who infringes our right to live, maybe by abuse, kidnap, killing, etc is wrong.There is no such thing as a right to live. Who gave you this right? If someone wants to live in a way that contradicts G-d's will, he has forfeited G-d's will to keep him alive.
oooh. Interesting. Now the homosexual argument makes sense.The intent is to perform an act that is contraindicated by Law. Therefore the action is bad.
Yeah. It's like the poster is just sort of making up his own new-age kinda stuff about the bible. It just doesn't work that way.I see. Thats completely opposite of the whole Bible. Dont know what to say there.
Remember: "murder" is a legal term -- not a descriptive or moral term. Murder includes the act of killing, but it involves a whole set of stipulations that must be met before a legal definition of murder can be applied. "Murder" is a sticky and difficult thing to prove in all cases.Eh. I guess it was necessary to do so then. I agree with the legal one. I take it as moraly right because the government doesnt promote killing and murder. Its done because it is needed. I just think sometimes they contradict their own laws sometimes.
This isn't about apologetics. It's about exegesis. That simply isn't what the text says. Once we figure out what the text actually says, then we can go to context and figure out what the writer meant to say. I'd be more than willing to bet that, in this particular case, the context will bear out that the writers didn't mean what you're saying they mean.
Yes, but you said stopping natural body function is wrong. This is what amputation does.No one is killed by amputations. I dont see the relation.
The right exists because you are here. As soon as you are born you have the right to your own body and right to live. I have a right to live just like the atheist beside me. Disbelief doesnt take away our rights to to live. Its just the laws of life. Anyone who infringes our right to live, maybe by abuse, kidnap, killing, etc is wrong.
I see what you are saying. But it is different.oooh. Interesting. Now the homosexual argument makes sense.
Likewise, In killing, the motive to kill for self defense is right. The actual intent to act on it is wrong. So regardless the former, the actual purposeful act of doing so makes it wrong.
replacing hom acts with killing in the example you gave.
Remember: "murder" is a legal term -- not a descriptive or moral term. Murder includes the act of killing, but it involves a whole set of stipulations that must be met before a legal definition of murder can be applied. "Murder" is a sticky and difficult thing to prove in all cases.
I guess we'd have to disagree here. If it was conditioning, I'd safely say that we all are influenced by external means to which shapes our beliefs whether it be in God, Buddha, or so have you.Its not an inner feeling nd knowledge that I have. Maybe you conditioned yourself to have such a feeling? When people feel they need to align themselves with the earth it makes me lift an eyebrow too. Earth is an inanimate object. People are not. Why should you align yourself with the earth and not a plastic bottle?
In humans, I see it as an evil act. We don't need to kill for survival if everyone wasn't going to war with each other. We aren't killing to eat each other as animals kill their prey to eat it. If there was no danger between humans, why would there be a need to kill each other? How can we justify killing as right in that circumstance if there is no danger involved? If there was no danger, would we want to put killing in our daily routine because it is right?I see what you are saying. But it is different. Killing itself is not an evil act.
Remember: "murder" is a legal term -- not a descriptive or moral term. Murder includes the act of killing, but it involves a whole set of stipulations that must be met before a legal definition of murder can be applied. "Murder" is a sticky and difficult thing to prove in all cases.
The writers were trying to convey how God takes care of God's children within a culture of having been militarily dominated for centuries. For the very ancient Hebraic people, God was a God of physical strength and military might.In your opinion, what were the writers trying to convey, and what inspired them to write?
I don't know.So does it follow that it isn't objectively immoral or not?
I'm not a Christian. I see that you are angling to discuss the concept of the Eucharist. Considering that I'm not a Christian, I'm not in a position to discuss the rationale for the Eucharist. There are people who have described certain concepts over and over again that you are not addressing. Trying to address them with ME won't help, as I'm not going to try to defend aspects of Christian theology.Again: Can a Christian who deems cannibalism as objectively immoral do so via an appeal to divine revelation? If yes, please do so. And be sure to cite your source(s).
I don't know if the Donner Party was, but I DO know that the Packer Party was. It wasn't a matter of ritual. It was a matter of freezing and starving to death or eating the people in the party who died.Q. - Were they Christians?
That's a bit of a bizarre "what if."What if God told them to eat each other in a moment of personal revelation? Christians claim he does that all the time.
No. The fact is that the law is drawn out in exacting detail in the Oral Law. Just because you don't see it in the Pentateuch doesn't mean that God didn't address the matter in painstaking detail.Hmm. Given that he's seen fit to issue decrees concerning sex, food, clothes, law, faith, language, and every other conceivable topic, doesn't it strike you as a tad bizarre that he'd omit something like the consumption of human flesh?
There are certain things that God has referred to as "an abomination." I haven't looked it up, but I'm pretty sure that desecrating a corpse is called such a thing.What you're asserting is that there are some things that God places no judgment on, correct?
God doesn't always explain the reasoning behind things. However, the method of what we are supposed to do or are forbidden to do have been described in great detail.Or is it more accurate to say that although God may have a judgement on a particular item, he may not have opted to reveal that via Divine Revelation?
Well... Obviously in the text, anyway. I'm pretty sure that there is a description in the Oral Law that I haven't studied.Given the twin facts that God hasn't seen fit to condemn cannibalism,
Is there a reason for your crassness? Is there a point you are trying to make?and that God allegedly delights in the smell of burning flesh, I'd imagine his only concern would be that we not devour each other raw.
My point was that "killing" isn't automatically "murder." Murder has to be proven, and evidence is always tricky.Intent is not always hard to prove. Under the Law Covenant having a history of hating a person was enough to prove intent. (De 19:11,12; Jos 20:5) So was a case of having been "lying in wait" for the one harmed. (Nu 35:20,21) Finally just using an object capable of inflicting a mortal wound intentionally was enough. (Nu 35:16-18) Any of these 3 things would disqualify a person from finding refuge in a city set aside for those guilty of unintentional manslaughter.
I'd call it "Killing with Intent." If it met the criteria for murder, I'd call it "murder."That makes sense. What term would you use for killing with intent?
I know throughout history countries have justified their killings for many things and considered it right to do so. I guess what is right for one person is wrong for another. I mean, since killing is natural and it is done for the right reasons (say the inquisition was a good idea because it took out the pagans who God doesn't care for anyway), does it make it right what they did?
What if God were to kill the pagans for not believing in Him, would it make it right that He did it rather than the Church?
How does the killing become right or wrong based on the people who did it and why?
I just don't care for killing. We do so for protection, killing animals for food, to go to war, and so forth. The idea of robbing someone and any living being and thing the right to grow and die naturally sounds off to me. It's not something I can change, of course or we'd starve or die at our enemies hands. I just don't like the act.
(Reminds me of reading about Buddhist who wouldn't harm a fly. Although it doesn't sound realistic, I agree with the idea.)