toldailytopic: Is it always wrong to kill another human?

[PureX]

If we are mandated, and we are, to preserve life in the womb because it is a gift from God then it follows that my life is sacred and I have a mandate to preserve my self from destruction.

Your life is no more or less sacred than anyone else's, and you/we are not mandated in any way to pass judgment over who should live and who should die.

When Jesus' life was being threatened, he did not kill to protect it. And at no time did he ever propose or suggest that we kill others to stop from being killed by them.

Like it or not, the spirit of Christ confronts us with this very difficult challenge of representing peace and love and forgiveness even in the face of hate and violence and death. It's so difficult, in fact, that many purported "Christians" invent rationalizations for excusing themselves from having to face such a difficult ethical challenge. But Jesus confronted this challenge even in real life, not just as an ethical dilemma, and he showed us the way. We have no excuses or justifications if we are to be truly Christian.

 

[Lighthouse]

"Thou shalt not kill". What's so confusing?

The Hebrew word in that commandment is translated as "murder," because they had a different word for "kill."

And the fact that the Law contained the command to execute [kill] anyone who committed murder shows your reasoning to be jacked.

And I didn't read anything about Jesus killing anyone in "self defense", or the defense of others, either.

So what?

I didn't read Jesus telling the man on the cross next to him that he didn't deserve to die, or correcting him when he said he did deserve it.

All those parts in there that say the punishment for murder or adultery or rape or bestiality or sodomy , etc, etc, etc is.....

death

Exactly!

If it was always wrong, how could it possibly ever be necessary? What an idiot thing to say from a gigantic hell bound fool. He probably means murdering children he might not want to take care of.

Precisely!

If it is actually evil it is never necessary, and if it is actually necessary then it is never evil.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Killing can be justified ... murder cannot.

That doesn't explain the difference though . . . does it?

There is a huge difference in utilizing the DP to put down dogs such as Richard Allen Davis and Ted Bundy as compared to the actions which put them on death row. The MURDER of their victims.

This doesn't explain why one form of killing is murder . . . and the other . . . isn't.

The deaths of those men and those like them protects society and other innocents.

Keeping them locked up does the same thing . . . no?

So far . . . you've explained . . . nothing.

 

[resurrected]

Purex writes in response to self defense:

Your life is no more or less sacred than anyone else's, and you/we are not mandated in any way to pass judgment over who should live and who should die.

You, my good sir, are an idiot of truly magnificent proportions.

Congratulations!

 

[fool]

Your life is no more or less sacred than anyone else's, and you/we are not mandated in any way to pass judgment over who should live and who should die.

When Jesus' life was being threatened, he did not kill to protect it. And at no time did he ever propose or suggest that we kill others to stop from being killed by them.

Like it or not, the spirit of Christ confronts us with this very difficult challenge of representing peace and love and forgiveness even in the face of hate and violence and death. It's so difficult, in fact, that many purported "Christians" invent rationalizations for excusing themselves from having to face such a difficult ethical challenge. But Jesus confronted this challenge even in real life, not just as an ethical dilemma, and he showed us the way. We have no excuses or justifications if we are to be truly Christian.

So you're a full blown passivist?
Anyone that attacks you just goes about their business, robs you, rapes you, kills you?
Fighting for your own life is an "Ethical Challenge"?

 

[Rusha]

That doesn't explain the difference though . . . does it?

Murder is malicious and intentional for the sole purpose of harming others.

The death penalty is done for one reason: to PROTECT others from a threat. Imprisonment does not permanently and completely eradicate the threat.

This doesn't explain why one form of execution is murder . . . and the other . . . isn't.

Because eradicating a murderer via execution is for the purpose of protecting society.

A murderer's sole intent is to harm others. The DP is a just reaction that would not come into play had it not been for the unjust actions of a murderer.

Keeping them locked up does the same thing . . . no?

No ... as long as they breathe, they are a threat.

So far . . . you've explained . . . nothing.

Wrong. I have explained myself quite well ... you just happen to disagree with me.

In all of the years that I have been supporting the death penalty, there has never been even ONE *valid* argument against it.

Dead murderers do not re-offend. Do you deny this?

 

[fool]

That doesn't explain the difference though . . . does it?

This doesn't explain why one form of killing is murder . . . and the other . . . isn't.

Keeping them locked up does the same thing . . . no?

So far . . . you've explained . . . nothing.

Are you really that dense Hunter?
Cut to the chase.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Murder is malicious and intentional for the sole purpose of harming others.

Always? Must be a definition of vehicular homicide I haven't seen before.

Your explanation sure sounds a lot like the . . . death penalty.

The death penalty is done for one reason: to PROTECT others from a threat.

No, the death penalty is intentional and for the sole purpose of harming others.

Imprisonment does not permanently and completely eradicate the threat.

Tell it to Charles Manson . . . better yet . . . tell Casey Anthony.

Because eradicating a murderer via execution is for the purpose of protecting society.

Are you saying ALL murderers should be executed?

A murderer's sole intent is to harm others. The DP is a just reaction that would not come into play had it not been for the unjust actions of a murderer.

Eye-for-eye . . . tooth-for-tooth? WHY is the death penalty just? WHY is murder unjust?

No ... as long as they breathe, they are a threat.

In every case?

Wrong. I have explained myself quite well ... you just happen to disagree with me.

Claiming to have done so and doing so are often at odds.

In all of the years that I have been supporting the death penalty, there has never been even ONE *valid* argument against it.

Nor have I ever seen one valid argument FOR it.

Dead murderers do not re-offend. Do you deny this?

Your response is entirely . . . emotional.

You should see the movie . . . Jack Reacher . . . and the explanation as to why some people join the military.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Are you really that dense Hunter?

At least I can spell . . . pacifist.

Cut to the chase.

:liberals:

 

[fool]

At least I can spell . . . pacifist.

Congradulations and thank you.
You might turn out to be of some use.

:liberals:

The chase, cut to it.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Congradulations and thank you.
You might turn out to be of some use.

The chase, cut to it.

Haven't I?

 

[PureX]

So you're a full blown passivist?
Anyone that attacks you just goes about their business, robs you, rapes you, kills you?
Fighting for your own life is an "Ethical Challenge"?

It's the Christian challenge, and it's a very difficult one. If you want to call yourself a Christian, then that would be the goal: to counter theft with generosity, hate with love, and violence with forgiveness. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life", and this was his way. The way of generosity, and love, and forgiveness. If that idea sickens you in some way, perhaps you have some serious soul-searching to do.

 

[OriginalOatmeal]

My favorite television series is called Dexter which stars a serial killer who is the protagonist and antagonist of the show. Dexter is addicted to killing people but he only kills murderers that the police refuse to catch.

 

[Silent Hunter]

It's the Christian challenge, and it's a very difficult one. If you want to call yourself a Christian, then that would be the goal: to counter theft with generosity, hate with love, and violence with forgiveness. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life", and this was his way. The way of generosity, and love, and forgiveness. If that idea sickens you in some way, perhaps you have some serious soul-searching to do.

"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to PureX again".

:BRAVO:

 

[resurrected]

It's the Christian challenge, and it's a very difficult one. If you want to call yourself a Christian, then that would be the goal: to counter theft with generosity

The money changers in the temple were stealing. Was Christ generous in His dealings with them?

, hate with love

He was hated by those in his hometown who would not hear his message.

Was shaking the dust from His sandals an act of love?

 

[Silent Hunter]

My favorite television series is called Dexter which stars a serial killer who is the protagonist and antagonist of the show. Dexter is addicted to killing people but he only kills murderers that the police refuse to catch.

So . . . he's the "good guy" then? I'm sure Lighthouse likes him already.

 

[TomO]

So you're a full blown passivist?
Anyone that attacks you just goes about their business, robs you, rapes you, kills you?Fighting for your own life is an "Ethical Challenge"?

It's the Christian challenge, and it's a very difficult one. If you want to call yourself a Christian, then that would be the goal: to counter theft with generosity, hate with love, and violence with forgiveness. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life", and this was his way. The way of generosity, and love, and forgiveness. If that idea sickens you in some way, perhaps you have some serious soul-searching to do.

Yeah...cool...drop the "Christian Boilerplate" and answer the question. :AMR:

 

[Rusha]

Your explanation sure sounds a lot like the . . . death penalty.

Of course it does. Because the death penalty is ALWAYS imposed on individuals such as Polly Klaus, huh?

I can understand how a child's being kidnapped from the security of her own bedroom and then murdered could be seen the same as putting the guy to death who enjoys kidnapping and torturing little girls. Exactly the same thing, right, SH?

No, the death penalty is intentional and for the sole purpose of harming others.

So let me get this straight ... you would also be opposed to protecting one of your family members from an intruder even if that protection meant killing the intruder?

Tell it to Charles Manson . . . better yet . . . tell Casey Anthony.

Charles Manson? The guy who would murder again if he were to escape or get paroled? Casey Anthony ... yea, she should be kept free so she can have another child to murder. Lovely examples you chosen to show mercy for. What of their victims?

Are you saying ALL murderers should be executed?

Most ... though I will give Ellie Nesler a pass.

Eye-for-eye . . . tooth-for-tooth? WHY is the death penalty just? WHY is murder unjust?

Innocent VS Murderer

You do the math and explain why anyone would protect the guilty by keeping them alive so they can have an opportunity to murder again.

In every case?

Yep ...

What message do you think it sends when we reward criminals by allowing them to remain alive and paying for their shelter, food and healthcare?

Claiming to have done so and doing so are often at odds.

I don't care if you accept my reasons ... I only care that if *I* am sitting on the jury of a murderer and deciding their fate that I do the right thing by following my conscience and voting to put the predator down.

Nor have I ever seen one valid argument FOR it.

Because dead murderers can be paroled OR escape and murder again, huh?

Your response is entirely . . . emotional.

Yeah ... incidents of men, women and children maliciously raped, molested and murdered does tend to bother me. My bad.

You should see the movie . . . Jack Reacher . . . and the explanation as to why some people join the military.

:idunno:

 

[Silent Hunter]

Of course it does. Because the death penalty is ALWAYS imposed on individuals such as Polly Klaus, huh?

Non-responsive.

I can understand how a child's being kidnapped from the security of her own bedroom and then murdered could be seen the same as putting the guy to death who enjoys kidnapping and torturing little girls. Exactly the same thing, right, SH?

Emotional.

So let me get this straight ... you would also be opposed to protecting one of your family members from an intruder even if that protection meant killing the intruder?

Deadly force is ALWAYS the option of last resort. It is STILL the taking of a human life none-the-less . . . isn't it?

Charles Manson? The guy who would murder again if he were to escape or get paroled?

Charles Manson NEVER murdered anyone . . . ask him.

Casey Anthony ... yea, she should be kept free so she can have another child to murder. Lovely examples you chosen to show mercy for.

How is keeping them locked up "showing mercy"?

What of their victims?

Life sucks . . . then . . . you die.

Most ... though I will give Ellie Nesler a pass.

Vigilantes are still . . . murderers.

Innocent VS Murderer

You do the math and explain why anyone would protect the guilty by keeping them alive so they can have an opportunity to murder again.

Shifting the burden . . . sorry . . . not my responsibility.

Yep ...

Must be a definition of vehicular homicide I haven't seen before (which you curiously omitted in your reply).

What message do you think it sends when we reward criminals by allowing them to remain alive and paying for their shelter, food and healthcare?

You've never been locked up before . . . have you?

I don't care if you accept my reasons ... I only care that if *I* am sitting on the jury of a murderer and deciding their fate that I do the right thing by following my conscience and voting to put the predator down.

I think you would be more prone to follow your emotions than your conscience in passing judgment regardless.

Because dead murderers can be paroled OR escape and murder again, huh?

Yeah ... incidents of men, women and children maliciously raped, molested and murdered does tend to bother me. My bad.

Your emotional response is noted and . . . rejected.

:idunno:

You'd have to see the movie . . . it isn't bad. The gist is that some people join the military to be able to kill in a legal setting. Especially . . . snipers.

 

[PureX]

Yeah...cool...drop the "Christian Boilerplate" and answer the question. :AMR:

Why, who among us is sinless, and therefor righteous enough to stand in judgment of others? Not me, and not you, either. Jesus WAS that righteous, and he still chose not to condemn, but to forgive. He set the bar, not me.

I don't know that I can live up to such a challenge. But I'm not going to pretend that the standard hasn't been set. If I retaliate to the evil of others, in kind, then I know I will have become evil, myself.