toldailytopic: Killing vs. murder what's the difference? Is it always wrong to kill?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Killing is only defensible when not killing endangers innocent lives. Execution of criminals is not necessary to save lives and I would therefore deem the execution of a prisoner as murder, life in prison for murder and other extremely serious crimes is enough to protect the society.

Not executing murderers does endanger innocent lives.
 

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Killing is only defensible when not killing endangers innocent lives. Execution of criminals is not necessary to save lives and I would therefore deem the execution of a prisoner as murder, life in prison for murder and other extremely serious crimes is enough to protect the society.

Many prisoners have a second home in prison. They do not have to work; they should be forced to work. Many poor people work two jobs and are less comfortable then prisoners.

The death penalty (Capital punishment) would not be such a deterrent if prisoners were made to work!
 

Buzzword

New member
I support killing in self-defense.

I support killing in defense of property, i.e. killing a man who breaks into my home.
He has already given up his right to life by violating the safety of my home, and by that violation has made himself a clear threat to my family.

I support killing in defense of another person only as a last resort, especially if the attacker pulled a weapon in the midst of an argument with the intended target.

I support the death penalty, but I wish it were a painful, publicized procedure for criminals who are psychologically reviewed and shown to hold no remorse for their crimes.
Too many senior citizens are hacking themselves to death in nursing home beds while violent criminals get to just drift off to sleep.

I support a person's right to die in cases of incurable, terminal illness, and I support a medical professional's right to administer aid to such patients.

I support a woman's right to an abortion if she is a rape victim, under 18, or if the child's father can't be reached/tries to abandon her.
I do not support abortion as a form of birth control if no other methods are used.

I believe a woman should be limited to one abortion per year if she is 18 or older if rape cannot be proven or determined.
I also believe other contraceptive methods should be taught and strongly encouraged by parents and junior high sex education classes (which should be mandatory nationwide), in order to avoid labeling abortion as a "backup plan."

Married couples should have the right to choose when they have children, without the need to stifle sexual intimacy.
Abortion should be the "oh no, the condom, the pill, the patch, the ring, the diaphragm, the spermicide, and the implant all failed!" last resort, and then THEN should not be taken lightly.
 

Rusha

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I support a woman's right to an abortion if she is a rape victim, under 18, or if the child's father can't be reached/tries to abandon her.
I do not support abortion as a form of birth control if no other methods are used.

I was agreeing with everything you said until you got to this point. Why would you support a woman's right to kill her unborn baby just because the woman was a victim of rape?

FTR, I am not trying to demean rape victims. Rapists, IMO, should be executed and their victims should be embraced and supported by family, friends and any other people who they come into contact with.

However, the unborn child did NOTHING to warrant death. They are just as innocent as the mother.

I believe a woman should be limited to one abortion per year if she is 18 or older if rape cannot be proven or determined.

That is like stating that people should be allowed to commit one murder per year as long as they are 18 or older ...

I also believe other contraceptive methods should be taught and strongly encouraged by parents and junior high sex education classes (which should be mandatory nationwide), in order to avoid labeling abortion as a "backup plan."

I don't have a problem with sex ed and abstinence being taught to teens as long as there is an opt out option for parents.

Married couples should have the right to choose when they have children, without the need to stifle sexual intimacy.

Of course ...

Abortion should be the "oh no, the condom, the pill, the patch, the ring, the diaphragm, the spermicide, and the implant all failed!" last resort, and then THEN should not be taken lightly.

But that's just it: abortion IS used as birth control for teens and adults alike, and it shouldn't be.

Men and women ARE consenting to sex as well as the possibility of becoming pregnant with a baby. Just because they are too lazy or irresponsible to use birth control, doesn't mean they should have the right to kill the product of THEIR union: the innocent, unborn baby.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Killing is only defensible when not killing endangers innocent lives. Execution of criminals is not necessary to save lives and I would therefore deem the execution of a prisoner as murder, life in prison for murder and other extremely serious crimes is enough to protect the society.
And when the prisons become overcrowded?
 

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
And when the prisons become overcrowded?

The DP is not the answer, work is. Read "prison as industry", although that tells one side, I am writing about the other side.

So many books and I read them; thanks be to God I an revealed of that burden now.
 

Zeke

Well-known member
Murder is the malicious act that illegally and intentionally ends a human life.

Killing ends a life, but not necessarily intentionally, maliciously or without good cause.

And no, it isn't always wrong to kill. Sometimes killing is very right. Like when using the DP on murderers or killing someone in self defense who is an immediate threat to your life or the life of someone close to you ...

I would agree with this.
 

The Berean

Well-known member
I'll give you that one ... but it is still the President that nominates them ... and the way people become guilty is this:

When the people put a liberal in office then their expectations will be that he chooses a liberal judge for the supreme court.

But when people vote for a conservative their expectations are that they will get a constitutional conservation on the court.

If that conservative president picks a liberal judge against the expectation of the voters ... then the people have not erred.

There are many reasons conservative may be influenced in his choice of a judge ... by the lies of others ... misunderstanding ... pressure and temptation to compromise... but the people expected a conservative.

Conservatives vote that way in the hopes of obtaining honorable moral judges.
In the same way liberals vote in the hopes to obtain more liberals ...

Do you see the difference?

But this applies to "liberal" presidents as well does it not?

If that liberal president picks a conservative judge against the expectation of the voters ... then the people have not erred..

But my whole point is that chryso lives in some la-la land where Republicans are actually conservative. He truly believes that the Republican Party actually stands conservative values. But the Republicans in charge now are certainly not conservatives. I used to vote Republican but not anymore. The leaders of the Republican Party today are clueless.
 
Last edited:

zoo22

Well-known member
I don't believe killing is always wrong. However, 1) I think it should be avoided far, far more than we do, 2) I don't believe that we value life as we should.

I think a bigger question/problem/issue related to killing one another regards the way we value life, beyond whether (or why) we may think (or to what degree we think) it might be acceptable to kill another.
 

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
I don't believe killing is always wrong. However, 1) I think it should be avoided far, far more than we do, 2) I don't believe that we value life as we should.

I think a bigger question/problem/issue related to killing one another regards the way we value life, beyond whether (or why) we may think (or to what degree we think) it might be acceptable to kill another.

what about killing a unborn baby?
 

Buzzword

New member
I don't believe killing is always wrong. However, 1) I think it should be avoided far, far more than we do, 2) I don't believe that we value life as we should.

I think a bigger question/problem/issue related to killing one another regards the way we value life, beyond whether (or why) we may think (or to what degree we think) it might be acceptable to kill another.

I agree with this to a certain extent.

I think we (as in, humanity) have invented so many ways to kill each other quickly and easily that we've forgotten what death really looks like.

We've taken away the time and commitment and mess required to kill another human being, replacing it with buttons to push (whether with missiles or with bullets) which have no heart, no passion, and no remorse.
 

lambsev

New member
Since the death of Jesus, what other death has any meaning? If I believe that killing another person will send them to either heaven or to hell, what authority do I have to kill anyone by any means? It seems to me that the preaching of the gospel of grace and salvation ought be the "order of the day" every day!

Men send their sons and daughters out to war to kill to preserve their "way of life." God send His son to be killed that we might have life and have it abundantly and eternally!

"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church."
 

Buzzword

New member
lambsev said:
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church."

That sounds too much like "The death of a martyr is the lifeblood of society," a slogan used by Iran's Guardians of the Revolution (essentially the enforcers of traditionalist Islam after the Shah was deposed).
 

Katie

New member
The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for May 14th, 2010 09:52 AM


toldailytopic: Killing vs. murder what's the difference? Is it always wrong to kill? Is it always wrong to murder?


I am not sure that there is a difference. However, the 10 commandments were given to only one People for a Spiritual/Divine Purpose. Thus, in the natural Law of God, nature is going to present men/women with situations that justify killing another (who pose a threat to their well-being) in order to preserve the life of their own flesh (that includes, their family). :)
 

Cracked

New member
I don't blame Pres. "O." I blame the people who supported and voted for him. There are many Americans out there thinking that they are innocent and righteous ... that will be surprised one day when they see their role in all of this exposed by the judge of all mankind.

You could say this about anyone who voted for any powerful politician ever... thank God for grace.
 

hastyco

New member
Killing is OK when it is done for hunting food or true exicutions. But murder is cutting down or destroying someone wheither mentally or phycically witch is sin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top