Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bushg

what if nothing had a value...if everything was the same the only value to it was you need it annd you get it, not extra, only what you need..nothing you had was valued if someone needs it they get it not extra, not one job paid more or one job valued more. no religion was better than the other it was just religion, no woman or man was more attractive than the other blond , black, red, big breast, small breast, tall, short, thin fat...everything was valued just for being...if a child cried it was feed, etc...do you think that human killing would even be an issue

---

But that is not reality.
The basest instinct is to survive, so things that are necessary to survive have the highest value. If you are starving, food has higher value than a 60"plasma tv. If it ts 32 degrees outside, a winter coat has more value than 10 $100 bills. If a particular piece of land grew food and was next to potable water it is of more value than land in the desert ten times the area etc...and if you don't have a value system other than to survive ; ala "evolution," and the survival of the fitest; then the ends justify the means, even if that means is killing.

And once food, water, shelter are met there are other needs. Reproduction. So the healthiest mate most likely to produce healthy offspring have the higher value

on down the line to expensive shoes or reputation. Sad though it is.




Grace and Peace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jillianleab

It is human convention, and part of being civilized.

Humans have the ability to plan and rationalize, animals don't.
--- also to premeditated murder.

Civilization is what makes it wrong to kill a person. In a civilized society, we don't take away or violate human rights, and the biggest human right of all is life.

---- but, The Romans had gladiators fight to the death for entertainment and it is legal to kill the unborn today?

Killing a person is wrong. But, can it be justified? Sure. When you put someone to death who has nothing left to contribute to this world, it's easy(er) to justify their death.
----- agree - that's what Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc.. have done.

You can't have a war without casualties (well, the Cold War, but whatever), and sometimes you can't fight for what you believe in without war.

---

------ There were real casualties in Viet Nam and Korea.


We truly have a bad nature and it is only by the conscience that God gives that we are not killing each other willy nilly.




Grace and Peace

Vdsgsgs

inthebox, Roman society was civilized for its time in History, but when it is reflected upon using today's standards, not so much! Perhaps in 500 years people will wonder what we were thinking with the death penalty. Hell, we are the only industrialized nation in the world who still uses the death penalty, so that is happening now.

As far an unborn children (please no one flame me for this); until the law recognizes a fetus is a human and has rights, there are no human rights to violate. One's morals or religion may make them feel differently, but in the eyes of the law, a fetus is not entitled to the same human rights a five year old, or eighty year old is. That being said, however, a woman can only legally have an abortion during the first trimester (I believe this is true in all states, unless something drastic changes in the woman's health), making the fetus gain some human rights after that mark, because in US law if a man kills a pregnant woman and her baby dies, he can be charged with double murder, and I don't THINK this applies during the early stages of pregnancy, but I could be wrong.

I don't quite get what your comment about their being real casualties in Vietnam and Korea means; are you saying those wars were not justified? I specifically cited the Cold War because it wasn't really a war, but an arms race and there were no casualties.

And I'm sorry, but I have to disagree that it is god who keeps us from killing people. I really believe it is civilization and morality. Not everyone believes in god, for one, and is the fear of god what keeps you from killing your neighbor? Pretend I could prove to you without a doubt there is no god (I said pretend! Work with me here!), would you kill the guy who cut you off in traffic because you have nothing to fear? Also, other religions which believe in god (Islam) condone murder under certain circumstances. How do you explain that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

We truly have a bad nature and it is only by the conscience that God gives that we are not killing each other willy nilly.

---

I actually see it a different way. I believe that we are unherently good, that a book doesn't give us morality, our upbringing does. There are millions of people in this world who are good people and are not killingn people willy nilly yet have never heard of your god or his book. How is that explained?

I think we do start good, with our HUMAN NATURE. I am one to believe in God, so when I think of all of this I am confusing myself, and you guys confuse me too! I slept on it and I am still confused. (thanks a lot, I knew this day would come)

Anyway, my cat has killed numerous cats and he doesn't eat them, I just thought of this as we were talking about animals, he brings gifts to my door step, he is kind to me! Is the Cat nature not to eat what he kills, is it wrong or right?

Hello:

"Why is it normally wrong to kill a person"? I don't think it IS normally wrong, so I can't answer.

The key word is normal. It asks a different question. I don't know what normal is. All I know is that, given the circumstances, I don't think it IS always wrong to kill a person.

excon

PS> If "normal" means that it happens all the time, if you look around the world, killing people is quite "normal".

I meant that my cat has killed birds not other cats. Sheesh that was dumb!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by startover22

I meant that my cat has killed birds not other cats. Sheesh that was dumb!

---

Oh start, that wasn't dumb at all. Gave me a chuckle. That's one mean cat you have ;)
(just kiddn).

Yes, I am with most of you, people I think are born beautiful and good. I mean what is the first thing a little baby will do if you smile at it... normally smile back. Okay, some cry but they may have gas. My point is, their first reaction is to smile, sweet and innocently, not stick their tongues out and roll their eyes, thinking lady go away, I don't want you gooing and ga gaing over me, No, they give a sweet smile in return.

Sadly, sometimes, I think what negatively happens to them from the time they are born to when they become an adult can shape them and damage them enough to be able to hurt someone else. Now, there are those who have horrendous childhoods and grow to be some of the most loving people.

So hard to say what makes someone kill another - but no, to me, nothing normal about it or more accurately sane.

For all of you saying people are born good, I have a question;

How do you explain people like the Columbine kids? Those were two kids raised in upper-middle class families who had every opportunity in the world. They were not abused, degraded, or molested. If it is really just one's surroundings that make someone violent, how do you explain those kids? Could it be there is something inside some people (probably all, really) that acts like a trigger and causes them to kill? I know those two boys were teased at school, but so are lots of kids. You also can't blame the music or video games because millions are sold and we don't have millions of shotgun-weilding murderers running around.

I think everyone is born with a trigger, as I said that causes them to be pushed to the point of murder. Maybe the trigger for the Columbine kids was more sensitive. Some people are vigilantes and kill someone else (someone mentioned killing your daughter's rapist, for example) because they think that makes it OK. Others will kill in self-defense (if said daughter kills the rapist during the attack). I think we all have that streak, but some have a much more sensitive one than others.

That's a tough call about the Columbine kids. I don't know about their family life but surely they felt neglected and marginalized for a reason. I'm pretty sure the devil didn't make them do it.

I don't think the devil made them do it either! :)

From what I recall about the kids, they had normal upbringings in stable families. No abuse, neglect, etc. If I remember correctly, the police found written rantings after the shootings which went on and on about the "jocks" in the school, and how these kids were teased. So yes, they were marginalized in a way (by other people, not their parents) but my point was sort of that, if everyone is born good, why do some snap but others don't? Doesn't everyone have a breaking point?

Hello again:

Here's some more dirt I'm throwing into the game, if my first comment didn't get you. I'll concede that we, as a society think killing one on one is wrong. We don't, however, think killing millions at a time is wrong.

excon

I know (heard of) people from the bronx with really bad childhoods, but became something wonderful and learned from their childhood
The Columbine case, well how about if we just say that they were not taken care of at all. It was said that one kid had a bunch of bad and dangerous stuff in his room and his parents didn't even know about it. Just cause they are middle class doesn't mean they are good people to parent their children. Sheesh, I was teased at school and some things I will never forget, but I teach my children to stick up for kids that are being teased, because they will never know what that kids situation is. Even if they are the biggest jerks, show them that someone actually does care.
A trigger? Maybe, I think I could push my husband over the edge about 600 million times faster than he could push me. Is that what you are saying? Having good people and special people around to teach us how to control the trigger might be a good thing. I am not talking about a spanking for kids here, I am talking about good people making an impact on these kids.
With the death sentence, I thought of this last night and I had already been on here too much to start all over again, I think if that was the case with my daughter, her being raped over and over again, I don't think by killing the man that did it would stop any of the pain, maybe a little bit of the fear but not the pain, and in all honesty, it might bring on more pain. At least for me. I am definitely confusing myself!

Jillian... you are answering your own question.

A. you are saying that people are not born "good" and...

B. you are saying that the Columbine kids were a result of their surroundings.

Realistically, a baby born is born "good", if such a thing is fathomable. In other words, they are not born "evil". Whether it is a result from their upbringing, their surroundings, or one instance that they were not prepared to deal with... SOMETHING sets it off.

If you took those kids from Columbine when they were 3 months old and brought them somewhere else, they could just as likely become the next President of the US... no?

excon you make a good and debatable point. We stood up for the Jews in WWII (well, the fighting was for other reasons too), but we thoughtlessly dropped two bombs in Japan. We did nothing as a million people were slaughtered in Rwanda; thus far, we have done nothing about Darfur. We never touched Sierra Leone. Seems that when it happens in the West we want to cry about human rights violations, but if it's in the East or god forbid, AFRICA we ignore it. Blame it on "tribal" conditions and such. Now, WE (the US) didn't kill those people (except Japan), but we certainly didn't do anything to stop it. Now we are at war (where? Oh, in the Middle East, not the Western world) and still people are being killed. It's a shame when innocent lives are lost during a war; but as I said before, casualties are a natural part of war. Somehow we justify the deaths during a war, probably because we think everyone "over there" is against us and if we don't kill them first, they will kill us.

startover I'm not sure what you mean by "bad and dangerous stuff" but I had a friend in high school who collected knives. He never killed anyone. You're right that being middle class doesn't make you a good parent, but from what I recall about the story, the parents were not neglectful, etc. Perhaps they didn't watch their kids like hawks, but how many parents really do? Especially when you think you have a good kid; when your kid never gets in trouble. The trigger I'm talking about is that everyone hits a point where they could kill someone; some just hit it sooner. I agree that having good people in your life and teaching other ways of anger management deters this, but I have to wonder if for some people it doesn't matter. If Charles Manson's mom had hugged him more, would he have done the things he did? What about Hitler? I really wonder if some people are just born "evil".

DrJizzle I don't think the Columbine kids' environment turned them into killers. I think they had a shorter fuse than other people do. Their environment pushed them over the edge, but their environment didn't CREATE that edge. I think nature did that. I think if you had taken them away at a young age they still would be likely to do the same thing; anyone who is teetering on the edge of killing people because they are being teased is fragile. Maybe they would have made it through high school, but what about when girl after girl turned them down for a date? What about an angry boss? These kids had to have had some element in them that made them more likely than others to commit such a crime. I don't believe external environment does that alone. Does it contribute? Without a doubt. But music, video games, unloving parents, etc does not make someone a murderer, it pushes them over the edge that (I think) nature put them on to begin with.

Yes I just checked and they thought they were normal, godd kids. I think I was referring to Thurston here in Springfield Oregon. Bad news there, I tell you! (School shooting) Anyway, I wonder if Hitler would have been different if he were brought up differently. I keep thinking two of my children are like their daddy in many ways, more than me and the other two, well it is the other way around. Some of the stuff that we ARE is WHO we are DOWN THE LINE of our family tree and I beilieve strongly the only way to change that is to actually realize you want to change it and then do so. I am not good on commenting on wars, well to tell you the truth I love history but am confused on where to start learning about it. Books, who to believe and so on. So I won't even go there.

Jillian... Im curious as to your religious/spiritual beliefs, although that is for a different thread.

What then, could determine whether a child is born good or evil? Is it hereditary? Is it natural selection? Divine intervention?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again:

Here's some more dirt I'm throwing into the game, if my first comment didn't get you. I'll concede that we, as a society think killing one on one is wrong. We don't, however, think killing millions at a time is wrong.

excon

---

My guess is that one on one , you are likely to know your opponent / victim and maybe , just maybe, you see that they are not much different than you are.


when a group is marginalized, devalued, viewed not as human [ because they look different or speak differently or think different ideas etc.] I imagine it would be easier to kill.



good point





Grace and Peace

I see this heading towards the Nature Vs Nurture debate; since the scientists haven't settled this one one way or another I doubt we will either. The consensus has always been that's a little of both.

inthebox, I just saw the rating you gave my other post, and wanted to comment on it. Yes the Korean war and the Vietnam war were fought over communism, but that's not the same thing as the Cold War. The Cold War was the US-Soviet arms race; no lives were lost, because no battles were fought. That's why it's called a "cold" war. It began as an effort to contain communism, but you cannot lump Vietnam and Korea in with it. They are different things. Also, please read my post more carefully. I never said a fetus wasn't alive, I said the law doesn't recognize it as a human with rights. Those are two very, very different things. Perhaps your moral/religious beliefs tell you a fetus is a human with human rights, but until the law agrees with you, my post is accurate.

DrJizzle Thank you for recognizing that my religious and spiritual beliefs are for a different thread. :) I don't know what determines if a child is "good" or "evil". Perhaps, if you believe in destiny, it's destiny. God? The devil? Heredity? I don't know. I just don't buy into "the devil made me do it!" or "video games and violent music made me do it!". I think there is something biological that made an individual predisposed to do it. Now, where did that predisposition come from? Well, that depends on your spiritual beliefs.

Jilleanleab:


Cold War - MSN Encarta


Not only is the fetus alive from moral point of view but any high school biology book will tell you so. Just because it is "the Law " does not make it factually correct or morally correct. For example
Dred Scott states blacks were not citizens and could not vote.


This may be off topic but the opening question is about killing.





Grace and Peace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Not only is the fetus alive from moral point of view ...

---

You write that as a fact when in fact it isn't.

inthebox the COLD WAR and the VIETNAM WAR and KOREAN WAR are still three different things! Yes, they were all fought over communism, yes they were related, but, from your link:

American journalist Walter Lippmann first popularized the term cold war in a 1947 book by that name. By using the term, Lippmann meant to suggest that relations between the USSR and its World War II allies (primarily the United States, Britain, and France) had deteriorated to the point of war without the occurrence of actual warfare.

So thank you for doing my legwork for me and allowing me to prove my point more effectively!

Again, no denial a fetus is alive - only that the law does not give it human rights. THAT is a FACT.

I say, getting back to the point, I won't do any killing if you don't and maybe we can start a chin reaction! Great conversation I think I have learned a bunch of great stuff on here! I talked to a guy that volunteers at our tiny little river library and he said he would show me around on how to get started with some history books. You guys better watch out, my debate team is going to work one over on you, just give me some tiime! Any suggestion which to read first? I will write them down and check them out! I really love the ones about each war although I do not know the names of each war and the means to have been started in the first place.

Good for you Startover! You can't go wrong with history books. Start where ever you are most interested; WWI will lead you to WWII, which will lead you to the Cold War, Korea and Vietnam. Of course, starting back at the American Revolution and the Civil War is interesting too. Then, of course there is world history as well... I recently picked up a book called; "The Century of Warfare" by Charles Messenger; it goes from 1900 to present day. Lots of good stuff in there to give you a starting point and figure out which wars and parts of history interest you the most.

Jillianleab, hey thanks, I really want to find Factual books rather than something I won't be able to tell if it is the truth or not. You know what I mean. I will write this down and get to the library. Mind you it may take a while to read it, I have 4 kids and a wild husband!

startover, see if your library has electronic resources as well. My public library system has an entire online database of articles, encyclopedias, etc free to use, all you need is a library card number. If you are busy, having this as an online resource is good because you can be reasonably sure of its accuracy, but don't have to worry about due dates and overdue fines. The book I mentioned is quite large - it's a coffee table book, so getting through it with kids might be hard!

Ok, threadjack over!

Because we ought to love one another, now why on earth do you want to kill someone you love?

Didn't Abraham sacrifice his son because God told him to?

Abraham did not sacrifise his son, yes God did ask him to do it, and honestly... no one can question God.

And what of those today that kill in the name of God or because God told them to? Of course, we just don't believe those people... but who are we to question? We don't know if God truly talks to them or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrJizzle

And what of those today that kill in the name of God or because God told them to? Of course, we just dont believe those people... but who are we to question? We dont know if God truly talks to them or not.

---

I would like a statement from one of them telling me the exact words God used. I think that is crap! God doesn't say kill people. He told Abraham to sacrifice his son, ONLY AS A TEST mind you. Not to actually do it.

God was directly responsible for about 2,270,365 deaths in the Bible, not including such deaths as the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc.

Why would this end after the times of the Bible and not continue into today's world?

You got me there didn't you? 2,270,365? Really? Did God start the Plagues? Oh my I really do need to brush up on my bible skills, don't I. I am opting out. I need to know more to say more. Hugs, Start... I just don't think he is saying hey guys for the sake of ME I want you to go bomb people. Maybe cause I don't want to fathom it.

A running list of people god has killed according to the bible.
Dwindling In Unbelief: How many has God killed?
I didn't come up with the list, I don't believe the list (I'm sure for other reasons than most on this board but we won't get into that) just showing where DrJizzle might have gotten his info from.

I almost want to take a couple of years off to go do my own research! Ok, I am done now!

Its not a problem at all... I definitely don't claim to know a lot about the specifics of the Bible either. And I really don't want to give the impression that I agree with them or think that it actually IS God telling them to kill people... but who knows? :)

EDIT (after I saw the other posts)

Yes, that is where I got that current number. I don't know how accurate it is but I know its close. I have seen and heard 2,200,000+ from other sources as well

But who knows? Only God will actually know since they can't prove it. I still don't think that God is telling them to kill themselves or others. But what if? That has to stay a question I guess. I am taking a year off, hope my family understands! LOL