Ask Me Help Desk - Why is it normally wrong to kill a person?

God Kills?

If you believe in the God of the Bible, all death is due to sin. Since the fall of man in the garden of Eden, death is inevitable.
Also God hates all sin - death is the result.
Sin is the result of free will / choice.
And all are sinners Romans 3:21 -26
That is why He sent Jesus - John 3:16

It is hypocritical for those who don't believe in God and the Bible to take verses out of context. If you don't believe in the Bible /God /Jesus then why do you rattle off verses, other than to antagonize? You never seem to point out all the passages about love [ 1 cor13:4 1john 4: 7-12 for example ]. This just reveals your intent .

Grace and Peace

I am not sure who you are referring to but you do not know what I believe.

I understand that death is the result of sin... that is the same today as it was 2000 years ago.

So why is it so hard to believe that people still kill those sinners in the name of God? Or at God's request?

Also

If you don't believe in God/ Bible / Jesus

What do you believe in?
Yourself?
Humans?
Nature?
All are going to die. What is the point?

If you believe in Darwin / Evolution / Natural selection

Why are you wating your limited lifespan on the internet?
Shouldn't you be procreating to ensure your genetic legacy?

Why not kill? Survival of the fittest, right?

Why aren't you enjoying a hedonistic lifestyle - after all time is limited.
Why try to be good? If there is no God to please?

Grace and Peace

Im not sure where you are going with this... did you read my post before you posted that?

Also

If God is responsible for < 3 million deaths isn't he just a weak god

After all Stalin beat him out
Human kind has beat him out.

Grace and Peace

inthebox, are your saying the only reason you don't go around killing people is because you fear what God will do to you? That might be the most frightening thing I've ever read.

Quote:

Originally Posted by inthebox

Why try to be good?? if there is no God to please?

That is a frightening bit of text.

Hello again,

I'm good (on occaision). But, not because there's a god. But because there's my mom.

excon

Survival of the fittest, in the way it applies to humans is that we have found a way to co-exist and increase everyone's chances of survival by acting civl to one another. If someone goes around killing people, others will join together to remove the threat, and not allow the killer to continue to spread their genetic code. Therefore, the human race has to be selectivley bred to generally not kill one another

Quote:

Originally Posted by inthebox

Also

if God is responsible for < 3 million deaths isn't he just a weak god

After all Stalin beat him out
Human kind has beat him out.

Grace and Peace

So you believe Stalin is the stronger God? (sorry just trying to match the ridiculousness)

No matter what His kill count is, the fact remains (I suppose I should use that term loosely here) that He has been responsible for deaths in the biblical era. Why couldn't He be responsible for deaths today?

What is to say that bets are still not being made between Him and Satan? What is to say that a national disaster was not caused by Him to show Satan that even after that, His people will still worship Him? Or to show who is currently winning the battle here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by michaelb

Survival of the fittest, in the way it applies to humans is that we have found a way to co-exist and increase everyone's chances of survival by acting civl to one another. If someone goes around killing people, others will join together to remove the threat, and not allow the killer to continue to spread their genetic code. Therefore, the human race has to be selectivley bred to generally not kill one another

The ability to kill is genetic? That is an interesting theory. Would you pose that to killing in general or what we would call "cold-blooded murder"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyrey

Is it simply a human convention?

Because u deinnetly will go to jail

U will go to jail
:cool:

Jail

Do you honestly believe that every human that has killed another has been jailed for it?

And even so, ones decision not to kill had better be a little deeper than the fear of going to jail lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrJizzle

The ability to kill is genetic? That is an interesting theory. would you pose that to killing in general or what we would call "cold-blooded murder"?

Killing is just the ultimate anti-social behavior. Humans that are anti-social generally aren't as successful as humans that are. We all have the ability to kill it's just whether we do it in a socially acceptable form or not. If not killing suddenly no longer gave us an advantage as a species, the human race would change as those that took that step gained an advantage and those that didn't lost theirs.

[QUOTE=DrJizzle]So you believe Stalin is the stronger God? (sorry just trying to match the ridiculousness)

No matter what His kill count is, the fact remains (I suppose I should use that term loosely here) that He has been responsible for deaths in the biblical era. Why couldn't He be responsible for deaths today?

What is to say that bets are still not being made between Him and Satan? What is to say that a national disaster was not caused by Him to show Satan that even after that, His people will still worship Him? Or to show who is currently winning the battle here?

Note the "if" and the small "g" in god.

IF God is responsible for all death past, present, and future, does that means we humans don't have any responsibility for death?
Don't we have free will?
How can God and satan be making a bet when there is no free will ?

I know of one death that God willed, so to speak.
That of Jesus Christ, for all our sins, conquered by His resurrection..

That is not death, that is love.

Grace and Peace

Quote:

Originally Posted by michealb

Survival of the fittest, in the way it applies to humans is that we have found a way to co-exist and increase everyone's chances of survival by acting civl to one another. If someone goes around killing people, others will join together to remove the threat, and not allow the killer to continue to spread their genetic code. Therefore, the human race has to be selectivley bred to generally not kill one another

THat natural selection sure is taking along time, because humans are still killling each other.
In fact our ability to kill one another keeps on increasing.

Hitler believed in natural selection.

Why have welfare, social security, medicare if you believe in Darwinism?
What is the selective advantage of keeping those unable to support themselves
Financially or medically?

Grace and Peace

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyrey

Is it simply a human convention?

I think about my own demise sometimes my own end .for me it would probably be interesting to live for ever I could be wrong.. at the point were in life you find yourself with noting left to do put die.. then that's that.. . taking a life I would think that if someone is so bent on violance then I say killem.. if some one is so bent on hurting another.I say killem.. and think if you are thinking about killing some one I say kill you self.

Quote:

Originally Posted by inthebox

Note the "if" and the small "g" in god.

IF God is responsible for all death past, present, and future, does that means we humans don't have any responsibilty for death?
Don't we have free will?
How can God and satan be making a bet when there is no free will ?

I know of one death that God willed, so to speak.
That of Jesus Christ, for all our sins, conquered by His resurrection..

That is not death, that is love.

Grace and Peace

Im sorry, but you continue to not make any sense.

First of all, where did I spell God with a lowercase 'g'? :confused: And when did I say that God was responsible for all deaths past, present, and future? :confused: Of course humans are responsible for MANY deaths :confused: How would you conclude that I am saying the opposite? And yes, of course there is free will :confused: And God and Satan have made bets before (the story of Job) :confused:

Instead of "attempting" to attack me for what you believe I do or don't believe in, why do you not just try to join in the conversation.

It is written that God has ordered the deaths of many. Shall I start quoting or do you know enough of the Bible that you understand this? Once again, do not assume that you know what I believe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by inthebox

THat natural selection sure is taking along time, because humans are still killling each other. In fact our ability to kill one another keeps on increasing.

Natural selection takes a long time in the order of millions of years and why our ability to kill has increased I am 100% sure that the chance of being involved in a random act of violance has decreased in the last 1,000 years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by inthebox

Hitler believed in natural selection.

Just because Hitler supported something doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is bad. Hitler was a Christion. He also supported the VW bug.

Quote:

Originally Posted by inthebox

Why have welfare, social security, medicare if you believe in Darwinism? What is the selective advantage of keeping those unable to support themselves
financially or medically?

Is it not the point of welfare to help those people become a contributing member of the community and give the rest of us an advantage by doing things for us that we do not want to do ourselves.
What advantage does social security give then, since people on social security are at the end of there life and not able to work any more?
Just because a person doesn't work doesn't mean they aren't contributing to the community a grandparent teaching lessons of the past to their grandchild can have more value than any job.

Quote:

Originally Posted by michealb

Killing is just the ultimate anti-social behavior. Humans that are anti-social generally aren't as successful as humans that are. We all have the ability to kill it's just whether we do it in a socially acceptable form or not. If not killing suddenly no longer gave us an advantage as a species, the human race would change as those that took that step gained an advantage and those that didn't lost theirs.

Hmmmmm... the only way that killing would suddenly loose its advantage (and Im not saying that the way that it sounds lol) would be if all humans finally conformed under ONE belief... if all humans essentially became the same.

DrJizzle:

My deepest apologies. I did not intend to attack you or what you believe.

The book of Judges is a fine example of murder and mayhem.
But I believe the Bible has to be take in its entirety.
Contrast that book and its violence to the promise of everlasting life with God, and how that was made possible.

I truly don't believe in using fear [hell] to convince those who don't believe.
The contrast is His love for ALL.

Again, I am sorry

Grace and Peace

I appreciate the apology. Thank you.

I do not mean to disrespect the Bible or any of its teachings. My point in even bringing into this conversation was that of people today killing in the name of God. This was done, permitted and accepted in the Biblical era but anyone who claims such a thing today is consider a nut-job by most.

What is to say that this does no longer occur? What is to say that people killing people is still a part of God's plan?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrJizzle

I appreciate the apology. Thank you.

I do not mean to disrespect the Bible or any of its teachings. My point in even bringing into this conversation was that of people today killing in the name of God. This was done, permitted and accepted in the Biblical era but anyone who claims such a thing today is consider a nut-job by most.

What is to say that this does no longer occur? What is to say that people killing people is still a part of God's plan?

I think "Killing in the name of God" is the key phrase.
Today we know that the command is to love.
There are those who have been killed for God's sake.

Unfortunately, it has occurred. 9/11/o1 for example.

Grace and Peace

Clarification

9/11/01 was not for God's sake. The crucifixion of the Apostle peter is an example.

9/11/01 was one of those "killing in the name of God" events.

Grace and Peace

I agree... but who are we to decide? However, this can be disputed because a difference in who they believe God is...

But what of events that are not known to the nations? I am sure that someone that was actually killing because he believes that God led him to do so, will do it under the radar.

One can contest that there are no reports of these killings since the arrival of Jesus, but how much time is reported since then? Not much compared to the years reported throughout the Old Testament

Quote:

inthebox agrees: God gave His only Son, for me and the world, it is that Love that keeps me from killing. Also my parents taught me the 10 commandments - that 6th one , kind of stood out.
Inthebox agrees: It was a question directed at those who don't believe in God. What is your answer?

Yea, that didn't make you sound any less scary.
Through a process of natural selection, our ancestors urge to solve things with violance has been replace with the ability to solve problems in a civalized manner. Now doesn't sound less frighting.

First, you need to define normally and wrong. To that end, I'll define normally as typical for "everyday" persons in a given so-called civilised society. As for wrong, I'll take the low road and assume some majority rules-based approach, and say for a given normal situation—by which I mean to except self-defence, war, capital punishment, and abortion—where the majority would consider something not right, sidestepping the definition ever so conveniently.

Is anything right? Can anything be right absolutely? If you can't say what is right, can you say what is wrong? Is wrong the opposite of right? Of course, I can define it this way, but is it a true characterisation? Hmmm... and can anything be proven to be true in the first place?

Nope. I can't answer this question. I'm too tired.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyrey

Is it simply a human convention?

My opinion is that it is an easer question if we think in terms of contraries, because the concept of wrong is contrary to the concept of right; and given that survival is an inherent heuristic in the evolution of the human species; therefore the killing of a human is contrary to survival.

So no, I don't think it is strickly a human convention; it is what led to what is termed human.:)

So, when some homicidal idiot comes at you with a knife and you happen to have a nice Glock 45, do the christian thing and spare his life and let him take yours. The great sin of murder will be on him and you will instantly have your reward. Twisted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

My opinion is that it is an easier question if we think in terms of contraries, because the concept of wrong is contrary to the concept of right; and given that survival is an inherent heuristic in the evolution of the human species; therefore the killing of a human is contrary to survival.

So no, I don't think it is strickly a human convention; it is what led to what is termed human.:)

DC, I agree that the wrongness of killing is more than a human convention but is it explained entirely in terms of evolution? The survival of a particular individual is not self-evidently desirable - particularly if he or she poses a threat to others. I believe the infinite value of human life has to be linked with a non-scientific reason for existence. Why should an accidental freak of nature be worth more than anything else in the universe?

I don't think any freak of nature is worth less or more than me, he/she is here for a reason. It doesn't really matter if we know what that reason is or not! But they aren't WORTH more or less.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyrey

Is it simply a human convention?

A cultural society such as ours based on the parameters of ethics and morality [notice that I have not mentioned one iota of religion] considers the killing of 'a person' wrong, however, clarifications are necessary.

Your question, such as it is, is not sufficiently clear to give a rational answer.

What defines your interpretation of 'person' will undoutedly affect the answer given.

The killing of a criminal or an innocent 'person' depends on many variables, so, again a logical and reasonable answer is impossible unless the question is further defined and given parameters which will determine a variety of answers all of which could be valid.

A cultural society such as ours based on the parameters of ethics and morality [notice that I have not mentioned one iota of religion] considers the killing of 'a person' wrong, however, clarifications are necessary.

Your question, such as it is, is not sufficiently clear to give a rational answer.

What defines your interpretation of 'person' will undoutedly affect the answer given.

The killing of a criminal or an innocent 'person' depends on many variables, so, again a logical and reasonable answer is impossible unless the question is further defined and given parameters which will determine a variety of answers all of which could be valid.__________________
Life is a series of experiences which teach us lessons, we either take those lessons to heart, or not, the consequences will be as we choose them.

Sorry for the double answer... not sure how to delete one of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyrey

Is it simply a human convention?

You kill only the physical body so you cannot take away someone's life, only their body.
I believe that this cannot be done without invitation as there are no victims nor accidents,
Therefore it cannot be "wrong". For example, if someone desires to die by being shot and killed in some scenario why is that wrong?

Human beings are group bound social animals who cooperate with each other by dividing tasks in order to survive. Social order and happiness is a requirement for living in proximity with others! A negative emotional road is anger, fighting then murder, the origin of murder. That is not satisfactory for people living in groups in order to feel safe and thrive.

So, it is normally wrong to kill a person!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choux

Human beings are group bound social animals who cooperate with each other by dividing tasks in order to survive. Social order and happiness is a requirement for living in close proximity with others! A negative emotional road is anger, fighting then murder, the origin of murder. That is not satisfactory for people living in groups in order to feel safe and thrive.

So, it is normally wrong to kill a person!

We are taught that murder is "wrong" because most people believe that killing a person is permanent, when it isn't. Now, if we are talking about society then it is normally wrong but only accirdubg to the current world view. I am talking about two different levels here:
Spiritual reality and physical reality. My take is usually based on spiritual reality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by keenu

We are taught that murder is "wrong" because most people believe that killing a person is permanent, when it isn't. Now, if we are talking about society then it is normally wrong but only accirdubg to the current world view. I am talking about two different levels here:
Spiritual reality and physical reality. My take is usually based on spiritual reality.

So you feel that based on something that you have no proof of "spiritual reality" you think if is okay to take something we have proof of. I tell you what you give me all your money and I'll promise you will go to heaven, double your money back if you come back and tell me you didn't make it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by michealb

So you feel that based on something that you have no proof of "spiritual reality" you think if is okay to take something we have proof of. I tell you what you give me all your money and I'll promise you will go to heaven, double your money back if you come back and tell me you didn't make it.

I certainly don't believe in heaven or hell! I have my own subjective proof of spiritual reality. I need no outside proof. Science can only offer proof of things physical.