Check out some similar questions!

DrJ · Jun 13, 2007, 07:18 PM

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.

inthebox · Jun 13, 2007, 07:23 PM

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

DrJ · Jun 13, 2007, 07:32 PM

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?

inthebox · Jun 13, 2007, 07:40 PM

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

inthebox · Jun 13, 2007, 07:43 PM

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

DrJ · Jun 13, 2007, 07:56 PM

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

michealb · Jun 13, 2007, 09:09 PM

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.

MicroGlyphics · Jul 24, 2007, 09:36 PM

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.

Dark_crow · Jul 25, 2007, 06:01 PM

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.:)

magprob · Jul 27, 2007, 11:22 PM

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.

tonyrey · Jul 30, 2007, 03:56 PM

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?

startover22 · Jul 30, 2007, 04:10 PM

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.

Irulan · Aug 21, 2007, 08:09 AM

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.

Irulan · Aug 21, 2007, 08:13 AM

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.

Irulan · Aug 21, 2007, 08:16 AM

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

keenu · Sep 17, 2007, 08:03 AM

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?

Choux · Sep 17, 2007, 09:31 AM

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!

keenu · Sep 17, 2007, 05:12 PM

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.

michealb · Sep 17, 2007, 06:19 PM

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.

keenu · Sep 18, 2007, 08:27 AM

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.