haha speaking of hipocritical. aren't you debating the difference between the two words right now?!?LawJik wrote:
My entire post was about how pointless the argument of the word 'murder' vs the word 'kill' is, and you come back with a this terrible question.usmarine2007 wrote:
If you had to kill a man to save a child, is it still cold blooded murder?LawJik wrote:
Why are you people arguing over the definition of murder? The fact is someone killed someone else.
murder: The killing of another human being. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
What about all the civilians, women and children, casualties of this war?
Your insignificant squabble about the moral undertone of the word murder has no point. What makes murder bad but killing ok?
1) If you kill a man, it is killing, or murder, or asdfjkl; . The point is you took another's life, wrong no matter what you want to call it.
3)You use both of the words 'kill' and 'murder' to describe the same thing, in the single sentence you used. Showing how hypocritical your argument really is.
Thank god for robocops like yourself.Spearhead wrote:
Killing is killing. You could have shot the man in the leg and still saved the child.usmarine2007 wrote:
If you had to kill a man to save a child, is it still cold blooded murder?
No,CoronadoSEAL wrote:
haha speaking of hipocritical. aren't you debating the difference between the two words right now?!?
1) Killing = bad
2) Making up a compassionate story to blur the argument = bad
3) Using the word in the definition = bad
Last edited by LawJik (2007-02-24 21:48:54)
So...killing is killing.LawJik wrote:
No,CoronadoSEAL wrote:
haha speaking of hipocritical. aren't you debating the difference between the two words right now?!?
1) Killing = bad
2) Making up a compassionate story to blur the argument = bad
3) Using the word in the definition = bad
Sex is sex...no such thing as rape.
Child porn is just pictures or art.
As nice as it is to see that you're trying to use a mathematical approach to explaining how two words with the same meaning (kill and murder) are just like two words with similar but not quite the same meanings (sex and rape). You must remember, however, that the English language has almost no rhyme or reason behind it, so it is almost impossible to use a transitive property of mathematics when referring to the English language. Even most of the rules of English grammar have exceptions, which is what makes English the hardest language to learn...or so they say. Mandarin Chinese looks pretty damn tough to me...usmarine2007 wrote:
So...killing is killing.LawJik wrote:
No,CoronadoSEAL wrote:
haha speaking of hipocritical. aren't you debating the difference between the two words right now?!?
1) Killing = bad
2) Making up a compassionate story to blur the argument = bad
3) Using the word in the definition = bad
Sex is sex...no such thing as rape.
Child porn is just pictures or art.
Having talked with both a priest and a seminary student about this topic recently, the basic answer is that there is a distinction between killing some one in combat and murdering someone. As much as the Church and God would like to see peace for all man kind, there is an understanding that strife is a part of human nature, and strife between nations can lead to war. Because this is true, it does not go against the teachings of the Bible to fight and kill in warfare. One of the analogies used described the soldier's role as being similar to that of an executioner (I'm not saying they're the same thing, but that there is an important similarity). In both cases, the act of killing is being carried out to maintain control and order in their society and as such the act of killing is accepted as a necessary function of government and society and is not seen as a sin.
On another note, for those using the Ten Commandment argument, those commandments were given to create a peaceful and stable society, and as such they don't really apply in warfare. The "turn the other cheek" argument also has its own flaws in this debate because its context is to say that you shouldn't let your pride force an escalation of a conflict. It does not say that you can't fight back either in warfare or self defense.
On another note, for those using the Ten Commandment argument, those commandments were given to create a peaceful and stable society, and as such they don't really apply in warfare. The "turn the other cheek" argument also has its own flaws in this debate because its context is to say that you shouldn't let your pride force an escalation of a conflict. It does not say that you can't fight back either in warfare or self defense.
?usmarine2007 wrote:
Thank god for robocops like yourself.Spearhead wrote:
Killing is killing. You could have shot the man in the leg and still saved the child.usmarine2007 wrote:
If you had to kill a man to save a child, is it still cold blooded murder?
Killing is killing, whether justified or not.
King James bible. Exodus 20-13: Thou shalt not kill.Spark wrote:
Which translation are you reading? Because I'm positive that in the latest NSRV it says 'Thou shalt not murder'.aardfrith wrote:
I watched Full Metal Jacket last week and it got me wondering: are there really Christians in the military? If so, how do they square their actions against the sixth commandment, i.e. "Thou shalt not kill"?
EDIT: What version do military chaplains use?
Last edited by aardfrith (2007-02-25 00:29:17)
What if you need to kill a murderer in order to save your loved ones? I don't think it would be considered murder, rather self defense.Spearhead wrote:
?usmarine2007 wrote:
Thank god for robocops like yourself.Spearhead wrote:
Killing is killing. You could have shot the man in the leg and still saved the child.
Killing is killing, whether justified or not.
If you fight to defend yourself or innocents, is that not inherently christian. Was it not Jesus who stood in front of the Adulterer and said "he who hath not sinned cast the first stone."?? Jesus said love thine enemy and thine neighbor, but if thine enemy is trying to murder thine neighbor, is it not moral to stop thine enemy, even if that means murdering him yourself? So long as the cause is just, there is no problem for Christians in a military.
Well, the English translation of the Hebrew bible reads 'Thou shalt not murder'.aardfrith wrote:
King James bible. Exodus 20-13: Thou shalt not kill.Spark wrote:
Which translation are you reading? Because I'm positive that in the latest NSRV it says 'Thou shalt not murder'.aardfrith wrote:
I watched Full Metal Jacket last week and it got me wondering: are there really Christians in the military? If so, how do they square their actions against the sixth commandment, i.e. "Thou shalt not kill"?
EDIT: What version do military chaplains use?
EDIT: A good discussion on the topic can be found here.
EDIT2: It seems that you are correct but the NIV (which I think is more widely used, though I still can't find my NRSV) says "You shall not murder"
Last edited by Spark (2007-02-25 02:35:09)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
QFEmcgid1 wrote:
Having talked with both a priest and a seminary student about this topic recently, the basic answer is that there is a distinction between killing some one in combat and murdering someone. As much as the Church and God would like to see peace for all man kind, there is an understanding that strife is a part of human nature, and strife between nations can lead to war. Because this is true, it does not go against the teachings of the Bible to fight and kill in warfare. One of the analogies used described the soldier's role as being similar to that of an executioner (I'm not saying they're the same thing, but that there is an important similarity). In both cases, the act of killing is being carried out to maintain control and order in their society and as such the act of killing is accepted as a necessary function of government and society and is not seen as a sin.
On another note, for those using the Ten Commandment argument, those commandments were given to create a peaceful and stable society, and as such they don't really apply in warfare. The "turn the other cheek" argument also has its own flaws in this debate because its context is to say that you shouldn't let your pride force an escalation of a conflict. It does not say that you can't fight back either in warfare or self defense.
Completely off topic: someone sent me a karma point, but didn't leave their name. You asked about the sweet Vette in my sig, sadly, it's not my new car. Though I hope to have one at least by the time I'm 40, so I have 13 years to work on that. Nice ride, though, huh.
Now back to the topic at hand.
Now back to the topic at hand.