Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Problematizing "You shall not kill"

Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 12:33:39 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Let us problematize this commandment. First of all, almost everyone would agree that killing is necessary sometimes. They would perhaps mean that it's still evil, albeit a necessary evil. But, as an example, if I would snipe a person which I knew was about to bomb 500 children to death, no religion at all and only a lunatic person would condemn me.

This thread is mainly directed to those of you theists who are saying that religion has 100% established morals which everyone understands in the same way while atheist morals are that arbitrary that you just as well could justify killing of anyone in an atheist view on society. Clearly the religious laws are not that established. Christians have during its history had a huge variety of good kills and bad kills. The Crusades were justified and given on their periods, but condemned by almost every Christian today.

So in other words, the very verse is already problematized since there are good kills and bad kills. So what makes a kill bad or good? Any Biblical data to support that? Or should the majority of people decide that and thus make the question into a very arbitrary matter of ad populum? Are only humans included among those you shouldn't kill in this commandment or also animals? If so, only mammals who are not to be killed or perhaps even mosquitoes?
rnjs
Posts: 378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 1:26:42 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/12/2016 12:33:39 PM, Jovian wrote:
Let us problematize this commandment. First of all, almost everyone would agree that killing is necessary sometimes. They would perhaps mean that it's still evil, albeit a necessary evil. But, as an example, if I would snipe a person which I knew was about to bomb 500 children to death, no religion at all and only a lunatic person would condemn me.

This thread is mainly directed to those of you theists who are saying that religion has 100% established morals which everyone understands in the same way while atheist morals are that arbitrary that you just as well could justify killing of anyone in an atheist view on society. Clearly the religious laws are not that established. Christians have during its history had a huge variety of good kills and bad kills. The Crusades were justified and given on their periods, but condemned by almost every Christian today.

So in other words, the very verse is already problematized since there are good kills and bad kills. So what makes a kill bad or good? Any Biblical data to support that? Or should the majority of people decide that and thus make the question into a very arbitrary matter of ad populum? Are only humans included among those you shouldn't kill in this commandment or also animals? If so, only mammals who are not to be killed or perhaps even mosquitoes?

The verb "ratsah" in the Hebrew Torah is better translated as 'murder' which is the unlawful taking of a life, so killing an animal is not necessarily a good thing, but it is not bad if done for food or clothing. I think everyone would agree that killing a mosquito is not problematic, especially since insects have no soul.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 1:46:06 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/12/2016 1:26:42 PM, rnjs wrote:
At 7/12/2016 12:33:39 PM, Jovian wrote:
Let us problematize this commandment. First of all, almost everyone would agree that killing is necessary sometimes. They would perhaps mean that it's still evil, albeit a necessary evil. But, as an example, if I would snipe a person which I knew was about to bomb 500 children to death, no religion at all and only a lunatic person would condemn me.

This thread is mainly directed to those of you theists who are saying that religion has 100% established morals which everyone understands in the same way while atheist morals are that arbitrary that you just as well could justify killing of anyone in an atheist view on society. Clearly the religious laws are not that established. Christians have during its history had a huge variety of good kills and bad kills. The Crusades were justified and given on their periods, but condemned by almost every Christian today.

So in other words, the very verse is already problematized since there are good kills and bad kills. So what makes a kill bad or good? Any Biblical data to support that? Or should the majority of people decide that and thus make the question into a very arbitrary matter of ad populum? Are only humans included among those you shouldn't kill in this commandment or also animals? If so, only mammals who are not to be killed or perhaps even mosquitoes?

The verb "ratsah" in the Hebrew Torah is better translated as 'murder' which is the unlawful taking of a life, so killing an animal is not necessarily a good thing, but it is not bad if done for food or clothing. I think everyone would agree that killing a mosquito is not problematic, especially since insects have no soul.

So when is it unlawful to kill a human? Who is to decide that?
Willows
Posts: 2,038
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 1:53:40 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/12/2016 12:33:39 PM, Jovian wrote:
Let us problematize this commandment. First of all, almost everyone would agree that killing is necessary sometimes. They would perhaps mean that it's still evil, albeit a necessary evil. But, as an example, if I would snipe a person which I knew was about to bomb 500 children to death, no religion at all and only a lunatic person would condemn me.

This thread is mainly directed to those of you theists who are saying that religion has 100% established morals which everyone understands in the same way while atheist morals are that arbitrary that you just as well could justify killing of anyone in an atheist view on society. Clearly the religious laws are not that established. Christians have during its history had a huge variety of good kills and bad kills. The Crusades were justified and given on their periods, but condemned by almost every Christian today.

So in other words, the very verse is already problematized since there are good kills and bad kills. So what makes a kill bad or good? Any Biblical data to support that? Or should the majority of people decide that and thus make the question into a very arbitrary matter of ad populum? Are only humans included among those you shouldn't kill in this commandment or also animals? If so, only mammals who are not to be killed or perhaps even mosquitoes?

I think it is wrong to infer that atheists have arbitrary morals as born out by the fact that democratic, secular societies develop morals and laws based on much discussion, consensus and evaluating reliable data.
Indeed it is theists (in this case, Christians) who have an appalling history of taking ambiguous text and turning it into whatever they want to justify their own disgusting and distorted moralistic views.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 1:58:12 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/12/2016 1:53:40 PM, Willows wrote:
At 7/12/2016 12:33:39 PM, Jovian wrote:
Let us problematize this commandment. First of all, almost everyone would agree that killing is necessary sometimes. They would perhaps mean that it's still evil, albeit a necessary evil. But, as an example, if I would snipe a person which I knew was about to bomb 500 children to death, no religion at all and only a lunatic person would condemn me.

This thread is mainly directed to those of you theists who are saying that religion has 100% established morals which everyone understands in the same way while atheist morals are that arbitrary that you just as well could justify killing of anyone in an atheist view on society. Clearly the religious laws are not that established. Christians have during its history had a huge variety of good kills and bad kills. The Crusades were justified and given on their periods, but condemned by almost every Christian today.

So in other words, the very verse is already problematized since there are good kills and bad kills. So what makes a kill bad or good? Any Biblical data to support that? Or should the majority of people decide that and thus make the question into a very arbitrary matter of ad populum? Are only humans included among those you shouldn't kill in this commandment or also animals? If so, only mammals who are not to be killed or perhaps even mosquitoes?

I think it is wrong to infer that atheists have arbitrary morals as born out by the fact that democratic, secular societies develop morals and laws based on much discussion, consensus and evaluating reliable data.
Indeed it is theists (in this case, Christians) who have an appalling history of taking ambiguous text and turning it into whatever they want to justify their own disgusting and distorted moralistic views.

Indeed. Also, if you are a theist and see no intrinsic wrong with murder, that it's only wrong because "God says so", then what in tarnation would happen if you would have a religious crisis and start to reject the notion of a God? Suddenly, there is no longer any god for you which says it's wrong, and murder has no intrinsic wrong either, and you have pretty much turned into a danger to society.

This is something you could say to the next person you meet who brings forth the argument of how atheism lacks true establishments of moral.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 2:26:33 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/12/2016 1:26:42 PM, rnjs wrote:
At 7/12/2016 12:33:39 PM, Jovian wrote:
Let us problematize this commandment. First of all, almost everyone would agree that killing is necessary sometimes. They would perhaps mean that it's still evil, albeit a necessary evil. But, as an example, if I would snipe a person which I knew was about to bomb 500 children to death, no religion at all and only a lunatic person would condemn me.

This thread is mainly directed to those of you theists who are saying that religion has 100% established morals which everyone understands in the same way while atheist morals are that arbitrary that you just as well could justify killing of anyone in an atheist view on society. Clearly the religious laws are not that established. Christians have during its history had a huge variety of good kills and bad kills. The Crusades were justified and given on their periods, but condemned by almost every Christian today.

So in other words, the very verse is already problematized since there are good kills and bad kills. So what makes a kill bad or good? Any Biblical data to support that? Or should the majority of people decide that and thus make the question into a very arbitrary matter of ad populum? Are only humans included among those you shouldn't kill in this commandment or also animals? If so, only mammals who are not to be killed or perhaps even mosquitoes?

The verb "ratsah" in the Hebrew Torah is better translated as 'murder' which is the unlawful taking of a life, so killing an animal is not necessarily a good thing, but it is not bad if done for food or clothing. I think everyone would agree that killing a mosquito is not problematic, especially since insects have no soul.

Is it you who has decided that insects have no soul, or is there some proof of this?
Willows
Posts: 2,038
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 2:42:18 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/12/2016 1:58:12 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 7/12/2016 1:53:40 PM, Willows wrote:
At 7/12/2016 12:33:39 PM, Jovian wrote:
Let us problematize this commandment. First of all, almost everyone would agree that killing is necessary sometimes. They would perhaps mean that it's still evil, albeit a necessary evil. But, as an example, if I would snipe a person which I knew was about to bomb 500 children to death, no religion at all and only a lunatic person would condemn me.

This thread is mainly directed to those of you theists who are saying that religion has 100% established morals which everyone understands in the same way while atheist morals are that arbitrary that you just as well could justify killing of anyone in an atheist view on society. Clearly the religious laws are not that established. Christians have during its history had a huge variety of good kills and bad kills. The Crusades were justified and given on their periods, but condemned by almost every Christian today.

So in other words, the very verse is already problematized since there are good kills and bad kills. So what makes a kill bad or good? Any Biblical data to support that? Or should the majority of people decide that and thus make the question into a very arbitrary matter of ad populum? Are only humans included among those you shouldn't kill in this commandment or also animals? If so, only mammals who are not to be killed or perhaps even mosquitoes?

I think it is wrong to infer that atheists have arbitrary morals as born out by the fact that democratic, secular societies develop morals and laws based on much discussion, consensus and evaluating reliable data.
Indeed it is theists (in this case, Christians) who have an appalling history of taking ambiguous text and turning it into whatever they want to justify their own disgusting and distorted moralistic views.

Indeed. Also, if you are a theist and see no intrinsic wrong with murder, that it's only wrong because "God says so", then what in tarnation would happen if you would have a religious crisis and start to reject the notion of a God? Suddenly, there is no longer any god for you which says it's wrong, and murder has no intrinsic wrong either, and you have pretty much turned into a danger to society.

This is something you could say to the next person you meet who brings forth the argument of how atheism lacks true establishments of moral.

Good point. I have often heard from theists that if it were not for God (and the bible) we would have no morals, so yes, it is a bit of a worry.
In balance though there are many good morals that come from the bible but they are the not the exclusive domain of the bible. The difference with secular morals is that they change as time and values march on getting better as civilisation advances.. The views we have on killing are completely different from a hundred years ago. Yet religious scriptures do not change from hundreds or thousands of years ago and religious leaders will preach from them as if applicable for today's society.
If you want to take a look at how barbaric and murderous society was over a thousand years ago travel to a fundamentalist state in the middle east where the ancient scriptures are brutally imposed upon its citizens. It is very wrong.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 2:58:35 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/12/2016 2:42:18 PM, Willows wrote:
At 7/12/2016 1:58:12 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 7/12/2016 1:53:40 PM, Willows wrote:
At 7/12/2016 12:33:39 PM, Jovian wrote:
Let us problematize this commandment. First of all, almost everyone would agree that killing is necessary sometimes. They would perhaps mean that it's still evil, albeit a necessary evil. But, as an example, if I would snipe a person which I knew was about to bomb 500 children to death, no religion at all and only a lunatic person would condemn me.

This thread is mainly directed to those of you theists who are saying that religion has 100% established morals which everyone understands in the same way while atheist morals are that arbitrary that you just as well could justify killing of anyone in an atheist view on society. Clearly the religious laws are not that established. Christians have during its history had a huge variety of good kills and bad kills. The Crusades were justified and given on their periods, but condemned by almost every Christian today.

So in other words, the very verse is already problematized since there are good kills and bad kills. So what makes a kill bad or good? Any Biblical data to support that? Or should the majority of people decide that and thus make the question into a very arbitrary matter of ad populum? Are only humans included among those you shouldn't kill in this commandment or also animals? If so, only mammals who are not to be killed or perhaps even mosquitoes?

I think it is wrong to infer that atheists have arbitrary morals as born out by the fact that democratic, secular societies develop morals and laws based on much discussion, consensus and evaluating reliable data.
Indeed it is theists (in this case, Christians) who have an appalling history of taking ambiguous text and turning it into whatever they want to justify their own disgusting and distorted moralistic views.

Indeed. Also, if you are a theist and see no intrinsic wrong with murder, that it's only wrong because "God says so", then what in tarnation would happen if you would have a religious crisis and start to reject the notion of a God? Suddenly, there is no longer any god for you which says it's wrong, and murder has no intrinsic wrong either, and you have pretty much turned into a danger to society.

This is something you could say to the next person you meet who brings forth the argument of how atheism lacks true establishments of moral.

Good point. I have often heard from theists that if it were not for God (and the bible) we would have no morals, so yes, it is a bit of a worry.

Here you can give the country of Iceland as an example. It is one of the most atheist countries in the world, where the number of murdered people in the country is at its height 1 every year. Why isn't it in atheist immoral chaos yet? And why is Venezuela the most lethal country in the world when 75% of their population said religion is very important for their lives?

In balance though there are many good morals that come from the bible but they are the not the exclusive domain of the bible. The difference with secular morals is that they change as time and values march on getting better as civilisation advances.. The views we have on killing are completely different from a hundred years ago.

Very true. The witch burnings for example were pretty much tacit given. You were also allowed to rape or beat your wife until the 1800s, something Christians would scowl at today if they heard someone connecting it with the Bible. Pedophilia occured and was unprotested against until the...I don't know, 1800s? People back in the days regarded a girl adult when she reached her menarch.

If you are interested in the chronological relativism of moral which Christians have, check this thread I made, which remains almost untouched by Christians to confront:

http://www.debate.org...

Yet religious scriptures do not change from hundreds or thousands of years ago and religious leaders will preach from them as if applicable for today's society.
If you want to take a look at how barbaric and murderous society was over a thousand years ago travel to a fundamentalist state in the middle east where the ancient scriptures are brutally imposed upon its citizens. It is very wrong.

True. Well they don't exactly lack social and moral conduct completely, but you have a good point. I would also like to see a Christian live at the time of Jesus in the ancient Israel. He would not like it and fear for his life every single day. Even if he were Jewish.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 3:51:51 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/12/2016 12:33:39 PM, Jovian wrote:
Let us problematize this commandment. First of all, almost everyone would agree that killing is necessary sometimes. They would perhaps mean that it's still evil, albeit a necessary evil. But, as an example, if I would snipe a person which I knew was about to bomb 500 children to death, no religion at all and only a lunatic person would condemn me.

This thread is mainly directed to those of you theists who are saying that religion has 100% established morals which everyone understands in the same way while atheist morals are that arbitrary that you just as well could justify killing of anyone in an atheist view on society. Clearly the religious laws are not that established. Christians have during its history had a huge variety of good kills and bad kills. The Crusades were justified and given on their periods, but condemned by almost every Christian today.

So in other words, the very verse is already problematized since there are good kills and bad kills. So what makes a kill bad or good? Any Biblical data to support that? Or should the majority of people decide that and thus make the question into a very arbitrary matter of ad populum? Are only humans included among those you shouldn't kill in this commandment or also animals? If so, only mammals who are not to be killed or perhaps even mosquitoes?

The real understanding of the commandment is closer to what we call murder today. In that day the commandment was elaborated in exodus 21. The specific situation you outlined is actually described im verse 12 and 13. In verse 14 we have what we would consider predmeditated murder. It continues on to outline various instances of violence and their respective punishments.
I think most people know of the verse in the NT speaking about if you hate your brother you are guilty of murder and this shows that unlawful killing starts in the mind. This again showing that thou shalt not kill was always understood to mean thou shall not murder. The whole point was to make a separation between those who live in righteous peace vs those who wish to live violently and give justification in dealing with those that go off and murder someone.
There are other areas its addresses but Im sure this is enough to give a clear distinction.
12_13
Posts: 1,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 8:27:13 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/12/2016 12:33:39 PM, Jovian wrote:
So what makes a kill bad or good?

In accurate translations it is you shall not murder. Murder is unjust kill. So killing is bad or wrong, if there is not just reason for it.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 8:28:50 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/12/2016 8:27:13 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 7/12/2016 12:33:39 PM, Jovian wrote:
So what makes a kill bad or good?

In accurate translations it is you shall not murder. Murder is unjust kill. So killing is bad or wrong, if there is not just reason for it.

So exactly what makes killing into a murder?
janesix
Posts: 3,439
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 11:46:21 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/12/2016 2:42:18 PM, Willows wrote:
At 7/12/2016 1:58:12 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 7/12/2016 1:53:40 PM, Willows wrote:
At 7/12/2016 12:33:39 PM, Jovian wrote:
Let us problematize this commandment. First of all, almost everyone would agree that killing is necessary sometimes. They would perhaps mean that it's still evil, albeit a necessary evil. But, as an example, if I would snipe a person which I knew was about to bomb 500 children to death, no religion at all and only a lunatic person would condemn me.

This thread is mainly directed to those of you theists who are saying that religion has 100% established morals which everyone understands in the same way while atheist morals are that arbitrary that you just as well could justify killing of anyone in an atheist view on society. Clearly the religious laws are not that established. Christians have during its history had a huge variety of good kills and bad kills. The Crusades were justified and given on their periods, but condemned by almost every Christian today.

So in other words, the very verse is already problematized since there are good kills and bad kills. So what makes a kill bad or good? Any Biblical data to support that? Or should the majority of people decide that and thus make the question into a very arbitrary matter of ad populum? Are only humans included among those you shouldn't kill in this commandment or also animals? If so, only mammals who are not to be killed or perhaps even mosquitoes?

I think it is wrong to infer that atheists have arbitrary morals as born out by the fact that democratic, secular societies develop morals and laws based on much discussion, consensus and evaluating reliable data.
Indeed it is theists (in this case, Christians) who have an appalling history of taking ambiguous text and turning it into whatever they want to justify their own disgusting and distorted moralistic views.

Indeed. Also, if you are a theist and see no intrinsic wrong with murder, that it's only wrong because "God says so", then what in tarnation would happen if you would have a religious crisis and start to reject the notion of a God? Suddenly, there is no longer any god for you which says it's wrong, and murder has no intrinsic wrong either, and you have pretty much turned into a danger to society.

This is something you could say to the next person you meet who brings forth the argument of how atheism lacks true establishments of moral.

Good point. I have often heard from theists that if it were not for God (and the bible) we would have no morals, so yes, it is a bit of a worry.
In balance though there are many good morals that come from the bible but they are the not the exclusive domain of the bible. The difference with secular morals is that they change as time and values march on getting better as civilisation advances.. The views we have on killing are completely different from a hundred years ago. Yet religious scriptures do not change from hundreds or thousands of years ago and religious leaders will preach from them as if applicable for today's society.
If you want to take a look at how barbaric and murderous society was over a thousand years ago travel to a fundamentalist state in the middle east where the ancient scriptures are brutally imposed upon its citizens. It is very wrong.

Yes we are so civilized that we kill thousands of yet to be born babies each year.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 12:46:38 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/12/2016 11:46:21 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/12/2016 2:42:18 PM, Willows wrote:
At 7/12/2016 1:58:12 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 7/12/2016 1:53:40 PM, Willows wrote:
At 7/12/2016 12:33:39 PM, Jovian wrote:
Let us problematize this commandment. First of all, almost everyone would agree that killing is necessary sometimes. They would perhaps mean that it's still evil, albeit a necessary evil. But, as an example, if I would snipe a person which I knew was about to bomb 500 children to death, no religion at all and only a lunatic person would condemn me.

This thread is mainly directed to those of you theists who are saying that religion has 100% established morals which everyone understands in the same way while atheist morals are that arbitrary that you just as well could justify killing of anyone in an atheist view on society. Clearly the religious laws are not that established. Christians have during its history had a huge variety of good kills and bad kills. The Crusades were justified and given on their periods, but condemned by almost every Christian today.

So in other words, the very verse is already problematized since there are good kills and bad kills. So what makes a kill bad or good? Any Biblical data to support that? Or should the majority of people decide that and thus make the question into a very arbitrary matter of ad populum? Are only humans included among those you shouldn't kill in this commandment or also animals? If so, only mammals who are not to be killed or perhaps even mosquitoes?

I think it is wrong to infer that atheists have arbitrary morals as born out by the fact that democratic, secular societies develop morals and laws based on much discussion, consensus and evaluating reliable data.
Indeed it is theists (in this case, Christians) who have an appalling history of taking ambiguous text and turning it into whatever they want to justify their own disgusting and distorted moralistic views.

Indeed. Also, if you are a theist and see no intrinsic wrong with murder, that it's only wrong because "God says so", then what in tarnation would happen if you would have a religious crisis and start to reject the notion of a God? Suddenly, there is no longer any god for you which says it's wrong, and murder has no intrinsic wrong either, and you have pretty much turned into a danger to society.

This is something you could say to the next person you meet who brings forth the argument of how atheism lacks true establishments of moral.

Good point. I have often heard from theists that if it were not for God (and the bible) we would have no morals, so yes, it is a bit of a worry.
In balance though there are many good morals that come from the bible but they are the not the exclusive domain of the bible. The difference with secular morals is that they change as time and values march on getting better as civilisation advances.. The views we have on killing are completely different from a hundred years ago. Yet religious scriptures do not change from hundreds or thousands of years ago and religious leaders will preach from them as if applicable for today's society.
If you want to take a look at how barbaric and murderous society was over a thousand years ago travel to a fundamentalist state in the middle east where the ancient scriptures are brutally imposed upon its citizens. It is very wrong.

Yes we are so civilized that we kill thousands of yet to be born babies each year.

Astronomically much higher. When a non-castrato chooses to masturbate, he kills 250 million yet to be born babies, and that's only in one ejaculation.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 12:55:53 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/12/2016 11:46:21 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/12/2016 2:42:18 PM, Willows wrote:
At 7/12/2016 1:58:12 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 7/12/2016 1:53:40 PM, Willows wrote:
At 7/12/2016 12:33:39 PM, Jovian wrote:
Let us problematize this commandment. First of all, almost everyone would agree that killing is necessary sometimes. They would perhaps mean that it's still evil, albeit a necessary evil. But, as an example, if I would snipe a person which I knew was about to bomb 500 children to death, no religion at all and only a lunatic person would condemn me.

This thread is mainly directed to those of you theists who are saying that religion has 100% established morals which everyone understands in the same way while atheist morals are that arbitrary that you just as well could justify killing of anyone in an atheist view on society. Clearly the religious laws are not that established. Christians have during its history had a huge variety of good kills and bad kills. The Crusades were justified and given on their periods, but condemned by almost every Christian today.

So in other words, the very verse is already problematized since there are good kills and bad kills. So what makes a kill bad or good? Any Biblical data to support that? Or should the majority of people decide that and thus make the question into a very arbitrary matter of ad populum? Are only humans included among those you shouldn't kill in this commandment or also animals? If so, only mammals who are not to be killed or perhaps even mosquitoes?

I think it is wrong to infer that atheists have arbitrary morals as born out by the fact that democratic, secular societies develop morals and laws based on much discussion, consensus and evaluating reliable data.
Indeed it is theists (in this case, Christians) who have an appalling history of taking ambiguous text and turning it into whatever they want to justify their own disgusting and distorted moralistic views.

Indeed. Also, if you are a theist and see no intrinsic wrong with murder, that it's only wrong because "God says so", then what in tarnation would happen if you would have a religious crisis and start to reject the notion of a God? Suddenly, there is no longer any god for you which says it's wrong, and murder has no intrinsic wrong either, and you have pretty much turned into a danger to society.

This is something you could say to the next person you meet who brings forth the argument of how atheism lacks true establishments of moral.

Good point. I have often heard from theists that if it were not for God (and the bible) we would have no morals, so yes, it is a bit of a worry.
In balance though there are many good morals that come from the bible but they are the not the exclusive domain of the bible. The difference with secular morals is that they change as time and values march on getting better as civilisation advances.. The views we have on killing are completely different from a hundred years ago. Yet religious scriptures do not change from hundreds or thousands of years ago and religious leaders will preach from them as if applicable for today's society.
If you want to take a look at how barbaric and murderous society was over a thousand years ago travel to a fundamentalist state in the middle east where the ancient scriptures are brutally imposed upon its citizens. It is very wrong.

Yes we are so civilized that we kill thousands of yet to be born babies each year.

How many millions of yet to be born babies does god kill by miscarriage?
Willows
Posts: 2,038
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 1:38:18 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/12/2016 11:46:21 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/12/2016 2:42:18 PM, Willows wrote:
At 7/12/2016 1:58:12 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 7/12/2016 1:53:40 PM, Willows wrote:
At 7/12/2016 12:33:39 PM, Jovian wrote:
Let us problematize this commandment. First of all, almost everyone would agree that killing is necessary sometimes. They would perhaps mean that it's still evil, albeit a necessary evil. But, as an example, if I would snipe a person which I knew was about to bomb 500 children to death, no religion at all and only a lunatic person would condemn me.

This thread is mainly directed to those of you theists who are saying that religion has 100% established morals which everyone understands in the same way while atheist morals are that arbitrary that you just as well could justify killing of anyone in an atheist view on society. Clearly the religious laws are not that established. Christians have during its history had a huge variety of good kills and bad kills. The Crusades were justified and given on their periods, but condemned by almost every Christian today.

So in other words, the very verse is already problematized since there are good kills and bad kills. So what makes a kill bad or good? Any Biblical data to support that? Or should the majority of people decide that and thus make the question into a very arbitrary matter of ad populum? Are only humans included among those you shouldn't kill in this commandment or also animals? If so, only mammals who are not to be killed or perhaps even mosquitoes?

I think it is wrong to infer that atheists have arbitrary morals as born out by the fact that democratic, secular societies develop morals and laws based on much discussion, consensus and evaluating reliable data.
Indeed it is theists (in this case, Christians) who have an appalling history of taking ambiguous text and turning it into whatever they want to justify their own disgusting and distorted moralistic views.

Indeed. Also, if you are a theist and see no intrinsic wrong with murder, that it's only wrong because "God says so", then what in tarnation would happen if you would have a religious crisis and start to reject the notion of a God? Suddenly, there is no longer any god for you which says it's wrong, and murder has no intrinsic wrong either, and you have pretty much turned into a danger to society.

This is something you could say to the next person you meet who brings forth the argument of how atheism lacks true establishments of moral.

Good point. I have often heard from theists that if it were not for God (and the bible) we would have no morals, so yes, it is a bit of a worry.
In balance though there are many good morals that come from the bible but they are the not the exclusive domain of the bible. The difference with secular morals is that they change as time and values march on getting better as civilisation advances.. The views we have on killing are completely different from a hundred years ago. Yet religious scriptures do not change from hundreds or thousands of years ago and religious leaders will preach from them as if applicable for today's society.
If you want to take a look at how barbaric and murderous society was over a thousand years ago travel to a fundamentalist state in the middle east where the ancient scriptures are brutally imposed upon its citizens. It is very wrong.

Yes we are so civilized that we kill thousands of yet to be born babies each year.

Our civilised society is not perfect, it is my belief that because we are a free society we openly discuss issues and move forward positively.
Women living in fundamentalist, barbaric societies are told to have a backstreet abortion, if not a home abortion where the pregnant woman is beaten until she miscarries. Then there are the thousands of new-born babies who are murdered simply because they are the wrong sex.
12_13
Posts: 1,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 8:23:18 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/12/2016 8:28:50 PM, Jovian wrote:
At 7/12/2016 8:27:13 PM, 12_13 wrote:
At 7/12/2016 12:33:39 PM, Jovian wrote:
So what makes a kill bad or good?

In accurate translations it is you shall not murder. Murder is unjust kill. So killing is bad or wrong, if there is not just reason for it.

So exactly what makes killing into a murder?

If killing is done without any just reason, it is murder. This means, if you have not right to kill, it is murder. If the law gives permission to kill in some cases, it is not then murder. For example in USA there is or at least has been death penalty and if it is given, it is not a murder, because there is lawful reason for it.