Thou shall not kill?

[violatedsmurf80]

A friend of mine ask me to read this article http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/notkill.html and all i could think about is Leviticus 19:18. does any one see any other flaws in this argument?

[Emily]

That whole website is full of flaws.

[jetson]

It's poorly argued, like a rookie apologist.  It boils down to granting some god that authority to kill under it's own rules.  And the crap regarding translations is even worse. Once again, someone gets to claim they know what the Bible means, while others, specifically atheists, do not. Simply because they read the KJV, for example.

Velkyn will stop by and put it in more succinct words, but basically, the article sucks.

[Alzael]

Velkyn will stop by and put it in more succinct words, but basically, the article sucks.

I don't think you can say it anymore succinct than that.

[Truth OT]

As I look at the scriptures and what is said about killing it has become obvious to me that in the end, this issue is one of authority. I say this because this issue is not set in stone in the texts as the same God that says do not kill (or murder) also has ordered the killing of entire societies. What gives?
It seems the scriptures paint the picture that all life (souls) ultimately belong to its God and therefore that God and Him alone has the right and innate authority to what He pleases with the lives He possesses. What that implies is that since He alone has that authority, anyone else who dares take a life into his or her hands has gone beyond their God-given authority and thus sinned against man and man's God. So, man can NEVER take another life UNLESS he has been given the authority to do so by man's God. In the instances where men have been given this authority it would appear that their actions are not considered as sinful.
All this points to what perhaps is a hiddenbut greater issue and that issue is the issue of obedience to the God of the scriptures trumping all else. It's kind of like a game of Spades where an ace is always greater than a deuce UNLESS the deuce is wild and in scripture, God's commands are the ultimate wild cards. 

[Brakeman]

It seems the scriptures paint the picture that all life (souls) ultimately belong to its God and therefore that God and Him alone has the right and innate authority to what He pleases with the lives He possesses.

Except that when Eve ate the fruit of knowledge, mankind was granted the same morals of right and wrong as god. We are the equal of god in that manner. Thus if something is wrong to us, it is also wrong for god.

Read genesis ..

[jetson]

It seems the scriptures paint the picture that all life (souls) ultimately belong to its God and therefore that God and Him alone has the right and innate authority to what He pleases with the lives He possesses. What that implies is that since He alone has that authority, anyone else who dares take a life into his or her hands has gone beyond their God-given authority and thus sinned against man and man's God. So, man can NEVER take another life UNLESS he has been given the authority to do so by man's God. In the instances where men have been given this authority it would appear that their actions are not considered as sinful.
All this points to what perhaps is a hiddenbut greater issue and that issue is the issue of obedience to the God of the scriptures trumping all else. It's kind of like a game of Spades where an ace is always greater than a deuce UNLESS the deuce is wild and in scripture, God's commands are the ultimate wild cards.

This might sound great to a believer, but it sounds ridiculous to an atheist.  If you really want the truth about the OT, you're going to need a time machine, and a lot of patience to parse all of the oral traditions, and each of their origins.  I'm sure it would shake up everything that even the most hardened Jews believe.

Do not kill, being one of the most direct "commandments", is completely useless when there is no authority.  Who upholds the law?  In the case of humans, the law was obvious, probably very early in human history.  But enforcing it must have come later.  One local tribe invented a god, and the rest of the humans are supposed to fall in line?  I don't think so, and history bears this out quite nicely.

Just take a look at some of the most popular gods of mythology, gods that many humans believed were real, and their laws.  And just imagine if we were arguing over whether that god had the authority to make or enforce such laws?  We would all be laughing out loud at the silliness of granting a Greek god, for example, the benefit of the doubt, as we discuss it's authority.  This is what it sounds like to atheists.

The sooner people accept that all gods are imaginary, the sooner it will become crystal clear that the Bible is barely worthy of literary content, much less a book of laws for modern humans.

[Backspace]

The commandment against killing/murdering is from the Exodus 20 tablets.  That commandment is conspicuously absent from the Exodus 34 tablets (which Yahweh said were exactly the same as those from Ex.20).  It was probably left out after Moses instigated the slaughter of 3,000 men, women, and children of his tribe after smashing the first set...

 

[Alzael]

As I look at the scriptures and what is said about killing it has become obvious to me that in the end, this issue is one of authority. I say this because this issue is not set in stone in the texts as the same God that says do not kill (or murder) also has ordered the killing of entire societies. What gives?
It seems the scriptures paint the picture that all life (souls) ultimately belong to its God and therefore that God and Him alone has the right and innate authority to what He pleases with the lives He possesses. What that implies is that since He alone has that authority, anyone else who dares take a life into his or her hands has gone beyond their God-given authority and thus sinned against man and man's God. So, man can NEVER take another life UNLESS he has been given the authority to do so by man's God. In the instances where men have been given this authority it would appear that their actions are not considered as sinful.
All this points to what perhaps is a hiddenbut greater issue and that issue is the issue of obedience to the God of the scriptures trumping all else. It's kind of like a game of Spades where an ace is always greater than a deuce UNLESS the deuce is wild and in scripture, God's commands are the ultimate wild cards.

The glaring flaw in this is that it's an open license to kill. If god and those told to kill by god have the authority to do so, what happens when someones god tells them to kill you? Or your family.

In Islam their god tells them to kill people who don't believe in their god (actually so does Christianity, but we'll leave that alone for now). Assuming that their god is the real one; then they're fully within their right to drag you and your loved ones out in the street and whack off your heads. Somehow I'm guessing you would consider this as not being a very moral action.

What this really points to is the greater issue that atheists have been pointing out for centuries. Without proof of god, and proof of what he actually commands (which does not yet exist in any form); then religion serves no other purpose than to allow millions of people to do together, what only a single lunatic would do on his own.

[violatedsmurf80]

As I look at the scriptures and what is said about killing it has become obvious to me that in the end, this issue is one of authority. I say this because this issue is not set in stone in the texts as the same God that says do not kill (or murder) also has ordered the killing of entire societies. What gives?
It seems the scriptures paint the picture that all life (souls) ultimately belong to its God and therefore that God and Him alone has the right and innate authority to what He pleases with the lives He possesses. What that implies is that since He alone has that authority, anyone else who dares take a life into his or her hands has gone beyond their God-given authority and thus sinned against man and man's God. So, man can NEVER take another life UNLESS he has been given the authority to do so by man's God. In the instances where men have been given this authority it would appear that their actions are not considered as sinful.
All this points to what perhaps is a hiddenbut greater issue and that issue is the issue of obedience to the God of the scriptures trumping all else. It's kind of like a game of Spades where an ace is always greater than a deuce UNLESS the deuce is wild and in scripture, God's commands are the ultimate wild cards.

Ok let look at this the most logical way we can OT consider that there was an empire that was grater the Israelite that had the same commandment or at least close enough to them was King Hammurabi who ruled Babylon in which became Hammurabi code which is much like the ten commandments. Look up "Inventing God's Law: How the Covenant Code of the Bible Used and Revised the Laws of Hammurabi".


I dont think we need proof of "GoD" because we all know that answer,  i think we need to show how the bible was recorded and how they took many of the beliefs of religions prior to there to make a name for them self's so that they would stop coming under attack by larger population.   

[jetson]

What this really points to is the greater issue that atheists have been pointing out for centuries. Without proof of god, and proof of what he actually commands (which does not yet exist in any form); then religion serves no other purpose than to allow millions of people to do together, what only a single lunatic would do on his own.

This.

This is one reason why I am an atheist.  I have directly confronted theist friends with this very simple question: "Would you kill your child if God commanded you to do so?"  This is a serious problem for Christians, and most of them ignore the question by proclaiming that God would never do such a thing.  But being the heathen that I am, I push as hard as I can, and I have successfully cornered them, and forced them to say yes.  Because they realize that by saying no, their commitment and obedience to their god is in doubt, and so is their eternal salvation.  It's disgusting when you really think about it.

These same people will agree that whenever a person appears on television, accused of killing their children because God told them to, they are nothing short of mentally corrupt and unstable.  They are crazy. 

You can find this question sprinkled throughout this forum as well, and none of them have ended well for the theist.

Christians will claim that their God would never command such a thing, yet it is sprinkled throughout the Bible.  They excuse the OT killings because Jesus came and gave his life for everyone's sins.  It's all bullshit, wrapped in mythology, and steeped in magic and mystery to the point that no clear thinking, fairly rational person could ever truly support.  And we still allow it in modern society...

[Add Homonym]

I have directly confronted theist friends with this very simple question: "Would you kill your child if God commanded you to do so?"

That's not fair. They know that God does not exist, so would not ask them to do it.

If you simultaneously got proof that God was real, and was going to send you to hell if you didn't kill your child, I think most people would have a go, if they had any sense.

[jaimehlers]

"Thou shalt not kill" is rooted in tribalism.  A person who killed another tribe member was a threat to the tribe's existence; if they killed one tribe member, they could easily kill others.  The tribal leaders were the ones who had the ultimate authority, and it was easy to justify that authority by the fact of the tribe's continued existence (due to the efforts of past members and leaders).  In fact, ancestor worship was just an extension of venerating the previous members of the tribe, without whom the tribe would not have survived.[1]

I sometimes think that the evolution of human moral beliefs is inextricable with the expansion of tribalism.  That is, expanding the concept of the tribe to incorporate a larger and larger group, and accepting people who are different into the tribe.

1.	I wonder if the concept of gods wasn't just originally oneupmanship between tribes who were fighting with each other.

[velkyn]

It seems the scriptures paint the picture that all life (souls) ultimately belong to its God and therefore that God and Him alone has the right and innate authority to what He pleases with the lives He possesses. What that implies is that since He alone has that authority, anyone else who dares take a life into his or her hands has gone beyond their God-given authority and thus sinned against man and man's God. So, man can NEVER take another life UNLESS he has been given the authority to do so by man's God. In the instances where men have been given this authority it would appear that their actions are not considered as sinful.

Which begs the question, why must God have humans do its bidding?  Why doesn’t God kill the Midianites rather than have humans do it and confuse the question?

All this points to what perhaps is a hiddenbut greater issue and that issue is the issue of obedience to the God of the scriptures trumping all else. It's kind of like a game of Spades where an ace is always greater than a deuce UNLESS the deuce is wild and in scripture, God's commands are the ultimate wild cards.

Considering that this is all based on “might equals right” I don’t think it’s hidden at all.  Interesting calling God’s commands “wild cards”, considering how this god does make up nonsense on a whim.  This religion is like paying fizzbin:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_in_Star_Trek#Fizzbin

[relativetruth]

As I look at the scriptures and what is said about killing it has become obvious to me that in the end, this issue is one of authority. I say this because this issue is not set in stone in the texts as the same God that says do not kill (or murder) also has ordered the killing of entire societies. What gives?
It seems the scriptures paint the picture that all life (souls) ultimately belong to its God and therefore that God and Him alone has the right and innate authority to what He pleases with the lives He possesses. What that implies is that since He alone has that authority, anyone else who dares take a life into his or her hands has gone beyond their God-given authority and thus sinned against man and man's God. So, man can NEVER take another life UNLESS he has been given the authority to do so by man's God. In the instances where men have been given this authority it would appear that their actions are not considered as sinful.
All this points to what perhaps is a hiddenbut greater issue and that issue is the issue of obedience to the God of the scriptures trumping all else. It's kind of like a game of Spades where an ace is always greater than a deuce UNLESS the deuce is wild and in scripture, God's commands are the ultimate wild cards.

What about the suicide bomber who believes he/she is doing some god's will only to find , when they arrive in hell, that they have been mislead by their politicians/religious leaders?

[Truth OT]

What about the suicide bomber who believes he/she is doing some god's will only to find , when they arrive in hell, that they have been mislead by their politicians/religious leaders?

Here's an opening of a can of worms:

All who would dare make the claim that their specific actions are commanded by God should be expected to provide some objective proof that they were in fact commanded to act by God.

[velkyn]

Here's an opening of a can of worms:

All who would dare make the claim that their specific actions are commanded by God should be expected to provide some objective proof that they were in fact commanded to act by God.

a good point though, TOT.  We have people claiming to do God's will by killing various people, their own kids, etc.  We also have people claiming to have done "good" things that God "told" them to do.  It's a lot easier for theists to accept the good acts rather than the bad ones. And both have no evidence whatsoever to support their claims. 

Just from this, it should be more than obvious why atheists dont' accept many of the things theists claim.

[relativetruth]

What about the suicide bomber who believes he/she is doing some god's will only to find , when they arrive in hell, that they have been mislead by their politicians/religious leaders?

Here's an opening of a can of worms:

All who would dare make the claim that their specific actions are commanded by God should be expected to provide some objective proof that they were in fact commanded to act by God.

So nobody should do anything their preacher/rabbi/vicar/iman etc tells them to do unless these religious leaders can provide objective proof that what they say is the will of God?

[Truth OT]

So nobody should do anything their preacher/rabbi/vicar/iman etc tells them to do unless these religious leaders can provide objective proof that what they say is the will of God?

I mostly agree with this statement. Who are these people to speak for God? If they are inn fact the authority figures they are made out by many to be let em' work a miracle of two to prove they are what they claim to be.

[relativetruth]

If anybody was ever able to show objective proof of the will of any god then there probably would only be a handful of atheists in existance.

[JeffPT]

What if someone wrote a book about the miraculous things one of these preachers did?   Say you didn't know who wrote it, or when they wrote it, and you knew that people had spent a lot of time changing, editing it and redoing it over a decade or so. 

Would that be enough to convince you that the preacher was speaking for God?  Or would you need more than that? 

[Brakeman]

So nobody should do anything their preacher/rabbi/vicar/iman etc tells them to do unless these religious leaders can provide objective proof that what they say is the will of God?

I mostly agree with this statement. Who are these people to speak for God? If they are inn fact the authority figures they are made out by many to be let em' work a miracle of two to prove they are what they claim to be.

That goes for the gospel writers as well too doesn't it?

[Alzael]

So nobody should do anything their preacher/rabbi/vicar/iman etc tells them to do unless these religious leaders can provide objective proof that what they say is the will of God?

I mostly agree with this statement. Who are these people to speak for God? If they are inn fact the authority figures they are made out by many to be let em' work a miracle of two to prove they are what they claim to be.

However since no one to date has ever produced any proof of any kind that god even exists, by your logic here no Christian should ever do anything their religion tells them until they actually have proof. Which no one has ever had.

And for someone who asks how other people dare speak for god, you seem to do a good job of it yourself. Or do you actually have proof and you've just been holding out on us despite all of the many times you've been asked to show it?

[Truth OT]

However since no one to date has ever produced any proof of any kind that god even exists, by your logic here no Christian should ever do anything their religion tells them until they actually have proof. Which no one has ever had.

And for someone who asks how other people dare speak for god, you seem to do a good job of it yourself. Or do you actually have proof and you've just been holding out on us despite all of the many times you've been asked to show it?

Thanks for considering me worthy and I hate to disappoint you, but ole' Truth OT doesn't speak for God (nor does he claim to). All I try to do is relate what the scriptures and the NT says correctly while at the same time calling BS on those (both believers and non believers alike) that misrepresent the messages therein.
Seriously, I have never witnessed anyone doing something that proved God's hand was involved. I have not a shread of 1st hand objective evidence for the existence of God. That is why I cannot speak of God's existence with definity. All I do is say what I believe and I try to give reasons for why I believe what I do. Ancient writers claimed thay saw God acting and were provided with the proof that we so long for. We choose to give heed to those writers or we don't.   

As far as doing what a religion says to do, I believe we must exercise good judgment and common sense before jumping on the bandwagon. If the religion asks one to do things that are considered as good, positive, and uplifting to society, then by all means take heed. If a religion asks you to do things that are mean, hateful, and destructive, then maybe a line in the sand must be drawn.
Now, if God asks someone to do anything, they should do it. One in this instance must have objective proof that God has indeed required an act and that of course would require God miraculously revealing Itself. Since we haven't seen this occur in our lifetimes we should never equate what religion asks with what God requires.

[Brakeman]

Ancient writers claimed..

Why do you believe ancient writers?

[Alzael]

All I try to do is relate what the scriptures and the NT says correctly while at the same time calling BS on those (both believers and non believers alike) that misrepresent the messages therein

However you can't prove what the scriptures mean beyond your own interpretations. You can't even prove that god had anything to do with the scriptures. Nor can you show that others have misrepresented the scriptures with any argument that isn't also equally applicable to your own.

So yes, you are indeed speaking for your god. Unless you can prove that the scriptures mean what you say they mean. Which is something that everyone is still waiting for.

Everytime you correct someone who "misrepresents" the scriptures, you are saying that you know what god meant, with no ability to prove that you know. The only difference between you and most other Christians is that youève admitted to speculation on some things. It does not change the fact, however, that you are attempting to speak with your gods voice.

Thanks for considering me worthy and I hate to disappoint you, but ole' Truth OT doesn't speak for God (nor does he claim to).

You have not disappointed me. You behave exactly as I would expect you to behave.

[Truth OT]

Ancient writers claimed..

Why do you believe ancient writers?

Demographics, tradition, and want to for the most part.

[Truth OT]

However you can't prove what the scriptures mean beyond your own interpretations. You can't even prove that god had anything to do with the scriptures. Nor can you show that others have misrepresented the scriptures with any argument that isn't also equally applicable to your own.

Come back off that tangent Alzy. Proving God had something to do with the scriptures and accurately relaying the messages of scripture BASED ON WHAT THEY SAY have very little if anything to do with each other.
The best way to "prove" what the scriptures or any writings mean is to TAKE THEM FOR THEIR WORD and read them within the written context without bringing in an outside preconceived context of one's own and let the broad context of what is written shape one's understanding.

So yes, you are indeed speaking for your god. Unless you can prove that the scriptures mean what you say they mean. Which is something that everyone is still waiting for.

Since you're waiting, here goes:
I believe the scriptures tell us that Jesus is the son of God and I will use the scriptures to prove it.
 - Matthew 16:13-17
Then, when he went to Caesarea Philippi, Jesus asked his disciples, 'Who are people saying the Son of Man is?'
And they replied, 'Some say you're John the Baptist, others EliJah, and still others say you are JeremiAh or one of the Prophets.'
And he asked, 'But, who do you say that I am?'
And Simon Peter answered: 'You're the Anointed; the Son of the Living God.'
Then Jesus said to him, 'You are blest, Simon, son of JonAh, because this wasn't shown to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in the heavens.
 - Hebrews 1:1-2
1 Long ago, God spoke to our fathers through the Prophets in many places and in many ways. 2 And in the last part of these days, He speaks to us through a Son whom He has made the heir to everything… the one that He used to create the age.

See, I used the scriptures to prove that they say that Jesus was the Son of God.

Everytime you correct someone who "misrepresents" the scriptures, you are saying that you know what god meant, with no ability to prove that you know. The only difference between you and most other Christians is that youève admitted to speculation on some things. It does not change the fact, however, that you are attempting to speak with your gods voice.

Sorry, but that's just plain WRONG. Everytime a misrepresentation is corrected, the corrector is not saying "I know what God meant", but rather, "what you say the scriptures teach is incorrect, here's what they actually teach."

[Alzael]

Come back off that tangent Alzy.

Why? It's a relevant point and it shows your obvious hypocrisy, Truthy.

Proving God had something to do with the scriptures and accurately relaying the messages of scripture BASED ON WHAT THEY SAY have very little if anything to do with each other.

But you're the one determining what is accurate and what is not, many others disagree. You cannot claim that you are accurate without evidence, which you do not have. When you say "scripture says X", you are indeed claiming to know what god is saying; and without evidence.

The best way to "prove" what the scriptures or any writings mean is to TAKE THEM FOR THEIR WORD and read them within the written context without bringing in an outside preconceived context of one's own and let the broad context of what is written shape one's understanding.

Which everyone has different answers to.

You still haven't refuted my point. How is telling other people what the scriptures mean, not claiming to speak for god?

Everytime you correct someone who "misrepresents" the scriptures, you are saying that you know what god meant, with no ability to prove that you know. The only difference between you and most other Christians is that youève admitted to speculation on some things. It does not change the fact, however, that you are attempting to speak with your gods voice.

Sorry, but that's just plain WRONG. Everytime a misrepresentation is corrected, the corrector is not saying "I know what God meant", but rather, "what you say the scriptures teach is incorrect, here's what they actually teach."

The scriptures teach the word of god. They teach what god says. That's the point of them.

When you say "here's what they actually teach", you are saying "here is what god said/wants".

My poor little, Truthy. You really can't see your own hypocrisy can you? Even when it's so painfully evident.

Since you're waiting, here goes:
I believe the scriptures tell us that Jesus is the son of God and I will use the scriptures to prove it.
 - Matthew 16:13-17
Then, when he went to Caesarea Philippi, Jesus asked his disciples, 'Who are people saying the Son of Man is?'
And they replied, 'Some say you're John the Baptist, others EliJah, and still others say you are JeremiAh or one of the Prophets.'
And he asked, 'But, who do you say that I am?'
And Simon Peter answered: 'You're the Anointed; the Son of the Living God.'
Then Jesus said to him, 'You are blest, Simon, son of JonAh, because this wasn't shown to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in the heavens.
 - Hebrews 1:1-2
1 Long ago, God spoke to our fathers through the Prophets in many places and in many ways. 2 And in the last part of these days, He speaks to us through a Son whom He has made the heir to everything… the one that He used to create the age.

See, I used the scriptures to prove that they say that Jesus was the Son of God.

And what of those who disagree with you and prove it with scripture? Why are you right and they wrong? You're putting words into your gods mouth by asserting that the scripture is what you think it is and dismissing every other alternative.

The best way to "prove" what the scriptures or any writings mean is to TAKE THEM FOR THEIR WORD and read them within the written context without bringing in an outside preconceived context of one's own and let the broad context of what is written shape one's understanding.

Not at all. You don't "prove" what writings mean unless it says something that can be proven. We read them within the context and we analyze them and subject them to analysis in order to come to an idea of what we think that they might have meant. What we don't claim is that we know what the author meant with certainty and that every other interpretation is wrong. Unless we have actual proof that the interpetation is wrong.

Do you come to your interpretations from studying the text. Yes.

Can you claim that others are wrong about their interpretations. No. At least not honestly.

Not unless you have some means of objectively varifying that your conclusions are true. And again, you don't.

In claiming that you know what the authors meant, and what the scriptures actually mean; you are claiming to know what your god means; and without any reason for doing so.

Come on, Truthy. Raise the bar of thought a little. My back is getting a little sore from bending down to your level and this is starting to get fairly pathetic on your end.