Thou shalt not kill?

Originally posted by josephw
Nice metaphor, but the bible is not fiction.

Are you suggesting that the Lord of the Rings is fiction? Blasphemer!

Originally posted by rwingett
Christians complain about the evils of 'moral relativism', but their own god's alleged morality is far more relativistic than anything a secular humanist would put forward. At least with a secular humanist you can get the clear-cut answer that genocide is always wrong.

The problem is that you do not understand the definition of the morals. If something is morally wrong only when God says it is then he is not being inconsistent or relativist. Even a secular humanist might say that genocide was morally acceptable in particular circumstances.

Also you ignore that fact that if eternal life is a reality then the only reason why murder or genocide would be wrong is because God says so. It is not actually as harmful to the victim as it would be if eternal life does not exist. If God has already decided that you are going to Hell then why not send you sooner? Or if he is going to send you to heaven then why not expedite the process?
In fact I find it very telling that Christians do not actually take it that way implying that they do not really see Gods commands as the source of morals.

Back to the original post: the proposition that the commandment is "thou shalt not kill" is itself problematic, simply because the commandment was not, in fact, written in King James English.

At least some modern translations use the word 'murder'. English has quite a few different words for causing the death of a person, which vary significantly in the moral content of the act. Really, until you can firmly establish the proper sense of the Hebrew word that is being translated, much of the rest of the argument you're presenting can't be resolved.

And I would be very interested to know whether the word used to describe, eg, the killing of 12,000 in Ai is the same Hebrew word as in the commandment, or a different one.

Originally posted by orfeo
Back to the original post: the proposition that the commandment is "thou shalt not kill" is itself problematic, simply because the commandment was not, in fact, written in King James English.

At least some modern translations use the word 'murder'. English has quite a few different words for causing the death of a person, which vary significantly in the mo killing of 12,000 in Ai is the same Hebrew word as in the commandment, or a different one.

Semantics to the rescue! It's not killing, it's murder! What a slender reed to cling to. Whether the commandment is properly translated as, 'you shall not kill', or 'you shall not murder', is irrelevant. Don't you think the slaughter of 12,000 men, women, and children would be equally prohibited by either one?

If not, then this goes back to the point I touched on earlier. Namely that the commandment means, specifically, that you shall not kill (or murder) fellow Israelites, an the rest of the heathens be damned.

When viewed from the perspective of a strictly Jewish god, the story makes sense. It's still morally reprehensible, but at least it makes sense. The provincial Jewish god make a compact with the Jewish people, who could do to anyone else as they saw fit (or as god commanded). Morality was reserved for the in-group, and hostility (both divine and temporal) was directed toward the out-group.

The problem comes with Paul, who grafted his upstart religion onto the Jewish heritage, and began to market the formerly provincial Jewish god to the world at large as a god of supposedly universal love. Now the story of Joshua and the slaughter of Ai no longer makes sense. It has now become a contradiction. We are no longer able to reconcile such behavior with the now universal commandment, 'you shall not kill (or murder)'.

If you think the difference between 'killing' and 'murder' is mere semantics, than I certainly hope you are never involved in our legal system in any capacity.

I'd also point out that if 'killing' and 'murder' are the same thing, then American troops have been involved in murdering lots of Iraqis over the last few years. Probably more than 12,000.

I'm not trying to say that this is a way of waving away your argument. I'm simply pointing out that it's an issue. If I wanted to use it to defeat your argument, I would have gone to the trouble of finding out whether or not the words about 'killing' in Exodus and Joshua are the same or not. I genuinely don't know the answer.

Originally posted by rwingett
Here we have an account where the Lord commands Joshua to destroy the city of Ai. Joshua follows these commands and slaughters 12,000 inhabitants of Ai:


Joshua 8:18 And the LORD said unto Joshua, Stretch out the spear that is in thy hand toward Ai; for I will give it into thine hand. And Joshua stretched out the spear that he had in his hand toward le this account with the claim that God and the bible are the source of all morality?

Please carefully consider these two passages from Deuteronomy:

"Know therefore this day that the Lord your God is He Who goes over before you as a devouring fire. He will destroy them and bring them down before you; so you shall dispossess them and make them perish quickly, as the Lord has promised you. Do not say in your [mind and] heart, after the Lord your God has thrust them out from before you, It is because of my righteousness that the Lord has brought me in to possess this land--whereas it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is dispossessing them before you. Not for your righteousness or for the uprightness of your [minds and] hearts do you go to possess their land; but because of the wickedness of these nations the Lord your God is driving them out before you, and that He may fulfill the promise which the Lord swore to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Know therefore that the Lord your God does not give you this good land to possess because of your righteousness, for you are a hard and stubborn people" (Deuteronomy 9:3-6).

"But Jeshurun (Israel) grew fat and kicked. You became fat, you grew thick, you were gorged and sleek! Then he forsook God Who made him and forsook and despised the Rock of his salvation. They provoked Him to jealousy with strange gods, with abominations they provoked Him to anger. They sacrificed to demons, not to God--to gods whom they knew not, to new gods lately come up, whom your fathers never knew or feared. Of the Rock Who bore you you were unmindful; you forgot the God Who travailed in your birth. And the Lord saw it and He spurned and rejected them, out of indignation with His sons and His daughters. And He said, I will hide My face from them, I will see what their end will be; for they are a perverse generation, children in whom is no faithfulness. They have moved Me to jealousy with what is not God; they have angered Me with their idols. So I will move them to jealousy with those who are not a people; I will anger them with a foolish nation. For a fire is kindled by My anger, and it burns to the depths of Sheol, devours the earth with its increase, and sets on fire the foundations of the mountains. And I will heap evils upon them; I will spend My arrows upon them. They shall be wasted with hunger and devoured with burning heat and poisonous pestilence; and the teeth of beasts will I send against them, with the poison of crawling things of the dust. From without the sword shall bereave, and in the chambers shall be terror, destroying both young man and virgin, the sucking child with the man of gray hairs. I said, I would scatter them afar and I would have made the remembrance of them to cease from among men, had I not feared the provocation of the foe, lest their enemies misconstrue it and lest they should say, Our own hand has prevailed; all this was not the work of the Lord. For they are a nation void of counsel, and there is no understanding in them. O that they were wise and would see through this [present triumph] to their ultimate fate! How could one have chased a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the Lord had delivered them up? For their rock is not like our Rock, even our enemies themselves judge this. For their vine comes from the vine of Sodom and from the fields of Gomorrah; their grapes are grapes of [poisonous] gall, their clusters are bitter" (Deuteronomy 32:15-32).

____________________________________________________________________

Clearly the Lord has no problem with killing, or with ordering his loyal minions to kill in his name. He does both on numerous occasions throughout the bible.

Clearly Joshua has no problem with killing 12,000 people of Ai.
What the commandment means is that 'you shall not kill fellow Israelites.' It's perfectly OK to kill infidels by the score.

God's command to His chosen people is: "Do not turn to idols and things of nought or make for yourselves molten gods. I the Lord am your God" (Leviticus 19:4). They were not exempt from the punishments which God promised to those who worship idols and demons (see Leviticus 26:20-31). When Israel obeyed God He used them to exercise judgment on idolatrous nations, just as God used other nations to exercise judgment on the Israelites when they fell into idolatry.

As the two passages above cited from Deuteronomy indicate, God is 'with' Israel not because Israel is any more righteous than other nations: "Because of the wickedness of these nations the Lord your God is driving them out before you, and that He may fulfill the promise which the Lord swore to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.' If not for a remnant of Israel remaining faithful to God, God would have completely destroyed them as well: "I would scatter them (Israel) afar and I would have made the remembrance of them to cease from among men, had I not feared the provocation of the foe, lest their enemies misconstrue it and lest they should say, Our own hand has prevailed; all this was not the work of the Lord." God has a purpose for Israel because of Abraham (the Messianic line). His secondary purpose was (and is) the eradication of idolatry from the face of the earth (which Christ will accomplish at His second coming). The whole world of men in OT times worshiped idols, except Israel. Is it any wonder that He used Israel to exercise judgment upon them?

In short, only God has the authority to sanction killing. Unauthorized killing, whether in His name or not, is against the law.

The whole point of this post is to pose a specific question to Christians: How do you reconcile this account with the claim that God and the bible are the source of all morality?

God created the world and He has authority over it. His will is inexorable. I trust His judgments because He is righteous and holy. Who am I to question Him or His ways? I'm a nobody. I love Him because He is good and faithful. I fear Him because He is holy and His judgments are final.

The point is, we (all mankind) must 'reconcile this account with the claim that God and the bible are the source of all morality' because God is the source of all morality. Submission is a hard pill to swallow, but that is what is required.

I heard 3 different versions,

1. Thou shalt not murder
2. Thou shalt not kill people
3. Thou shalt not kill, period, (even animals)


Looking at the old Testament, it would seem like God meant version 1. however the new Testament leans to version 2. and modern day liberals are starting to be version 3. 😛

Originally posted by flyUnity
I heard 3 different versions,

1. Thou shalt not murder
2. Thou shalt not kill people
3. Thou shalt not kill, period, (even animals)


Looking at the old Testament, it would seem like God meant version 1. however the new Testament leans to version 2. and modern day liberals are starting to be version 3. 😛

I would query whether the NT leans towards 2. The story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts chapter 5 appears to indicate that God is still quite happy to do a spot of smiting in the early church.

Unless you want to argue that God has reserved the killing for himself in NT times, and has ruled it out for his followers.

Originally posted by orfeo
If you think the difference between 'killing' and 'murder' is mere semantics, than I certainly hope you are never involved in our legal system in any capacity.

I'd also point out that if 'killing' and 'murder' are the same thing, then American troops have been involved in murdering lots of Iraqis over the last few years. Probably more than 12,000.

I'm n ...[text shortened]... ng' in Exodus and Joshua are the same or not. I genuinely don't know the answer.

My point is that for our purposes here, it DOESN'T MATTER whether killing and murder are the same thing. The slaughter of 12,000 men, women, and children counts as BOTH killing and murder. Whichever way you translate the commandment, Joshua's actions should be condemned. You can prattle on about speculative hermeneutical tangents all you want, but there is no way to reconcile Joshua's actions with a universal commandment not to kill...or murder...or exterminate...or slaughter......

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Please carefully consider these two passages from Deuteronomy:

"Know therefore this day that the Lord your God is He Who goes over before you as a devouring fire. He will destroy them and bring them down before you; so you shall dispossess them and make them perish quickly, as the Lord has promised you. Do not say in your [mind and] heart, after the ...[text shortened]... orality. Submission is a hard pill to swallow, but that is what is required.

Go read my thread: 'Joshua and General Lin.'

Originally posted by rwingett
Go read my thread: 'Joshua and General Lin.'

How do I find it? Why should I read it?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
How do I find it? Why should I read it?

???? It's in the spirituality forum. Just open your eyes and take a look. Once you read it, hopefully it will be apparent why you should read it.

Originally posted by rwingett
My point is that for our purposes here, it DOESN'T MATTER whether killing and murder are the same thing. The slaughter of 12,000 men, women, and children counts as BOTH killing and murder. Whichever way you translate the commandment, Joshua's actions should be condemned. You can prattle on about speculative hermeneutical tangents all you want, but there is ns with a universal commandment not to kill...or murder...or exterminate...or slaughter......

No.

Murder is a form of unlawful killing. You therefore have to look at the content of the law. Not the law as it stands now in your society or mine, the law of the society in which the events took place.

The Israelites had been quite clearly instructed that in some circumstances, killing all the inhabitants of a city was acceptable and that in others it was not. See Deuteronomy 20:10-18.

If Ai fell into the category of cities were no-one was to be left alive, then Joshua did not breach a commandment to not commit murder. There would then be no reason for Joshua to be criticised/condemned for what he did.

This leads us neatly back to questions about what is 'law' and what is 'morality', and whether there is any difference. In my view to describe God as the source of 'morality' is simply a way of saying that God has issued a set of 'laws' that are not enforceable by any current earthly legal system. We use the word 'morals' to distinguish these rules from the ones that are enforceable under man-made laws.

Originally posted by rwingett
???? It's in the spirituality forum. Just open your eyes and take a look. Once you read it, hopefully it will be apparent why you should read it.

I'm not an Israelite schoolchild. I have no Israel national pride or prejudice. All Tamarin's study proves is nationalism. What it does not address is whether or not the God of the bible is indeed the one true God. If He is, as the bible claims, and He is perfectly righteous, as the bible also claims, then His commands are just and Joshua was right to obey.

If you want to blame Joshua, that's your choice. But it was God whom Joshua obeyed. Why not take this straight to the top? If you wish to conclude that God had no justification for (EDIT: or right to) commanding what He commanded, then back it up scripturally.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I'm not an Israelite schoolchild. I have no Israel national pride or prejudice. All Tamarin's study proves is nationalism. What it does not address is whether or not the God of the bible is indeed the one true God. If He is, as the bible claims, and He is perfectly righteous, as the bible also claims, then His commands are just and Joshua was right t ...[text shortened]... o conclude that God had no justification for what He commanded, then back it up scripturally.

Really? It doesn't bother you that your omni-everything God called for the death of 12,000 men, women and children?

While I understand the difference between killing and murder it is not as if Joshua was lobbing bunker busters into Ai. Each death had to be a direct decision by Joshua or one of his men...surely some of these killings (babies, children, weapon-less women) were, in fact, murder.