CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

Hey this will be my first Thread so far. So bear with me.

Ok well i am taking a class called Old Testement Introduction. The name is selfexplanitory but I wanted to ask you all a question.

Turn in your bibles to Exodus 20:13. Now than the question begins most of you will have the scripture reading like this... "Thou shalt not kill" for verse 13. I grew up knowing that one and so does the rest of the world. But BUT BUT BUT... the Hebrew bible reads like this... "You shall not murder"

You might be asking ok whats the difference. Well here it is:

Murder: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Kill: To put to death. To deprive of life. etc.

So now the discussion begins, is there a difference or is it the same?
And why do the Hebrew bibles have murder while Catholics and
Protestents have kill?

I don't know the answer to your last question (why it says "kill" instead of "murder" in English). Translations are sometimes flawed. However, I strongly believe there is a difference between killing and murdering. Murder is premeditated, as you said, or totally senseless killing. If you kill someone in self defense or defense of another, it's not murder.

For example, let's say you're in your car and you see a guy right in front of you draw a gun and point it at a woman who is holding her child (just to make it really clear). It's obvious the guy is not a cop, and there is no one else around, and the woman is unarmed and you know the child is her own. You have the opportunity to stop the murder by hitting the gas and running the guy over. You do it, and he dies. Did you commit murder? I say no.

Now for a less clear-cut example. You're in your house at night, by yourself. You live alone, and are not expecting company... and besides, it's midnight. Just as you are drifting off to sleep, you suddenly hear someone bust open your front door. You pull out the gun in your nightstand that you keep there for just such an occasion (that you hoped you'd never have to use). The intruder hears you and comes at you with a knife; you shoot the intruder dead. Did you commit murder? Again, I say no. Some people are probably going to disagree with me on this one, but this is my view on it.

murder is whatever the state defines. we (the LCMS) believe it is the state's duty and right to define murder, and, if it so desires, mete out the death penalty to whomsoever it deems deserving. This is not to say we support tyrannical governments; rather, we must bend to the will of those in authority (which is a whole other fight, but see Romans 13:1-7).

I don't know how to answer your last question either. In my catechism class, the pastor made it clear that the Hebrew word meant 'murder'. Perhaps it says 'kill' so people don't get too legalistic about it. i.e., "I didn't really murder him, since he killed my relative/friend/whatever. I killed him, so it's ok by God." When it says, "Thou shalt not kill," we are reminded that only a select few are given the right (or obligation) to kill, and only under very limited circumstances.

There is definitely a difference between Murder and Killing.

It's not murder to kill an animal for food. It is not murder to kill in self defense. Punishment of a criminal by death after a fair trial is not murder.

Murder is the premeditated and wrongful seeking of harm toward a human you hate for your own selfish reasons.

Killing simply means, killing, and is certainly not forbidden (in itself) by the ten commandments. Otherwise, all of the times when God commanded the Israelites to sacrifice animals or wage a war, they would have been sinning.

That's my take anyway. The original Hebrew version does say 'murder'. Our version should say the same.

Simply put, murder denotes causing death out of cruel, hateful or otherwise sinful intentions.

Killing is just a generic term for taking someone/something's life for either an accidental, morally justifiable, or otherwise necessary reason.

Sometimes there can be grey areas, yes, but there's a pretty well-drawn out line for the most part. There's still some debate over selfish vengeance vs. righteous justice and things of that nature....that would probably be a more productive topic of discussion than the completely obvious difference between killing and murder.

A few words of caution--since we can ALL agree that there is a difference between murder and killing, and since we can all most likley agree as well that that difference will vary from person to person, I do not want to see anyone challenging or bashing what one person constitutes as murder over another. If you want to do so, do it in PMs and do it with gentility. But any sort of dispute or outburst will get this thread locked instantly.

I want to keep this thread open because perhaps there is some cultural or linguistic differences/knowledge to be learned from this, but this is NOT to become a theological or ideological debate on the definition of a word. Should this thread become such a place--or in general an unpleasent conversation--it will be locked. Please be courteous guys.

Good call, Ashley.

hmmm

heres a idea that popped into me just know

in the past, was their defination of "kill" and "murder" the same as our of now? or slightly different, which could throw some things off a little

just a thought, I don't know how accurate it is though, so someone please correct or something for me please

Hum... Well that would be my first warning than.

Back to the responses, you all are very well informed on this issue it would seem. This thing about kill or murder was new to me up until 11:00 am on Sept. 14.

My professor said that there were the few exeptions to killing another man (this man is used as man kind) can kill in self defense but listen to this.

In Exodus 22:1 rules that if a thief tunnels into a persons house at night it can be assumed that he is prepared to kill the householder; therefore, if the householder kills the intruder, 'there is no bloodguilt in his case'
In the other hand, if the householder has good reason to believe that the theif doesn't represent a mortal threat, he is forbidden to kill him; see Exodus 22:2. (Biblical Literacy, Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, 161 pg.433-434)

There are actually some others that are not meirly excepted but expected of them to do. Vengence, among others, but that doesn't mean that Christians can do this, why because of Jesus Christ. Jesus said that vengence was his, and we are to show grace & mercy. Which is really cool. That sort of gives you a slight feel of why Isreal keeps striking back at the terrorists, and eye for an eye.

unlike most languages, Hebrew changes little.

There is a completely different word for murder in Hebrew so a mistranslation is highly unlikely, to SmartyPants.

I believe it means to murder. War is not murder. War is killing. War should never exist, but you can not have peace without war. In the Bible, many battles were fought and many men were killed. They were not murdered. The bible speaks out against murder, the unlawful taking of someone's life. The bible also says an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Execution of a murderer is not a murder either.

The NIV (which is what I use for most things) uses the word "murder" instead of "kill." The KJV uses the word "kill."

I agree that there is an important difference between killing and murder. One is unjustified in all cases, while the other is justifiable under certain circumstances.

There are some people that believe that in order to be consistent, a person who opposes abortion must also oppose the death penalty. This position is a good example of one that relies upon a false equation of killing and murder for support.

There are lots of people who support abortion and abhor the death penalty...I'd like to see them being held accountable for their gross inconsistency. Yet by their logic it's totally "cruel" to save innocent life and also punish the guilty. Anyway, that's getting off topic. What can we expect from the world today besides a totally warped moral (and logical >_>) compass?

Motives and the emotion behind an act of killing can sometimes define it as murder, and the Bible gives a good amount of examples on the topic. That is also why our justice system has varying degrees of murder (first degree, second, etc.) that take into account the person's mental state, the reasons behind the killing, whether it was premeditated or not, and if the person was unable to control their emotions.

For example, a serial killer who's been plotting the sadistic demise of random victims for months would get a pretty heavy sentence. A woman who ran over her husband when she caught him cheating would be given more leniency because she was totally distressed at the time, probably couldn't control her emotions, and thus her judgement was impaired. She didn't set out to kill anybody, it was just a serious mistake made in the heat of an extremely stressful moment.

This is very, very close to denominational lines. In this I may step over a line, but I do not believe as a Christian I can do any less. I pray that it will be respectful.

I completely agree with the definitions of war and murder, but I must wonder why we are so fixated on the Old Testament law. Presuming that you all have taken a Christocentric hermaneutic of scripture, we should look first to Christ, and His teachings on the subject.

PumpkinKoRn52 wrote:War should never exist, but you can not have peace without war.

I disagree. As examples I would point out that Canada and India both attained independance nonviolently. Furthermore, to say that peace requires war is essentially to say that God cannot work in this world, and that somehow we are required to do things for him.

PumpkinKoRn52 wrote:The bible also says an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Execution of a murderer is not a murder either.

Of course, Jesus says: "You have heard it was said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I tell you..." (many references, Matthew 5:38+ for one). I'm not going to start an argument about your second sentence (as quoted by me) but I did want to point this out.

I agree with UC's general stance on the subject. Mercy and forgiveness can only help more people towards salvation, so I think Christians have a reasonable duty towards nonviolence. Especially on a personal level.

Still, that doesn't mean being such an ultrapacifist that you fail to take any action against blatant unrighteousness. Sometimes the use of force will cause much less harm than idly hoping that reason and morality will always triumph over human nature.

Unfortunate, yes.

PumpkinKoRn52 wrote:I believe it means to murder. War is not murder. War is killing. War should never exist, but you can not have peace without war.

No, we do not need war to have peace (that sounds almost Orwellian in its formulation). At times there may be no other option, but that is usually because it has been left too late to anything else. The old Roman dictum 'if you want peace prepare for war' should not be heeded. More likely that it will breed mistrust and fear. Peace must be sought not through arms, but through communication, understanding, and justice.

The bible speaks out against murder, the unlawful taking of someone's life. The bible also says an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Execution of a murderer is not a murder either.

'Vengence is mine, sayeth the Lord'. As has been pointed out, we do not live in Old Testament times, and have since received rather different instructions regarding our enemies. In any event, dangerous or lawless individuals are readily restrained these days without recourse to captial punishment.

There are lots of people who support abortion and abhor the death penalty...I'd like to see them being held accountable for their gross inconsistency. Yet by their logic it's totally "cruel" to save innocent life and also punish the guilty.

If you consider this it isn't really that illogical for those who are proponents of the murder of infants to be against punishing murderers... just had to throw in my two cents...

In the new testament Jesus boils the whole law into two phrases 1) love God 2) love people ... it's hard to justify killing someone in cold blood as a loving action toward anybody, but in the case of defence of others there is an element of love for the potential victim in killing possibly at the risk of losing one's own life.

I agree completely, WhiteKnight. Hebrew doesn't change much. Also, the Old Testament also supports the death penalty for criminals, though I can't remember the specific verse (d'oh). There were stipulations however, like it was only for certain offenses (like murder) and there had to be at least three eyewitnesses to be able to sentence a man to death.

By the way, in my bible, it also says "murder" instead of "kill."

Finally, remember what Jesus said.

"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgement.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subjected to judgement. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." - Matthew 5:21-22

So it would seem to me that the motive in your heart would distinguish between murdering and killing.

I hold a traditionalist view of No. 6 (it's murder, not killing). This is logical. How can God make a mitzvah forbidding killing and simultaneously make mitzvot requiring killing?

Kat Walker wrote:There are lots of people who support abortion and abhor the death penalty...I'd like to see them being held accountable for their gross inconsistency. Yet by their logic it's totally "cruel" to save innocent life and also punish the guilty.

Since I am delirious right now, I thought you said "support the death penalty and abhor abortion." Well what I just said right now is also my stance. And you're right, that is pretty inconsistent.

tech wrote:'Vengence is mine, sayeth the Lord'. As has been pointed out, we do not live in Old Testament times,

Then why bother quoting it?

techy wrote: and have since received rather different instructions regarding our enemies. In any event, dangerous or lawless individuals are readily restrained these days without recourse to captial punishment.

While the NT does mention "loving the enemy," it also tells us that the we must pray for the government, for they deliver a swift sword to those who do evil.
I am for the death penalty as a deterrent--not deterring others from committing crimes (for likely crime will always be with us), but deterring the criminal in question from committing crimes again. There have been criminals released on good behavior who commit even worse crimes upon release, but 100% of all executed criminals never commit crimes again. I know that some executed people are innocent, and I don't worry for their sake--because I know Heaven is their destiny.

techboy wrote:No, we do not need war to have peace (that sounds almost Orwellian in its formulation).

I don't want to be a semantics Nazi, but I believe he meant there would be no differentiation between peace and war if there were no war. If war never existed, would we know what peace is? It wasn't 1984 doublespeak (peace=war). War is never peace; that is stupid. But war can achieve peace, just as working can achieve leisure.

There is definitely a difference between murdering and killing, but I think the difference isn’t very significant in the case of the ten commandments. The old testament law can be boiled down into two phrases: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind,â€

I found doublespeak partially amusing, partially disturbing.

Ingemar wrote:I am for the death penalty as a deterrent--not deterring others from committing crimes (for likely crime will always be with us), but deterring the criminal in question from committing crimes again. There have been criminals released on good behavior who commit even worse crimes upon release, but 100% of all executed criminals never commit crimes again. I know that some executed people are innocent, and I don't worry for their sake--because I know Heaven is their destiny.

On the other hand, criminals who are not innocent (in God's eyes, we'll say for the moment) will go directly to Hell. I would actually more interested in deterring that than deterring crimes. What are criminals with guns going to do to me, send me to heaven?

uc pseudonym wrote:On the other hand, criminals who are not innocent (in God's eyes, we'll say for the moment) will go directly to Hell. I would actually more interested in deterring that than deterring crimes. What are criminals with guns going to do to me, send me to heaven?

That's true, and a big reason why I have no intention of ever using lethal force to defend myself, although I would consider using it to defend others.

I feel sorry for the families of those poor people who are executed even though they are innocent. Even if the executed one gets to go to Heaven, the family has to put up with the stigma of their death for the rest of their natural lives.

I was watching........... I believe it was 60 Minutes a month or a so ago, and they where talking about the death penalty. Anywho, there was a college in Chicago who's law class does a yearly research project on a case, trying to piece all the information together and to see if they come to the same conclusion as the police force. So far, that college has been able to save 4-5 people literally from death row by proving to a judge that the police force made a mistake during the investigation.

As far as capital punishment is concerned, there is much to be desired with the justice system. That alone should have us rethinking the entire process.

On the other hand, criminals who are not innocent (in God's eyes, we'll say for the moment) will go directly to Hell. I would actually more interested in deterring that than deterring crimes.

Very good point.

To Lehn, your right the police force is not perfect. They make many mistakes. Many the officers will NEVER live down. Some officers commit sucide, some quit because their person they know is guilty gets off because the officer messed up while documenting it. DO you realize how much it hurts some of the people officers. My dads a cop and he had this happen to him. He came home ready to quit. He is a Christain and wanted to be the person to help society.
So another kid is on the street stealing drinking and recking havoc in his life and society's but he has to be caught doing it.

Sorry had a soap box, but ya I agree the law is messed up and imperfect, but hey like UC PSEUDONYM said what are criminals just going to send us to hevan, but reverse it, what is the justice system just going to send them... well to hell or heaven?

uc pseudonym wrote:I found doublespeak partially amusing, partially disturbing.

Spam is productivity, banning is registering, MillyFan is decent.

uc wrote:On the other hand, criminals who are not innocent (in God's eyes, we'll say for the moment) will go directly to Hell. I would actually more interested in deterring that than deterring crimes. What are criminals with guns going to do to me, send me to heaven?

That's good too, but that will never go over in any secularized court. "Your Honor, I appeal on behalf of my client that you commute his sentence so that he may escape the fires of hell." People (well, the elites anyway, who, I am told, are the voice of the people) are suspicious of religions in general (and Christianity in particular) and such a thing would hardly click. Plus, you can never be exactly sure who is sincere and who isn't. It takes FAITH. Faith which, unfortunately, can be abused. On top of that, what if the criminal rejects the gospel? Or only says what is necessary to avoid punishment? Or make a flimsy, emotion-based conversion?

In Mere Christianity, Lewis said that a murderer who repents and is sincere should turn himself into the authorities to be hanged, because if he was truly sincere, death and tribulation should be nothing compared to the unending bliss of Paradise. Now how about that? If Western society weren't so lenient, would any of us do that? Do we believe in the Gospel enough to die to ourselves and for our wrongs, like the thief by Jesus' side, let alone to die doing what is right?

Ingemar wrote:That's good too, but that will never go over in any secularized court. "Your Honor, I appeal on behalf of my client that you commute his sentence so that he may escape the fires of hell." People (well, the elites anyway, who, I am told, are the voice of the people) are suspicious of religions in general (and Christianity in particular) and such a thing would hardly click.

Nor would I try it in a secular court, for the reasons you listed. I'm not that naive (not that you suggested I was).

Ingemar wrote:Plus, you can never be exactly sure who is sincere and who isn't. It takes FAITH. Faith which, unfortunately, can be abused. On top of that, what if the criminal rejects the gospel? Or only says what is necessary to avoid punishment? Or make a flimsy, emotion-based conversion?

God will be the judge of their conversation. But even if they rejected the gospel (which most criminals would) I wouldn't write them off immediately. Twenty years in a prison can give you a lot to think about. Also, I think that life inprisonment has a reasonable deterrant rate, though not as final as that of the death penalty.

Ingemar wrote:In Mere Christianity, Lewis said that a murderer who repents and is sincere should turn himself into the authorities to be hanged, because if he was truly sincere, death and tribulation should be nothing compared to the unending bliss of Paradise. Now how about that? If Western society weren't so lenient, would any of us do that? Do we believe in the Gospel enough to die to ourselves and for our wrongs, like the thief by Jesus' side, let alone to die doing what is right?

Alternately, Jesus died for our wrongs so that we do not have to die for them. Though we may deserve to die, God could yet have a use on this earth for even the most corrupt of death row inmates.

Lee Strobal in The Case for Christ tells a story of a man who committed a murder and successfully fled the country. Years later, he converted and decided that he needed to make his past right. He turned himself in, but the change in his life was so evident that the judge let him go free. Now he's working with Habitat for Humanity.

Not that every criminal will get out of jail like that, but to demonstrate that it has happened, and that redemption can touch even the federal justice system.

I am for the death penalty as a deterrent--not deterring others from committing crimes (for likely crime will always be with us), but deterring the criminal in question from committing crimes again. There have been criminals released on good behavior who commit even worse crimes upon release, but 100% of all executed criminals never commit crimes again.

A great many released criminals don't commit crimes in society, nor do criminals who are never released.

War is never peace; that is stupid. But war can achieve peace, just as working can achieve leisure.

War may be necessary to defend oneself, or to be in a position to seek a meaningful peace, but it does not really establish peace- what happens after the fighting is over does.

I believe whole-heartedly the Roman phrase "sic vis pacem, para bellum" (If you want peace, prepare for war). Without going too off-topic, let me just say that crossing one's national fingers and abandoning military preparations is not just reckless, but downright dangerous. I am willing to continue this discussion via PM or another thread.

Back on topic, what ever happened to 'deserving it'? C.S. Lewis wrote an excellent essay about this in his compilation God in the Dock. Do we punish criminals with the death penalty because we think it deters crime (which it doesn't; there are countless studies on this) or because they did something that demands death? You can say what you will about the 'humaneness' of the death penalty, but the fact is God's Word gives the government the right to execute criminals in both the Old and New Testaments. The real 'death penalty' question is not 'How does the death penalty compare to other punishments' or 'How many are wrongly put to death', but rather 'What crimes are so horrible that they demand death?' One may answer, 'None,' but are you sure about that?

WhiteKnight23 wrote:unlike most languages, Hebrew changes little.

There is a completely different word for murder in Hebrew so a mistranslation is highly unlikely, to SmartyPants.

nonono, i mean that their term for murder is different back then, then now