Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2020 9:30:06 GMT
It is the overwhelming Christian understanding, "not kill". Very relevant. Not really. You originally implied that evangelicals were being disingenuous by moving the goalposts of thou shalt not kill to murder for convenience sake. I already clarified to you that murder is far closer to the original Hebrew meaning and context. So Evangelicals are right, and you’re wrong. No, they just want to excuse killing they like. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 27, 2020 11:30:23 GMT
It is the overwhelming Christian understanding, "not kill". Very relevant. Not really. You originally implied that evangelicals were being disingenuous by moving the goalposts of thou shalt not kill to murder for convenience sake. I already clarified to you that murder is far closer to the original Hebrew meaning and context. So Evangelicals are right, and you’re wrong. If that is the case then one cannot argue against abortion, say, on the basis of the Commandment since, where it is lawful, it would be a form of legalised killing. (And the bible tells its adherents to submit to authority.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2020 11:38:01 GMT
Not really. You originally implied that evangelicals were being disingenuous by moving the goalposts of thou shalt not kill to murder for convenience sake. I already clarified to you that murder is far closer to the original Hebrew meaning and context. So Evangelicals are right, and you’re wrong. If that is the case then one cannot argue against abortion, say, on the basis of the Commandment since, where it is lawful, it would be a form of legalised killing. (And the bible tells its adherents to submit to authority.) That would be lawful killing, not murder 👍 And lawful killing is apparently ok for fundos. Hang around a bit, an evangelical will come along to add a new spin between killing and murder to tie themselfs further in self-contradictory knots. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 27, 2020 12:09:25 GMT
'Christians' mould the ten commandments and anything else they want in the Bible to suit their own wishes. EG... Evangelicals now trying to reconfigure "Thou shalt not kill" to "Thou shalt not murder"... Because it gives them wriggle room to justify killings they approve of. There has always been a difference between the terms "kill" and "murder". Evangelicals did not invent that. For example, when soldiers went to war it was never said they were murderers. And most Jews and Christians have never been pacifists who believed killing was never justified. There might well have been a difference, but it has never been clear where to draw the line, and there has been and will continue to be vociferous contention where to draw the line no matter which word is used. A thorny problem with using the word "murder" is that it depends on the state for definition.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on May 27, 2020 13:11:02 GMT
Not really. You originally implied that evangelicals were being disingenuous by moving the goalposts of thou shalt not kill to murder for convenience sake. I already clarified to you that murder is far closer to the original Hebrew meaning and context. So Evangelicals are right, and you’re wrong. No, they just want to excuse killing they like. No, you just want an excuse to be a dick.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2020 13:11:51 GMT
No, they just want to excuse killing they like. No, you just want an excuse to be a dick. No, I was right first time. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on May 27, 2020 13:34:33 GMT
Not really. You originally implied that evangelicals were being disingenuous by moving the goalposts of thou shalt not kill to murder for convenience sake. I already clarified to you that murder is far closer to the original Hebrew meaning and context. So Evangelicals are right, and you’re wrong. If that is the case then one cannot argue against abortion, say, on the basis of the Commandment since, where it is lawful, it would be a form of legalised killing. (And the bible tells its adherents to submit to authority.) The problem with that is the word used for murder in the original Hebrew literally means “the intentional, premeditated killing of another person with malice” Abortion should be treated as murder because it is morally wrong to kill another human being for personal reasons. It is even more morally wrong to kill a human being for personal reasons if that human being is 1) innocent 2) defenceless 3) has more to lose 4) the killing is premeditated and 5) the killing is enabled by someone who is under a special duty to protect the victim.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 27, 2020 13:46:29 GMT
If that is the case then one cannot argue against abortion, say, on the basis of the Commandment since, where it is lawful, it would be a form of legalised killing. (And the bible tells its adherents to submit to authority.) The problem with that is the word used for murder in the original Hebrew literally means “the intentional, premeditated killing of another person with malice” Abortion should be treated as murder because it is morally wrong to kill another human being for personal reasons. It is even more morally wrong to kill a human being for personal reasons if that human being is 1) innocent 2) defenceless 3) has more to lose 4) the killing is premeditated and 5) the killing is enabled by someone who is under a special duty to protect the victim. Never the less the point remains that if murder is illegal killing then where legal, abortion is not murder. It is also not the case that abortion is done with malice, since in legal terms at least this is defined as wrongful intention, especially as increasing the guilt of certain offences. (And do most mothers feel typically feel malicious towards their unborn child? In the cases I have know the feeling is of huge regret) A legal act cannot be something legal and legally wrongful at the same time. All the other moral objections you state just appear to a matter of interpretation and opinion, not strictly matters of what constitutes something lawful - which is what is being discussed here. There are plenty of other things which may be immoral to some but which are also perfectly legal: divorce, (about which your Jesus had very set ideas) or money lending for instance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2020 13:59:36 GMT
If that is the case then one cannot argue against abortion, say, on the basis of the Commandment since, where it is lawful, it would be a form of legalised killing. (And the bible tells its adherents to submit to authority.) The problem with that is the word used for murder in the original Hebrew literally means “the intentional, premeditated killing of another person with malice” Abortion should be treated as murder because it is morally wrong to kill another human being for personal reasons. It is even more morally wrong to kill a human being for personal reasons if that human being is 1) innocent 2) defenceless 3) has more to lose 4) the killing is premeditated and 5) the killing is enabled by someone who is under a special duty to protect the victim. So you want your definition of law and murder to be that of a thousands of years old bronze age middle eastern pre-christian society, rather than actual laws we use in our society today? Good lord, what a fuck up that would be. PS... I don't think abortion was legally murder back then even. So if it's "Thou shalt not murder", abortion is fine, as it's not murder then or now. If it's "Thou shalt not kill", then at least you would have a case against abortion. You can't have it both ways. So which is it... kill, or murder? |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on May 27, 2020 14:21:04 GMT
The problem with that is the word used for murder in the original Hebrew literally means “the intentional, premeditated killing of another person with malice” Abortion should be treated as murder because it is morally wrong to kill another human being for personal reasons. It is even more morally wrong to kill a human being for personal reasons if that human being is 1) innocent 2) defenceless 3) has more to lose 4) the killing is premeditated and 5) the killing is enabled by someone who is under a special duty to protect the victim. Never the less the point remains that if murder is illegal killing then where legal, abortion is not murder. It is also not the case that abortion is done with malice, since in legal terms at least this is defined as wrongful intention, especially as increasing the guilt of certain offences. (And do most mothers feel typically feel malicious towards their unborn child? In the cases I have know the feeling is of huge regret) A legal act cannot be something legal and legally wrongful at the same time. All the other moral objections you state just appear to a matter of interpretation and opinion, not strictly matters of what constitutes something lawful - which is what is being discussed here. There are plenty of other things which may be immoral to some but which are also perfectly legal: divorce, (about which your Jesus had very set ideas) or money lending for instance. As I have already pointed out, the biblical definition of the word murder is “the intentional, premeditated killing of another person with malice”. It includes nothing about legality. And as I’ve also pointed out to you in the past. Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s morally justified or automatically acceptable. It was legal to own slaves in 17th century America. It was legal to gas Jews in nazi Germany. .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2020 14:27:25 GMT
Never the less the point remains that if murder is illegal killing then where legal, abortion is not murder. It is also not the case that abortion is done with malice, since in legal terms at least this is defined as wrongful intention, especially as increasing the guilt of certain offences. (And do most mothers feel typically feel malicious towards their unborn child? In the cases I have know the feeling is of huge regret) A legal act cannot be something legal and legally wrongful at the same time. All the other moral objections you state just appear to a matter of interpretation and opinion, not strictly matters of what constitutes something lawful - which is what is being discussed here. There are plenty of other things which may be immoral to some but which are also perfectly legal: divorce, (about which your Jesus had very set ideas) or money lending for instance. As I have already pointed out, the biblical definition of the word murder is “the intentional, premeditated killing of another person with malice”. It includes nothing about legality. Where in the Bible is that quote defining murder exactly? Cos I'm guessing there is no actual definition of murder in the Bible, it's just a definition you like. Murder simply means illegal killing. It did then and it does now. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 27, 2020 14:36:54 GMT
As I have already pointed out, the biblical definition of the word murder is “the intentional, premeditated killing of another person with malice”. It includes nothing about legality. And as I’ve also pointed out to you in the past. Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s morally justified or automatically acceptable. It was legal to own slaves in 17th century America. It was legal to gas Jews in nazi Germany. . That what is morally acceptable is always a moveable feast is something then we can both agree on, which is one reason why the burning of witches, or the compulsory attendance at church under pain of prosecution, say, are today frowned upon. That being so it is a slippery slope to rest consistent condemnation on. The Bible is full of examples of apparently justified killing, one remembers - including that of innocent and defenceless children, ordered by your God in premeditated fashion. In fact a jealous god can been seen as a malicious one when angry. So the nice distinctions you raise in regards to legalised termination might be best taken up with the evangelicals you referenced earlier, when you were suggesting they define killing precisely. But now, citing Godwin's Law, I will bow out of this discussion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 27, 2020 14:46:09 GMT
As I have already pointed out, the biblical definition of the word murder is “the intentional, premeditated killing of another person with malice”. It includes nothing about legality. And as I’ve also pointed out to you in the past. Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s morally justified or automatically acceptable. It was legal to own slaves in 17th century America. It was legal to gas Jews in nazi Germany. . That what is morally acceptable is always a moveable feast is something then we can both agree on, which is one reason why the burning of witches, or the compulsory attendance at church under pain of prosecution, say, are today frowned upon. That being so it is a slippery slope to rest consistent condemnation on. The Bible, let us note is full of examples of apparently justified killing, one remembers - including that of innocent and defenceless children, ordered by your God in premeditated fashion. In fact a jealous god can been seen as a malicious one when angry. So the nice distinctions you raise in regards to legalised termination might be best taken up with the evangelicals you referenced earlier, when you were agreeing they define killing so precisely. But now, citing Godwin's Law, I will bow out of this discussion. I'm claiming Godwin too 😅 that's me out. |
|
|
|
Post by clusium on May 27, 2020 17:40:04 GMT
Why do Christian denominations disagree about the 10 commandments and put them in different order?  The disagreement between the different Christian denominations regarding the 10 Commandments does not hold a candle to the Samaritan version of the 10 Commandments compared to mainline Judaism. The Samaritan 10 Commandments
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on May 27, 2020 17:57:11 GMT
No, it has nothing to do with the Sabbath. And no, Jehovah's Witnesses accept the First Commandment and are definitely Christian. The concept of the Trinity was invented in Rome and appears nowhere in the Bible. The Trinity is definitely not in the Ten Commandments. My point was that Seventh-Day Adventists believe that the Jewish Sabbath must be observed on Saturday, and thus you could say that hence there is disagreement within Christian groups on that commandment. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. - Exodus 20:8 Is one of the ten commandments. I did not say that Jehova's Witnesses didn't accept the first commandment. I said that they would argue believing in Jesus as divine is breaking the first commandment. Most Christian denominations don't consider the JW as Christians, and I think that has to do with more than just dismissing the Trinity (they believe that Jesus is Michael the Archangel and that Jesus is in fact dead), but the JW consider them Babylon the Great anyway, so the question is if they care much. Well, Jews observe the Sabbath on Saturday as well. The sabbath commandment is general, it doesn't specify the day of the week on which it is observed. And Jews and Muslims and Oneness Pentecostals would say 99% of Christians break the First Commandment anyway. They believe the Trinity is a polytheistic concept.
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on May 27, 2020 17:58:54 GMT
No, it has nothing to do with the Sabbath. And no, Jehovah's Witnesses accept the First Commandment and are definitely Christian. The concept of the Trinity was invented in Rome and appears nowhere in the Bible. The Trinity is definitely not in the Ten Commandments. Virtually every sentence you just typed is factually inaccurate. Prove it.
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on May 27, 2020 18:02:06 GMT
I posted some of the real reasons above.  “Real Reasons”  Toasted One, you claimed the numbers are arbitrary. I explained how throughout history different denominations have changed the numbers for various theological reasons. It was not arbitrary. And it probably involved some bullshit Councils which took years to make a decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on May 27, 2020 18:08:57 GMT
There has always been a difference between the terms "kill" and "murder". Evangelicals did not invent that. For example, when soldiers went to war it was never said they were murderers. And most Jews and Christians have never been pacifists who believed killing was never justified. There might well have been a difference, but it has never been clear where to draw the line, and there has been and will continue to be vociferous contention where to draw the line no matter which word is used. A thorny problem with using the word "murder" is that it depends on the state for definition. I would call abortion murder. But I still believe it must be legal because it's an issue of individual rights, bodily integrity, and the umbilical chord.
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on May 27, 2020 18:10:46 GMT
My point was that Seventh-Day Adventists believe that the Jewish Sabbath must be observed on Saturday, and thus you could say that hence there is disagreement within Christian groups on that commandment. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. - Exodus 20:8 Is one of the ten commandments. I did not say that Jehova's Witnesses didn't accept the first commandment. I said that they would argue believing in Jesus as divine is breaking the first commandment. Most Christian denominations don't consider the JW as Christians, and I think that has to do with more than just dismissing the Trinity (they believe that Jesus is Michael the Archangel and that Jesus is in fact dead), but the JW consider them Babylon the Great anyway, so the question is if they care much. Well, Jews observe the Sabbath on Saturday as well. The sabbath commandment is general, it doesn't specify the day of the week on which it is observed. And Jews and Muslims and Oneness Pentecostals would say 99% of Christians break the First Commandment anyway. They believe the Trinity is a polytheistic concept. The thing is, regarding Oneness Pentecostals, is that they still believe that God Is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They just do not believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are 3 Persons within the Godhead.
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on May 27, 2020 18:32:13 GMT
Well, Jews observe the Sabbath on Saturday as well. The sabbath commandment is general, it doesn't specify the day of the week on which it is observed. And Jews and Muslims and Oneness Pentecostals would say 99% of Christians break the First Commandment anyway. They believe the Trinity is a polytheistic concept. The thing is, regarding Oneness Pentecostals, is that they still believe that God Is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They just do not believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are 3 Persons within the Godhead. I'm non-Trinitarian. I believe it's hogwash. They're clearly three distinct and separate entities unless Christ was a megalomaniac who prayed to himself. "I'm my own father!", gimme a break. What was Rome thinking? It was just a bad attempt to squeeze the New Testament into Jewish monotheism. I respect the Oneness groups more than I do the Trinitarians though. They're not contortionists. But they still have Christ praying to himself.
|
|
