Thou Shalt Not Kill.

Author: Stephen ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 95
  • Topic's author
    Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,306
    2
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    Added
    Exodus 20:13
     "Thou shalt not kill".says God.
     
    This didn't stop god murdering his faithful servant Ezekiel's wife for absolutely no reason other than to show who is boss. Ezekiel 24:15-24. and on top of it all, Ezekiel wasn't even allowed to mourn or weep for the loss of his great love.
     
    These murders of  innocent people committed by this psychopathic,megalomaniac jealous god of war don't stop there either. No. There is the sanctioning  by god of  the slaughter all of Jobs children for no other reason  than to prove a point. Job 1:13-22. Job recognized by god as his most loyal and faithful servant. 
     
     And there is Jeroboam's son. Again no reason given for these murders only god was proving something. This child was killed to punish Jeroboam, to save him from a massacre God was planning for the rest of Jeroboam's family. Kings 14:10-18
     
    There is the killing by god of Bathsheba's baby boy. No reason.
    Uzzah. for saving gods  sacred arc from tipping over.
    Thousands of of Israelites for no other reason than because they didn't like the bread. And on and on and on it goes. There is no respite from gods wrath and the murder of innocents.
     
     
     
     
    The questions that are raised by just these few horrific examples of murders of innocents by the adopted god of the Chrsitians are endless, but one shouldn't expect any fawning, led- by- the- nose- Christian to address the barbarity of this god who will murder for no reason and at the drop of a hat.
     
     

  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 4,457
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    Added
    --> @Stephen
    Sooooo, is your problem that God kills, or that He didn't submit a reason to you explaining why He killed?

    I mean, if He had given you a reason, would you be OK with His killing? If not, then why even mention at all that no reason was given?

    The OP is like when you read a rant by a 15 year old against the "outrage" of his parents grounding him for having sex when his parents have sex too.

    There is nothing to do except just wait for the lad to get older and become less immature.
  • Melcharaz
    Melcharaz avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 426
    1
    4
    8
    Melcharaz avatar
    Melcharaz
    Added

  • rosends
    rosends avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 204
    0
    1
    6
    rosends avatar
    rosends
    Added
    --> @Melcharaz
    The particulars as they apply to the word with the r-tz-ch root (vs the h-r-g root) are very complex. The general notion that r-tz-ch is an extra judicial killing while h-r-g is (a type of) judicial or approved killing is only true MOST of the time.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 2,354
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    Added
    --> @ethang5 @Stephen
    It's somewhat naïve to assume that an actual god would be a particular one that you prefer to refer to.

    As it is not proven that there is an actual god

    Or if it was proven.... which particular one it was

    Or perhaps it would be a completely different one altogether.

    It is therefore impossible to say what regard an actual god would have in respect of killing.

    All that we are certain of is that there are a variety of ways and means that bring about the demise of the organic mass (Human)

    My suggestion is that a god would probably look at the state of the world and probably not give a toss, especially when you consider expected birth and death rates globally. (A god would be global not regional)

    As far as we are currently able to know, murder is a human thing that only bothers humans.


  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 4,457
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    Added
    --> @zedvictor4
    Whether either of us believes in God is immaterial. We want to discuss whether such killings would be moral or not in the context of Christianity.

    No one needs to be a believer for us to be able to do so. We don't care that you don't believe in God. Please stop degrading every discussion with the same obsessive stupidity about God not existing.

    At the very least, make your own thread. But we can discuss ANY subject, theoretical or actual. We don't need you always knee-jerking to a "does god exist?" argument every time someone wants to discuss religion on the religion board.

    You've told us what you believe several times. Thanks, but no one cares. We want to discuss other things than just your obsession. God need not be actual for a theoretical discussion to take place. But your mind should be able to deal with intellectual discussions other than just the tired, "god doesn't exist" clunker.

    So, start your own God doesn't exist thread, but if you don't, and enter the thread of another, contribute to the discussion instead of simply insisting in every thread of every topic, that God doesn't exist.

    On topic or gtfo.
  • Topic's author
    Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,306
    2
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    Added
    --> @zedvictor4

    It's somewhat naïve to assume that an actual god would be a particular one that you prefer to refer to.

    I refer to the god spoken of in the biblical text that is believed by millions to exist. 


    My personal belief is that many of these so called gods existed here once millennia ago, but have since returned from where they came. .  Interesting that you mention plural gods though which is something that the bible refers to often without any excuses for "mistranslation" yet , our fawning backward thinking sycophants will insist that there is only "one god". The ancients of such places as Mesopotamia who only ever referred to these beings as "lords" and NOT GODS,  make that fact clear as does the god of the Christians himself says that there were more than one god. But this is not the topic of this thread.

    The topic of this thread concerned the fact that this particular god of the scripture  - who is worshiped by millions of fawning backward thinking sycophants  is a megalomaniac psychopathic killer who it shows will simply murder because he is bored and has nothing better to do with his time.

    And as mentioned raises many embarrassing questions for said fawning backward thinking sycophantic Christians.

    Why would this all powerful god creator all things feel the need to prove himself  to anyone at all let alone to a creature he had condemned to spend the rest of his life on the ground  eating dust millennia before. As in the case of Job.

    And what was this creature -Satan-  doing just wondering around the earth having supposedly once been condemned to eat dust "all of his days" by this all powerful god creator all things.Genesis 3:14.  When asked where he had been and where had he just come from he replied:


    "From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it".Job 1;7  "WALKING"!?



  • Topic's author
    Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,306
    2
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    Added
    --> @rosends
    The particulars as they apply to the word with the r-tz-ch root (vs the h-r-g root) are very complex. The general notion that r-tz-ch is an extra judicial killing while h-r-g is (a type of) judicial or approved killing is only true MOST of the time.


    And are you now going to tell me that -  kill -  in the scripture means something entirely different to what all normal people believe the word kill to mean, i.e. to cause the death of. 
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 4,457
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    Added
    --> @Stephen
    No, Rosends is telling you that "killing" can have more than one meaning, as when a police officer does it to save a baby, and when a rapist does it to gain access to a woman's body.

    You believe words can only have your meaning when they are in the bible. But no one else has to abide by such silliness.

    Your belief that God is immoral is just your biased opinion, nothing else. And it's based on nothing but your irrational bias.
  • RoderickSpode
    RoderickSpode avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 819
    2
    1
    2
    RoderickSpode avatar
    RoderickSpode
    Added
    --> @Stephen
    Of course you're giving us the usual Mel Brook's version of scripture we're left with having to clean up. Not that it would do any good.

    Concerning Ezekiel's wife, mourning was a ceremonial act in that day. A tradition. A public display that wasn't necessarily genuine in sentiment in that mourners were often hired. We get a glimpse of the shallowness the ceremony could produce in Matthew when Jesus raised Jairus' Daughter.

    “Why are you making a commotion and weeping? The child is not dead but sleeping.” 40 And they laughed at him.

    You left out the verse where God said "Groan quietly". A Freudian slip?

    Concerning Uzzah and the arc, would you kindly show us where it says the arc was tipping over.
  • Topic's author
    Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,306
    2
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    Added
    --> @RoderickSpode
    Concerning Uzzah and the arc, would you kindly show us where it says the arc was tipping over.

    Typical but not surprising. It is clear that Uzzah reached out to steady the arc because the oxen pulling it "had stumbled". Uzzah's concern for gods arc was obvious to everyone , except to fawning backward thinking sycophants such as Christians who will stoop and scrape for all kinds of reasons & excuses that justifies this willful and pointless killing of a innocent human being by this psychopathic tyrant . 

    Did Uzzas' heroic action deserve the death penalty.  This was a killing for no reason other than your megalomaniac psychopathic god  wanted to show that he was in charge.

    Maybe Uzza should have show kindness to the Ox and untethered the cart carrying the arc and let the poor beast go relieving him of his burden and let it run free. But then acts of kindness are alien to a psychopathic  "The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name."
    Exodus 15:3, KJV

    Interesting here that it is stated that "the lord" is "a man" and is addressed simply as "the lord", just like in the days of ancient Mesopotamia.



  • RoderickSpode
    RoderickSpode avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 819
    2
    1
    2
    RoderickSpode avatar
    RoderickSpode
    Added
    --> @Stephen
    First off, they weren't supposed to be carrying it on an ox cart to begin with. They were supposed to carry it on poles on the shoulders of men. And, although Uzzah was strong, he wasn't strong enough to prevent a 600 pound arc from falling over. Why do you think he was the only one to react to the ox stumbling? They didn't seem to think it needed steadying (which is a big jump from your claim to it tipping over).

    How would you know what Uzzah's real intentions were if this was fiction? Or, do you you think this event actually happened?


  • User_2006
    User_2006 avatar
    Debates: 47
    Forum posts: 518
    3
    3
    11
    User_2006 avatar
    User_2006
    Added
    Again, I am new. 

    If "Thou shall not kill" is enforced, then every murderer will get away because whoever executed them is deemed immoral. 
  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,207
    2
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    Added
    --> @User_2006
    If "Thou shall not kill" is enforced, then every murderer will get away because whoever executed them is deemed immoral. 

    Not if you include "eye for an eye" principle in the OT...



  • rosends
    rosends avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 204
    0
    1
    6
    rosends avatar
    rosends
    Added
    --> @Stephen
    Melcharaz brought in the Hebrew word used in the 10 Statements, which is a word with the root r-tz-ch. I believe his point was to negate the mistranslation in the OP, as the commandment is "thou shalt not kill" but instead, "thou shalt not murder." The r-tz-ch root is usually translated as "murder" as opposed to the root "h-r-g" which is a root used for a more generic "kill" (though it is also a technical root meaning "beheading with a sword as a form of capital punishment") and I'm sure you can recognize that in English, the word "kill" and the word "murder" carry very different meanings even though they both include causing the death of another. Thus, when other people are "killed" there is still a distinction to be made between those deaths and "murders" which are proscribed.

    I was simply pointing out that, textually, there are a couple of cases where a "r-tz-ch" word is used for someone/some act that is actually somewhat sanctioned under the law. If you need any other help understanding, please let me know.

  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 2,354
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    Added
    --> @Stephen
    Well as I stated.

    The Christian biblical god is hypothetical irrespective of belief.

    Therefore any standard that is applied is also hypothetical.

    All that we do is design and set human standards.

    So my personal conclusion is that a universal god would not be overly concerned about the problems of one evolved organism here on Earth....Such a small problem in the context of a seemingly infinite universe.

    It's a bit like us worrying about swatting flies.

  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 40
    Forum posts: 949
    3
    5
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    Added
    --> @Stephen
    for absolutely no reason 
    Sure, no reason is evident in just the verses you pick out. But selective argument is not valid. Read the context, my friend. Read that at this time, in the sixth century BCE. Israel is occupied by Babylon, and, rather than resist Babylonians, the Israelites pander to them, delight in their company, and are as wicked as the Babylonians, even Ezekiel's wife. No, there was reason, you just don't want to see it.

    Same situation and timing in Kigs, the 6th century BCE, and the same Babylonian occupation, and the same Israelite wickedness. Also the same reason you do not want to acknowledge.

    Same with Bathsheba's boy, 400 years earlier, same with Uzzah 400 years before that [ bydisobedience], and same with disobedient Israelites 400 years back again [at least try to make some chronological semblance to your arguments!]  No, there is no innocence in your entire mantra.

    You're like a schoolboy satisfied with your wiki search without searching deeper, and your Cliff Notes version of the Bible. How about just reading it, cover to cover. You seem amiable to accept your godless pundits without addressing any credibility, so, no wonder we have yet another skin-deep atheist. If that's your mantra, why not dig deeper into it. Skimming any surface gets you the same thing: skum.

  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 40
    Forum posts: 949
    3
    5
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    Added
    --> @zedvictor4
    murder is a human thing that only bothers humans.

    Murder is the shedding of innocent blood, not that the murder victim is sinless, but that the victim is inconsequential to the aims of the murderer, and is therefore dispatched as merely being in the way. It is that attitude that God deplores, and is the distinction between killing, as a soldier in war, or as, by the way, the dispatch by God at diverse times and places people who are continuously, and single-mindedly opposed to obedience to God.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 2,354
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    Added
    --> @fauxlaw
    Yes. 

    But that is based upon your assumption, that a god is real rather than a concept. It also implies that a universal god is only really concerned with human existence.

    My assumptions are based upon a hypothetical, universal god.

    Taking into consideration a god's universal responsibilities, rather than what would be just an inconsequential organic life form, languishing upon an inconsequential speck of rock, somewhere within the vastness of space.

  • Topic's author
    Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,306
    2
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    Added
    --> @RoderickSpode
    First off, [...........................].

    None of your apologetic clap trap can justify the willful killing of this loyal and faithful   human being whose only concern seemed to be saving the arc of god , that is -  gods arc - from falling from the cart that the ox that was pulling it had stumbled. Why couldn't the lazy vile clown of a god look after his own dangerous piece of weaponry instead of trusting it to the hands of mere mortals. 

     This murder can be no more justified BY YOU than the murder of all of  children of Job,  gods MOST faithful and loyal servant, where YOUR psychopathic   jealous god of war,  YES!!! YOUR GOD - murdered for  nothing more than a wager.

    These act of willful murder for absolute non reason or trivial reasons only proves your god loves no one  - not even his most faithful and trusted "servants". humans to this maniac are simply ten a penny, small and insignificant ,   no matter how loyal. 

    do you you think this event actually happened?

    Irreverent. The bible - believed by millions - tells the story of a man Uzzah that was murdered by god when this gods own command is "thou shalt not kill".

    Exodus 20:13 King James Version (KJV)
    13 Thou shalt not kill.

  • RoderickSpode
    RoderickSpode avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 819
    2
    1
    2
    RoderickSpode avatar
    RoderickSpode
    Added
    --> @Stephen
    Irreverent. The bible - believed by millions - tells the story of a man Uzzah that was murdered by god when this gods own command is "thou shalt not kill".

    Exodus 20:13 King James Version (KJV)
    13 Thou shalt not kill.


    It most definitely is relevant. If you think it's fiction, what gives you the idea you can speak for the author? Who are you to designate who the heroes and the villains are?

    People sometimes joke about Sherlock Holmes And Watson being gay. Silly of course, but at least it's tongue-in-cheek. The fact of the matter is though, they are not gay unless Arthur Conan Doyle says so.


    Your trying to use Exodus 20:13 to suggest a contradiction is absurd. We have laws against killing people as well. But if someone commits high treason, they're put to death. Since you're the one who started the thread, the burden of proof is on you. You haven't proven anything except your personal dislike for the God of the Bible. It's as irrelevant to me as someone disliking Trans Ams. I like them and couldn't care less who doesn't. Yeah, we get that you don't like the God of the Bible. So what? I don't watch the Batman franchise movies, but I hear tell that the Joker has become more popular a character than Batman. Sometimes that happens. But that doesn't change the author's or script writer's point of view.



    If you believe the incident happened, you'll have to prove the real person named Uzzah didn't see an excuse for bragging rights by touching the ark, using the stumbling of the donkey as an excuse, when the others apparently respected God's command. You'll even have to prove the ark needed
    steadying to avoid tipping over.

    If you think it's fiction, then you'll have to prove that the author's point of view is yours. And then you'll have to prove it's fiction.
  • Topic's author
    Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,306
    2
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    Added
    Your trying to use Exodus 20:13 to suggest a contradiction is absurd.

    Even when it is actually a clear contradiction of the gods own commandment.  You really are scrapping the barrel and clutching at straws here. For one to order "do not kill"  and then in the very next breath kills willfully,  is nothing short of insane double standards and the very height of hypocrisy.
    These act of willful murder for absolute non reason or trivial reasons only proves your god loves no one  - not even his most faithful and trusted "servants". humans to this maniac are simply ten a penny, small and insignificant ,   no matter how loyal. And your apologetic opinion of it being "absurd" is absurdity at its best.  It is as absurd as the murder of ALL of Jobs children for the fun of it.

    AND!!!

    You haven't addressed the point of why a god would even need to prove anything to anyone never mind to a lowly creature that he had already condemned to crawl around on its belly ` for the rest of its days` or why it was "walking to and fro on the earth and up and down".

     "From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it".Job 1;7  "WALKING"!?  It was supposed to have been condemned to "crawl on its belly and eat dust for ever" since almost the beginning of time.. Genesis 3:14




    We have laws against killing people as well.

    That is correct, WE do!  And and even those deemed to be judges of the law and those who make those  laws deeming murder to be a crime and unlawful to murder will be held to account if they themselves have committed murder. As many cases have proven in history. 
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 2,354
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    Added
    --> @RoderickSpode
    No one has as yet proven the whole flood, ark and Christian god thng.

    So believers and non-believers alike are always somewhat jumping the gun when attempting to interpret and contextualise, biblical mythology.

    I would suggest that we should all appreciate the hypothetical nature of such discussions.



  • Deb-8-a-bull
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 980
    2
    2
    3
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Deb-8-a-bull
    Added
    It's only illegal if you get caught. 

  • Topic's author
    Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,306
    2
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    Added
    --> @zedvictor4


    No one has as yet proven the whole flood, ark and Christian god thng [.........................]

    So believers and non-believers alike are always somewhat jumping the gun when attempting to interpret and contextualise, biblical mythology.

    Discussions of many so called "mythical" subjects and fantasies are discussed and studied all around the world in every school collage and university. Billions of Books have been written on these "mythical" beings and what is believed about them by different peoples past and present  and by theists and atheist alike.

    Shakespeare's  works are for ever boring pupils and students all around the world, they are not true, factual stories. But they are discussed and studied even in non speaking English countries.  



    Are you telling me that these mythical gods and their individual religions  should never be discussed at all, anywhere, ever? 

    It is my contention that these subjects should be discussed weather or not one believes "gods" existed or not. The point you are missing is that millions of people over millions of years have worshiped these beings in one form or another and millions simply do not believe as such but it doesn't stop them discussing these subjects.  Theists  write and speak as if they existed or still exist. It is up to the atheist then,  should he wish to , to challenge what it is that these sycophantic fawning theist actually believe in .

    If you wish to discuss  everything else but the topic of my thread, it would be decent and polite of you if you started your own thread. Rather than continue to repeat yourself over and over thereby clogging up my thread with your well known opinions on why no one should be discussing god or the bible..



    Incidentally. It may have actually  escaped your notice that while I agree that there is no real and factual evidence for the Christian god ever existing, the bible does indeed itself exist and,  there-for it  is up for discussion. As would be, and is, any book discussed in book clubs AND internet forums around the globe.   
     
    But it is my guess that you have never even considered this although here you are, discussing and opineing to what shouldn't be discussed.