Why is murder wrong?

[conon394]

What about an unhealthy individual that is just endlessly taking up resources? Would it be wrong to kill them?

For the Nazis no because well you know the evil part, and thus the rational for just who and when they would decide who was wasting resources...

More generally unless the state is providing all the care than the state as no right to decide. If people want to spent their resources on a loved one and can afford it or through combination of insurance or charity can sustain even a brain dead person that should be their right. Much spending by the wealthy is useless to society. You can have your eugenics when the state normalizes that as well. Theoretically than if somebody was truly brain dead and otherwise a charge of state and had no family to intercede and a fairly chosen panel of experts (with no financial interest) made the call that this was a case that the person was not going to recover from in any realistic scenario - then I would call it mercy to stop keeping them alive. I suspect that is a fantastically smaller number of people than Brak had in mind.

[basics]

conon394,

I almost agree with you!

[Swaeft]

Guys this is going off topic. Euthanasia should have a thread of its own. This is about murder.

What part of basics's post has no basis in the Bible?

Hmm...thou shalt not kill?

[Aexodus]

Guys this is going off topic. Euthanasia should have a thread of its own. This is about murder.

But then again, for a lot of people murder and euthanasia is the same. Personally I think people are entitled to do what they want with their own entity of self, including suicide if they judge it fit while in a sound sense of mind.

Hmm...thou shalt not kill?

My thoughts exactly (though that’s an Old Testament line so, ehhh)

[Prodromos]

Hmm...thou shalt not kill?

Where did he say that killing was morally right? He said any sin can be forgiven. "Murder in our time is wrong [but] like any other sin it can be righted by the blood of Christ." It makes no sense for a righteous person to be upset about a sinner's repentance. Why would you want anyone to go to Hell? Repentance and forgiveness is an elementary fact of Christianity, not exactly extra-biblical.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector

9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

14 “I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

7 When he noticed how the guests picked the places of honor at the table, he told them this parable: 8 “When someone invites you to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for a person more distinguished than you may have been invited. 9 If so, the host who invited both of you will come and say to you, ‘Give this person your seat.’ Then, humiliated, you will have to take the least important place. 10 But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all the other guests. 11 For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

The Parable of the Lost Sheep

15 Now the tax collectors and sinners were all gathering around to hear Jesus. 2 But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”

3 Then Jesus told them this parable: 4 “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? 5 And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders 6 and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep.’ 7 I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent.

The Parable of the Lost Coin

8 “Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins and loses one. Doesn’t she light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? 9 And when she finds it, she calls her friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost coin.’ 10 In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”

The Parable of the Lost Son

11 Jesus continued: “There was a man who had two sons. 12 The younger one said to his father, ‘Father, give me my share of the estate.’ So he divided his property between them.

13 “Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. 14 After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs. 16 He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.

17 “When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18 I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants.’ 20 So he got up and went to his father.

“But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.

21 “The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’

22 “But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. 24 For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate.

25 “Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. 27 ‘Your brother has come,’ he replied, ‘and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’

28 “The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29 But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’

31 “‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’”

[Swaeft]

But then again, for a lot of people murder and euthanasia is the same.

Woah, that's new for me. Where I'm from we don't even see that as 'close'. Murder is more of a vicious act of violence, whilst euthanasia is more of a medical solution to remove years of suffering.

My thoughts exactly (though that’s an Old Testament line so, ehhh)

I'm not a Christian, so I really don't know what that means. The only thing I know about the Bible is the stuff we were all taught as kindergarten kids. And if you don't mind me saying, I never really believed them. But it's okay, I don't intend to turn this into a religious debate

Where did he say that killing was morally right? He said any sin can be forgiven. "Murder in our time is wrong [but] like any other sin it can be righted by the blood of Christ." It makes no sense for a righteous person to be upset about a sinner's repentance. Why would you want anyone to go to Hell? Repentance and forgiveness is an elementary fact of Christianity, not exactly extra-biblical.

I never said he said that killing was morally right. Look, let's not take the many different views of religion into discussion here. Why would I want someone to go to Hell? Really? I think many mass murderers and serial killers belong there, along with a lot people who commit other heinous crimes. You are also overlooking the fact that not everyone repents.

It is also up to the victims (or in this case of murder, their families) to decide whether to forgive or not.

With that being said it seems you are missing a very crucial point: Repentance and forgiveness will never wash away the consequences and impact of the crime in the first place. You and basics are basically saying everything's all good as long as we repent and get forgiven. What? Once you kill somebody, he's dead. Deceased. No amount of repentance is going to bring the person back. I honestly don't know what you're trying to prove here.

[basics]

Swaeft,

Of course the consequences are dreadful especially for the victim's family yet if the victim happened to be born again he or she is immediately with God at death. That being the case it is an obligation if the family are saved as well, to forgive the killer just as Christ forgave them. That is what Prodomos was saying. If one is not saved then victim or killer, both are still subject to the Law and therefore will be judged by it. The victim has died in his or her sin but the killer still has an opportunity to be saved. Now that doesn't detract from the fact that murder is a sin.

[The spartan]

But then again, for a lot of people murder and euthanasia is the same.

That seems like thinking consensual sex and rape are the same.

[Aexodus]

That seems like thinking consensual sex and rape are the same.

Well I didn’t say it made sense

[Prodromos]

I never said he said that killing was morally right. Look, let's not take the many different views of religion into discussion here. Why would I want someone to go to Hell? Really? I think many mass murderers and serial killers belong there, along with a lot people who commit other heinous crimes. You are also overlooking the fact that not everyone repents.

It is also up to the victims (or in this case of murder, their families) to decide whether to forgive or not.

With that being said it seems you are missing a very crucial point: Repentance and forgiveness will never wash away the consequences and impact of the crime in the first place. You and basics are basically saying everything's all good as long as we repent and get forgiven. What? Once you kill somebody, he's dead. Deceased. No amount of repentance is going to bring the person back. I honestly don't know what you're trying to prove here.

I can see two problems here. To start, you believe you deserve to go to Heaven but not other people, who apparently shouldn't be forgiven for their sins. But this isn't true; in reality, you're as evil as anyone else, you're just blind to it. So, what if your standards were applied to you and your sins were never forgiven? Why should you go to Heaven but not the murderers? Does God owe you Heaven? Who's worshiping who here?

Second, it seems you view Hell as a sort of torture chamber that God throws people into, but this isn't really the Christian view. Hell is a state of mind and willful separation from God. God wants all people to be united with him, but he won't force them. The gates of Hell are locked from the inside; no one is in Hell except those that want to be in Hell. As C.S. Lewis put it,

“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’ All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.”

Someone who's genuinely repented of his sins (which is more difficult than you'd think), isn't actually in a state of separation from God anymore, thus he can't be in Hell. To wish for someone to go to Hell is to wish them to remain in evil, and this itself is evil (hate). So, who is more likely to go to Hell, to be in a state of separation from God: the one who was once living in sin but not anymore, or, the one who continues to live in sin by hating other people? Everyone should focus on keeping out of Hell instead of keeping others out of Heaven.

Some readings:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.

21 “But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die. 22 None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

24 “But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will die.

25 “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear, you Israelites: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust? 26 If a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin, they will die for it; because of the sin they have committed they will die. 27 But if a wicked person turns away from the wickedness they have committed and does what is just and right, they will save their life. 28 Because they consider all the offenses they have committed and turn away from them, that person will surely live; they will not die. 29 Yet the Israelites say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Are my ways unjust, people of Israel? Is it not your ways that are unjust?

30 “Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to your own ways, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. 31 Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, people of Israel? 32 For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!

THE LAST JUDGMENT

At the moment of death, the soul leaves the body and enters its new mode of existence. It does not lose its memory or its ability to think or to feel, but departs to the other world loaded with the burden of its life, with memories of its past and an accountability for its sins.

Christian teaching on the Last Judgment is based on the understanding that all sinful and evil deeds committed by the person leave certain traces on his soul, and that the person is to give an account for everything before that Absolute Good, with Which no evil or sin can coexist. The Kingdom of God is incompatible with sin: ‘...Nothing unclean will enter it, nor any one who practises abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life’ (Rev.21:27). Every evil for which repentance was not shown [...], every sin which was concealed, every defilement of the soul which was not purified, all of this will be revealed during the Last Judgment. In the words of Christ, ‘...There is nothing hid, except to be made manifest; nor is anything secret, except to come to light’ (Mark 4:22).

Jesus Christ’s Parable of the Last Judgment (Matt.25:31-46) indicates that for many people the Judgment will become a moment of insight, recognition and conversion, while for others it may turn out to be a great disappointment and frustration. Those who were sure of their own salvation will suddenly find themselves condemned, while those who perhaps did not meet Christ in their earthly life (‘when did we see Thee?’) but were merciful towards their neighbour, will be saved.

‘WHAT IS HELL?’

‘Fathers and teachers! I ask: What is Hell? I answer: Suffering on account of the impossibility to love any longer’. These are the words of Elder Zosima, Dostoyevsky’s celebrated monk in The Brothers Karamazov.

Why Hell? many people ask. Why does God condemn people to eternal damnation? How can the image of God the Judge be reconciled with the New Testament message of God as love? St Isaac the Syrian answers these questions in the following way: there is no person who would be deprived of God’s love, and there is no place which would be devoid of it; everyone who deliberately chooses evil instead of good deprives himself of God’s mercy. The very same Divine love which is a source of bliss and consolation for the righteous in Paradise becomes a source of torment for sinners, as they cannot participate in it and they are outside of it.

It is therefore not God Who mercilessly prepares torments for a person, but rather the person himself who chooses evil and then suffers from its consequences. There are people who deliberately refuse to follow the way of love, who do evil and harm to their neighbours: these are the ones who will be unable to reconcile themselves with the Supreme Love when they encounter it face to face. Someone who is outside of love during his earthly life will not find a way to be inside it when he departs from the body. He will find himself in ‘the valley of the shadow of death’ (Ps.23:4), ‘the darkness’ and ‘the land of forgetfulness’ (Ps.88:12), of which the psalms speak. Jesus called this place, or rather this condition of the soul after death, ‘the outer darkness’ (Matt.22:13) and ‘the Hell of fire’ (Matt.5:22).

One should note that the notion of Hell has been distorted by the coarse and material images in which it was clothed in Western medieval literature. One recalls Dante with his detailed description of the torments and punishment which sinners undergo. Christian eschatology should be liberated from this imagery: the latter reflects a Catholic medieval approach to the Novissima with its ‘pedagogy of fear’ and its emphasis on the necessity of satisfaction and punishment. Michelangelo’s Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel depicts Christ hurling into the abyss all those who dared to oppose Him. ‘This, to be sure, is not how I see Christ’, says Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov). ‘...Christ, naturally, must be in the centre, but a different Christ more in keeping with the revelation that we have of Him: Christ immensely powerful with the power of unassuming love’. If God is love, He must be full of love even at the moment of the Last Judgment, even when He pronounces His sentence and condemns one to death.

[Swaeft]

I can see two problems here. To start, you believe you deserve to go to Heaven but not other people, who apparently shouldn't be forgiven for their sins. But this isn't true; in reality, you're as evil as anyone else, you're just blind to it. So, what if your standards were applied to you and your sins were never forgiven? Why should you go to Heaven but not the murderers? Does God owe you Heaven? Who's worshiping who here?

Second, it seems you view Hell as a sort of torture chamber that God throws people into, but this isn't really the Christian view. Hell is a state of mind and willful separation from God. God wants all people to be united with him, but he won't force them. The gates of Hell are locked from the inside; no one is in Hell except those that want to be in Hell. As C.S. Lewis put it,

“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’ All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.”

Someone who's genuinely repented of his sins (which is more difficult than you'd think), isn't actually in a state of separation from God anymore, thus he can't be in Hell. To wish for someone to go to Hell is to wish them to remain in evil, and this itself is evil (hate). So, who is more likely to go to Hell, to be in a state of separation from God: the one who was once living in sin but not anymore, or, the one who continues to live in sin by hating other people? Everyone should focus on keeping out of Hell instead of keeping others out of Heaven.

Oookay. Firstly, I'm not a Christian, as I said above. I don't believe in Heaven or Hell, both to me are more of symbols than actual places. I don't know where you got the impression that only I'm supposed to go to Heaven and don't want others going up there, I have never said anything of that sort. Also as I have said, you only deserve to be forgiven if the person you committed the crime against forgives you. Who are you to forgive yourself? That's delusional.

I'm not going to comment on the religious stuff, because as I have been trying to, I'm going to steer clear of any religious debate, because no one wins that argument.

Swaeft,

Of course the consequences are dreadful especially for the victim's family yet if the victim happened to be born again he or she is immediately with God at death. That being the case it is an obligation if the family are saved as well, to forgive the killer just as Christ forgave them. That is what Prodomos was saying. If one is not saved then victim or killer, both are still subject to the Law and therefore will be judged by it. The victim has died in his or her sin but the killer still has an opportunity to be saved. Now that doesn't detract from the fact that murder is a sin.

I'm not going to comment on the religious stuff, because as I have been trying to, I'm going to steer clear of any religious debate, because no one wins that argument. If you guys are going to keep bringing this up I see no more reason for me to continue with the discussion.

[basics]

Swaeft,

The thing is that one cannot avoid religion even if one wants to, why? Because even atheism is a religion followed by deniers of God. Is murder wrong as the question begs? Funny enough it applies to anyone if only because it is written into every culture on the planet perhaps not as most see it but there anyway.

[Azorica]

Swaeft,

The thing is that one cannot avoid religion even if one wants to, why? Because even atheism is a religion followed by deniers of God.

Sorry to rain on your parade mate, but atheism, being the denial of all deities, makes it by default a non-religion. To be a religion you have to have an object of worship and some formalized behaviors or practices. Since atheism has neither of those, it isn't a religion. It is the absence of it.

[Kyffhäuser]

Its taking a life that wasn't given, that's why its wrong. The question is when does murder becomes justifiable, which is one of the reasons we have courts to ascertain, because defense is a valid argument. Pretty basic stuff, almost every civilization has written about.

[basics]

Sorry to rain on your parade mate, but atheism, being the denial of all deities, makes it by default a non-religion. To be a religion you have to have an object of worship and some formalized behaviors or practices. Since atheism has neither of those, it isn't a religion. It is the absence of it.

Azorica,

And the object of worship or belief is that there is no God. As long as that is the clarion call it is as religious as believing there is a God.

[The spartan]

Azorica,

And the object of worship or belief is that there is no God. As long as that is the clarion call it is as religious as believing there is a God.

I feel like that is a rather dishonest interpretation of Atheism (maybe because you can only view it in a religious framework, because that is all you believe their is?); Atheism isn't about dogmatically denying the existence of God. If an all-powerful being were to appear before a crowd of Atheists, they wouldn't shout "blasphemy!" at it and try to do away with it. Atheism isn't unfalsifiable, unlike your position, Atheists acknowledge it is possible for them to be proved wrong. Generally.

[Diocle]

I feel like that is a rather dishonest interpretation of Atheism (maybe because you can only view it in a religious framework, because that is all you believe their is?); Atheism isn't about dogmatically denying the existence of God. If an all-powerful being were to appear before a crowd of Atheists, they wouldn't shout "blasphemy!" at it and try to do away with it. Atheism isn't unfalsifiable, unlike your position, Atheists acknowledge it is possible for them to be proved wrong. Generally.

There may be different forms of approach to Theism and Atheism, you can't state which one is wrong and which one is right if not adopting yourself some fideistic approach.

[Prodromos]

Atheism isn't about dogmatically denying the existence of God.

That's literally what atheism is.

[Sar1n]

That's literally what atheism is.

Atheism is a very nebulous term in common usage. What I see here is mostly people either trying to twist it to their own thinking, e.g. the Blackwell or Oxford entry, or simply thinking that in linguistics, some academical idea trumps the common usage...bad move for language.

For example, I'm often called atheist, and I often argue against the religion and idea of god in general. But I'm hard agnostic, I find the proposition, the idea of god to be inherently unprovable. And it all descends from there. But I argue for pretty much same thing as atheists, a society without god.

[Prodromos]

Atheism is a very nebulous term in common usage. What I see here is mostly people either trying to twist it to their own thinking, e.g. the Blackwell or Oxford entry, or simply thinking that in linguistics, some academical idea trumps the common usage...bad move for language.

For example, I'm often called atheist, and I often argue against the religion and idea of god in general. But I'm hard agnostic, I find the proposition, the idea of god to be inherently unprovable. And it all descends from there. But I argue for pretty much same thing as atheists, a society without god.

Dictionaries generally just record word usage, so if a number of people define atheism as a lack of belief in God, that definition will be included in the average dictionary, no matter how "incorrect" it is. But in academic settings atheism has always been construed as a positive disbelief in God; that's how philosophers have always defined it.

The idea that atheism isn't a proposition is a recent and minority view, even among self-identified atheists; it's usually espoused mainly by New Atheists and Internet activists and such, as an argumentative tactic against theists: it inflates the number of atheists and makes atheism seem more common than it really is, but more importantly, it allows atheists to shift the "burden of proof" onto the theist, by pretending that only the theist and not the atheist is making a claim.

The redefinition serves no other purpose, since we already have terms like nontheist and agnostic.