Define "murder"

[revanneosl]

'Scuse please. We're talking about an Old Testament commandment. The context involved is an Old Testament context.

The Old Testament contains lots & lots of specific provisions about what kinds of killing are allowed and what kinds of killing are not allowed.

The kinds that are not allowed In The Old Testament constitute the definition of "murder" for those who choose to translate the commandment as "thou shalt not murder".

None of it has anything to do with the Christian religion of course. The 10 commandments are part of God's covenant made with Israel at Sinai. A great and glorious covenant it is, too, and I respect it deeply. I even explored converting to Judaism at one point in my life, but the Rabbi talked me out of it.

But it's not the covenant that Christians have with God. Ours is different. Ours involves no killing whatsoever. Murder or not. Doesn't matter to us. No killing of other humans at all The End.

And, of course, neither the Jewish covenant with God, nor the Christian way of life have anything to do with what the law of the United States of America ought to be. I only say this in case you were wondering.

 

[DarkProphet]

'Scuse please. We're talking about an Old Testament commandment. The context involved is an Old Testament context.

The Old Testament contains lots & lots of specific provisions about what kinds of killing are allowed and what kinds of killing are not allowed.

The kinds that are not allowed In The Old Testament constitute the definition of "murder" for those who choose to translate the commandment as "thou shalt not murder".

None of it has anything to do with the Christian religion of course. The 10 commandments are part of God's covenant made with Israel at Sinai. A great and glorious covenant it is, too, and I respect it deeply. I even explored converting to Judaism at one point in my life, but the Rabbi talked me out of it.

But it's not the covenant that Christians have with God. Ours is different. Ours involves no killing whatsoever. Murder or not. Doesn't matter to us. No killing of other humans at all The End.

And, of course, neither the Jewish covenant with God, nor the Christian way of life have anything to do with what the law of the United States of America ought to be. I only say this in case you were wondering.

No "killing"? That seems absurd given that not all situations are equal. For example, what of a soldier killing an enemy combatant? Or an elder lady shooting her attacker?

Yes, I used the commandment in the OP but this question goes beyond just the "Jewish Covenant".

 

[Washington]

'Scuse please. We're talking about an Old Testament commandment.

Who's this "we" you're talking about? You and the ball of lint in your pocket? Other than yourself the only one here whose mentioned the OT is Allhart. In fact all the OP asked was to define murder.

Title: "The sixth commandment"

OP heading: "You shall not murder"

OP text: "Seems simple enough but what does it mean to "murder". There is a lot of talk about abortion as murder and actions in war and the death penalty as not murder. So define "murder".

​

The context involved is an Old Testament context.

Hey, if you want to talk about murder in the context of the OT fine, but you don't have to make up excuses to do so. However, so as not to take this OP off topic I suggest you create your own thread to address your special interest.

 

[Nooj]

But it's not the covenant that Christians have with God. Ours is different. Ours involves no killing whatsoever. Murder or not. Doesn't matter to us. No killing of other humans at all The End.

I noticed you excluded the killing of animals. How did you determine that killing animals is not murder?

 

[Soul_Golem]

The need to define murder has become an excuse to kill. Basically, the power to commit or define murder now rests on the Supreme Court, a bunch of neophyte justices who basically won't let you kill someone for killing and want to sustain the pro-abortion agenda. So, you will have to ask the federal government what murder is, because only they seem to know anymore. Back in the good old days, what was it maybe a little more than half a century ago, people used to know what murder was. Now, you got all these leftists telling you what is what, and so really there is no such thing as murder. Name one crime that is viewed as worthy of capital punishment by the Supreme Court...there is none.

It doesn't take a biblical passage or verse to define murder. It doesn't take Jesus Christ to tell you what murder is. After all, he was murdered. They killed him in true secular fashion, putting him on a cross, a symbol that was and is considered a religious symbol. Before the Roman's put Christ on the cross, Christians did not adopt the symbol of the cross. Nowhere you hear mention of the cross in the Bible in the Old Testament until Christ was put on it in the New Testament. It was only then that the cross as a religious symbol was adopted by Christianity.

 

[ReverendDG]

. Name one crime that is viewed as worthy of capital punishment by the Supreme Court...there is none.

capital punishment doesn't really do a whole lot, it just ends someones life, it doesn't really fix anything.
i think what we have found out over the last 40 years is, criminals will do something, no matter the punishment.
plus i think some people have realized that if they can just remove the criminals from society its enough, sad it costs so much

It doesn't take a biblical passage or verse to define murder. It doesn't take Jesus Christ to tell you what murder is. After all, he was murdered. They killed him in true secular fashion, putting him on a cross, a symbol that was and is considered a religious symbol. Before the Roman's put Christ on the cross, Christians did not adopt the symbol of the cross.
Nowhere you hear mention of the cross in the Bible in the Old Testament until Christ was put on it in the New Testament. It was only then that the cross as a religious symbol was adopted by Christianity.

well of course, the romans didn't exist during the writing of the tanakh what kind of statement is that?
by the way christ was not "murdered" he was killed via the prescribed method of execution for riot causers and criminals
question, what did they use before the NT then? he died in 33 ce, at least according to the church, what did they use for a symbol till the NT was written nearly 70 years after?

this is why i don't like the term murder being thrown around so much, you believe capital punishment is good, but in the next breath say crucifixion is murder the next? sorry to burst your bubble there, but crucifixion is capital punishment. is it murder now because of who was killed? what a purely arbitrary reason to call it murder.

 

[quatona]

The sixth commandment

You shall not murder

Seems simple enough but what does it mean to "murder". There is a lot of talk about abortion as murder and actions in war and the death penalty as not murder. So define "murder".
​

It´s a universal signifier for "unlawful, unjustified" killing.
Regarding the conditions and criteria: the law of your country defines them for you.

As far as the bible goes: A recent thread of mine produced the result that the bible doesn´t give clear criteria. Beyond "murder is killing against god´s law" - which makes "you shall not murder" (= "you shall not act against god´s law") a mere tautology - there is no definition of practical, concrete value in it.
God´s law says that you shall not act against god´s law.
(Fortunately, there are at least a couple of bible quotes that tell us which killings are not "murder", e.g. slaughtering homosexuals.)

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

No "killing"? That seems absurd given that not all situations are equal. For example, what of a soldier killing an enemy combatant?

I consider that just as ethically wrong as murder, if not even more so, given that war devastates vastly more lives than a jealous husband shooting his wife's lover. I do not consider military service a honourable deed at all. Quite the contrary. It might be a sad necessity to lower yourself to such base acts if you are attacked by a foreign power and need to defend your home, but it's still anything but praiseworthy. The madness and internal logic of war is an atrocity in itself.
I grant that some soldiers (i.e. drafted ones) have little control over their situation and end up in such a dilemma regardless of their personal convictions, though.

Or an elder lady shooting her attacker?

Well, under the auspices of Christianity, it's pretty clear that killing the attacker is not the ideal option. Personally, I think that self-defense is a sad necessity in some cases - lamentable, but necessary.

 

[Soul_Golem]

capital punishment doesn't really do a whole lot, it just ends someones life, it doesn't really fix anything.

Who said anything about fixing something? Fixing something with capital punishment is not what capital punishment is about. Justice does not necessarily fix something that cannot be fixed, it serves...

i think what we have found out over the last 40 years is, criminals will do something, no matter the punishment.

I think over the past forty years criminals have managed to become as free from punishment as possible, through no effort of their own but because of people who have never known injustice trying to snub their noses at justice.

plus i think some people have realized that if they can just remove the criminals from society its enough, sad it costs so much

So, you are saying since criminals can't be changed and they are removed too much from society as it is that people ought to just leave them alone. I got a better idea, let's give them licenses to commit certain crimes and make laws to prevent others.

well of course, the romans didn't exist during the writing of the tanakh what kind of statement is that?

So, what are you agreeing?

by the way christ was not "murdered" he was killed via the prescribed method of execution for riot causers and criminals
question, what did they use before the NT then?

He was murdered just like everyone else who claimed to be Christ back then by mobs of people who were incited by Roman leaders to put down anyone who questioned their secular authority.

he died in 33 ce, at least according to the church, what did they use for a symbol till the NT was written nearly 70 years after?

They did not use symbols before then.

this is why i don't like the term murder being thrown around so much, you believe capital punishment is good, but in the next breath say crucifixion is murder the next? sorry to burst your bubble there, but crucifixion is capital punishment. is it murder now because of who was killed? what a purely arbitrary reason to call it murder.

So, in a nutshell, you believe that capital punishment is murder?

I gotta tell you it is really hard to understand where you are it, since the contradiction is clear. I don't even know if I would call that a response, but I would like to see what cracker jack box made you a reverend.

Not picking on you personally, just defending my post you understand.

 

[Verv]

Murder would probably be defined as, 'to kill for pleasure, profit or personal gain.'

I consider that just as ethically wrong as murder, if not even more so, given that war devastates vastly more lives than a jealous husband shooting his wife's lover. I do not consider military service a honourable deed at all. Quite the contrary. It might be a sad necessity to lower yourself to such base acts if you are attacked by a foreign power and need to defend your home, but it's still anything but praiseworthy. The madness and internal logic of war is an atrocity in itself.
I grant that some soldiers (i.e. drafted ones) have little control over their situation and end up in such a dilemma regardless of their personal convictions, though.

What nation could have survived the last 6,000 years without an organized military or without being under the direct supervision of a greater military power?

What society can exist without a means of defending itself?

How do you even think this way?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Murder would probably be defined as, 'to kill for pleasure, profit or personal gain.'

It is universally defined as "killing outside of the law", and rightly so.

Otherwise, deliberately killing another person without a reason would not qualify as murder. Granted, that would be a rare incident indeed, yet it is conceivable nevertheless: a sociopath might very well feel that there's nothing wrong with snuffing out a life, and view it with the emotional detachment that you would associate with swatting a fly.

What nation could have survived the last 6,000 years without an organized military or without being under the direct supervision of a greater military power?

The concept of the nation state is a relatively recent one to begin with.
Yes, tribalism has shaped history. That doesn't mean that it should be condoned, perpetuated or even praised, though. It is a primordial heritage of our species, yet it contributed to the most abhorrent massacres, pogromes and genocides in history. "Us vs. them" is not a very productive attitude.

What society can exist without a means of defending itself?

We're talking about ideals, not sad realities and practical constraints. Still, a world where no one would manufacture military equipment and weapons (of mass destruction) for a profit and no one would feel the need to buy such stuff, either, would be vastly preferable to the petty, primitive tribalism that still shapes global politics and conflicts.
The internal logic of the cold war arms race was impeccable, and yet it was inherently insane, always keeping the world on the brink of total annihilation. We had some pretty close scrapes with global overkill, don't you think?

How do you even think this way?

By not giving a rat's behind about the colour of somebody else's skin, the language he grew up with, the god he worships, the borders of the country he was born in, the party he votes for, or basically any other difference that is used to shape people into a collective stereotype of "the enemy". I don't see "enemy combatants" - I see individual people; people who are sons, brothers, husbands; people who, through no fault of their own, have become mere playthings on the tables of those in power; people who, if I met them in different circumstances, most likely wouldn't have the slightest desire to harm me in any way.

I despise systems that would shape their young into war machines, killing at a command without the slightest hesitation, potentially killing hundreds of people because they are "the enemy". The sort of thinking that makes the military possible is the kind of thinking that makes war possible. There's no honour in it, no virtue, nothing praiseworthy. And it's a sad fact indeed that we still seem to depend on such degrading and de-humanizing practices in order to get by.

 

[lilakuh]

It is universally defined as "killing outside of the law", and rightly so.

But then the question becomes, which law? Is the killing of a woman for "adultery" not murder just because it happens under Sharia law?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

But then the question becomes, which law? Is the killing of a woman for "adultery" not murder just because it happens under Sharia law?

That is left to individual cultures and states to determine.
Don't get me wrong: I do not consider such punishments to be ethically permissible; heck, I even object to lethal injections as they are administered in the United States. Yet the fact remains that people who have been socialized in these other cultures will feel that killing people in such a fashion does not qualify as murder - and so will the local authorities in these countries.

There's been an ongoing discourse on whether "human rights" ought to be regarded as universal - or as a specifically European construct that is projected unto other parts of the world by the first-world nations.
Personally, I think that human rights ought to be universally applied, as they are based on reasonable considerations rather than ritualized customs or religious practices that are not tied to any detectable reason outside of their particular cultural context. But then again, I've been socialized in Europe. I would probably feel very different about this if I had grown up in, say, Afghanistan.

The fact remains that all cultures use their version of the term "murder" (i.e. unlawful killing), even if they draw the line between "lawful" and "unlawful" killing differently.

 

[lilakuh]

That is left to individual cultures and states to determine.
...
The fact remains that all cultures use their version of the term "murder" (i.e. unlawful killing), even if they draw the line between "lawful" and "unlawful" killing differently.

I understand what you're saying, and I largely agree with you. however I think we're discussing two different things.

On the one side there's semantics. If a killing happens, people in one society might describe it with the word "murder", in another society they might call it just punishment, or something entirely different. Which one it is of course depends on the laws of the land.

Then on the other hand there are, as you say, universal human rights as laid out for example in the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I'm taking those as a given, so the discussion switches to what it means to have "the right to life, liberty and security of person", and when exactly those rights are infringed upon. This discussion should be independent of the laws of any particular land, and this is the direction that I tried to argue.

On second thought, maybe I was too quick to assume that everyone on this board subscribes to universal human rights. I know you do, as do I, so what do the other forum members think?

 

[Nooj]

Murder would probably be defined as, 'to kill for pleasure, profit or personal gain.'

Not in any country I know of. What about killing for revenge? Revenge does not necessarily involve any pleasure, profit or personal gain. Or what about people who kill due to hate? If that's murder, you'd have to lock up thousands of soldiers who have killed in the passion of battle.

 

[TheBear]

bump