Is it Ever Okay to Kill

[Hawisher]

I fear that you take far too much for granted. We only know that carbon dating works on the items we already know the age of. If we do not know the age of the item, we cannot know whether the test is giving us accurate results. You can extrapolate, but you cannot be sure the extrapolation is yielding accurate results. In other words, it is a guess.

That's completely untrue. Carbon-14 is Carbon-14, regardless of the fossil in which it may be found.

 

[Max S Cherry]

That's completely untrue. Carbon-14 is Carbon-14, regardless of the fossil in which it may be found.

I am not saying that carbon 14 is not carbon 14. Its presence is not even being questioned.

 

[Hawisher]

I am not saying that carbon 14 is not carbon 14. Its presence is not even being questioned.

Then what on earth makes you think that carbon dating doesn't work on fossils of unknown age?

 

[Lilly Owl]

I tried to address this issue under the title "Pacifism," but there were not very many people interested in a wide pacifism discussion. Since I am confronted by the topics of gun control, gun rights, and worries of possible firearm legislation in nearly every newscast I see, I thought I might try to limit the discussion to one very specific pacifistic topic, killing.

As a Christian, I do not believe it is ever acceptable for one person to kill another person. What are your thoughts?

Is it ever acceptable (moral, good, etc.) to take a person's life?

If you think/believe it can be acceptable, under what circumstances would it be permitted?

If you think/believe it cannot be acceptable, what are your reasons for your view?

I think when God said, thou shalt not murder, that he was in no way saying a person has no right to self defense in the face of someone who's intent is to murder them.

I think if someone is adamantly opposed to killing under any and all circumstances, they should live the commitment by never calling police if they're threatened with physical or mortal harm. And they should be vegan.
Rarely is the case however. It's easy to say no one should ever kill anyone for any reason, but when it comes to dying while upholding the pacifist commitment it rarely remains a constant.

God himself isn't a pacifist. If someone believes Jesus was God incarnate, then nor was Jesus in truth.
If he was pacifist as Jesus why did one of his apostles have a sword in the Garden of Gethsemane? Why did Jesus say to buy a sword if someone didn't already own one? Swords in his day were the highest form of self defense or offense. Just like guns are the highest caliber of weapon today.

 

[Paradoxum]

I fear that you take far too much for granted. We only know that carbon dating works on the items we already know the age of. If we do not know the age of the item, we cannot know whether the test is giving us accurate results. You can extrapolate, but you cannot be sure the extrapolation is yielding accurate results. In other words, it is a guess.

I don't think you would call that a guess in any other situation. We can test DNA to see whose DNA it is. We don't need to know whose DNA it is first to know if it is accurate.

Radiometric dating works. Various parts of science all come to the conclusion of the old age of the universe, and of fossils.

 

[Hawisher]

The old age of the universe isn't even in conflict with Genesis, so who gives a crap?

 

[Illuminaughty]

Eventually I think nonlethal weapons will become effective enough to handle most policing situations so we won't have as many casualties there. Sonic weapons, microwave, projectial tazers shot from 12 gauge shotgun shells, etc.

 

[Max S Cherry]

Then what on earth makes you think that carbon dating doesn't work on fossils of unknown age?

Because it is of unknown age. If we know the age of a particular fossil (meaning that we know when it died), we can test it to see if our test results yields the age that we already know it to be. If it does, we can then use that information in our tests on fossils whose age we do not know. The best that can supply us with is a guess as to the age of that fossil. We can call it a good guess, an educated guess, but it is a guess none the less. Carbon dating is useful, and I am not suggesting otherwise. Useful as it is, it cannot supply us with the certainty that we have on the fossil of known age.

 

[Hawisher]

You're not using the word "guess" correctly, then. The word guess implies consciously or subconsciously considering all evidence and then giving an answer that may be based on this evidence, but does not directly follow from the evidence.

Carbon Dating is a scientific process based on math that gives a range of possible dates. It is still a solution, or an answer, rather than a guess.

 

[seeking Christ]

I think if someone is adamantly opposed to killing under any and all circumstances, they should

Ben Franklin makes for an interesting case study of this very issue! As a devout Quaker, he had this value you state here. Once the war got the point that his life was in such peril that it appeared to be do or die? Well, he "did;" he fought, and won. I don't think he wound up on the front lines or doing anything terribly skilled, but in a supporting role IIRC. Still, he contributed to the effort

Why did Jesus say to buy a sword if someone didn't already own one?

Now that, is a difficult passage! Does it refer to anything at all in a literal sense? Is it purely metaphor? Many have made the case both ways

 

[Max S Cherry]

You're not using the word "guess" correctly, then. The word guess implies consciously or subconsciously considering all evidence and then giving an answer that may be based on this evidence, but does not directly follow from the evidence.

Guessing is guessing. It means to judge and make a decision based on what you think. It means to estimate. What it does not mean is to know. If you know something, you do not have to guess.

Carbon Dating is a scientific process based on math that gives a range of possible dates. It is still a solution, or an answer, rather than a guess.

If you want to call it a solution or an answer because it is a mathematical process, go right ahead. The reason I called it a guess is because the solution or answer you receive lacks certainty.

 

[Max S Cherry]

I think when God said, thou shalt not murder, that he was in no way saying a person has no right to self defense in the face of someone who's intent is to murder them.

Thank you for responding and sharing your views.

I think if someone is adamantly opposed to killing under any and all circumstances, they should live the commitment by never calling police if they're threatened with physical or mortal harm.

And why is that? The presence of the police could prevent any harm to anyone.

And they should be vegan.

I am not a vegan, but I do not eat people. I am not sure how this relates. Can you elaborate a little more?

Rarely is the case however. It's easy to say no one should ever kill anyone for any reason, but when it comes to dying while upholding the pacifist commitment it rarely remains a constant.

I can tell you that it is not easy to say that no one should kill under any circumstance especially if one has a family like mine. It is a difficult position to take, but I agree that it would be even more difficult to put into practice. I would be more likely to be killed to resist killing than to see my loved ones suffer. I pray to never be in that situation.

God himself isn't a pacifist. If someone believes Jesus was God incarnate, then nor was Jesus in truth.

God, as God, is not bound by any pacifistic teachings. Christ the man lived a pacifist's life, and He died a pacifist's death.

If he was pacifist as Jesus why did one of his apostles have a sword in the Garden of Gethsemane?

Why do all Christians not do exactly as we should nowadays? We are imperfect. Christ was quick to admonish Peter and heal the injury Peter caused.

Why did Jesus say to buy a sword if someone didn't already own one? Swords in his day were the highest form of self defense or offense. Just like guns are the highest caliber of weapon today.

There were things in the world to defend against besides humans, and defending against humans is not prohibited. I believe killing humans is prohibited, but putting up a defense short of killing an attacker is acceptable.

 

[Lilly Owl]

Now that, is a difficult passage! Does it refer to anything at all in a literal sense? Is it purely metaphor? Many have made the case both ways

I'm sure an answer can be had either way, considering scripture relating to Jesus teachings always relate his dialog was in parable form. Subject then to interpretation in all kinds of ways.
Remembering Jesus anger with the money changers in the temple, pacifism isn't a characteristic that comes to mind.

 

[Max S Cherry]

I don't think you would call that a guess in any other situation. We can test DNA to see whose DNA it is. We don't need to know whose DNA it is first to know if it is accurate.

We do have to have their DNA to prove that it is their DNA. There is the DNA found that is tested, and there is the DNA in the person that is tested to verify that it is his DNA. When carbon dating an item that is of an unknown age, there is no verification process available.

Radiometric dating works. Various parts of science all come to the conclusion of the old age of the universe, and of fossils.

I do not know what radiometric dating is, but if it is used to determine the age of an artifact with an unknown age, I cannot see how its results are known to be accurate. Its seems to be limited by the same problem that affects carbon dating, a lack of verification.

 

[Lilly Owl]

And why is that? The presence of the police could prevent any harm to anyone.

Which is faster? Cops or the assailant that's right in front of you?

I am not a vegan, but I do not eat people. I am not sure how this relates. Can you elaborate a little more?

If a person is committed to non-violence they should not contribute as a consumer to the violence inflicted on meat animals during the slaughter process. It takes a life. If they're opposed to violence and taking of a life under any circumstances, the qualifier of "life" and "any" implies that should apply universally. Not just to humans who are but one sentient being that feels.

I can tell you that it is not easy to say that no one should kill under any circumstance especially if one has a family like mine. It is a difficult position to take, but I agree that it would be even more difficult to put into practice. I would be more likely to be killed to resist killing than to see my loved ones suffer. I pray to never be in that situation.

Interesting. So, worst case scenario (and God forbid), an armed assailant enters your home with the sole purpose of destroying your peace of mind, taking what you have and then leaving no witnesses. Let's say they're an assailant that has two strikes against them and you happen to live in a State with a three strike law (third strike lands them in prison for life).

You're saying you'd rather die to that assailants hand so you don't have to witness what the rest of your family will endure after, rather than fight to save your family from the assailant?

God, as God, is not bound by any pacifistic teachings. Christ the man lived a pacifist's life, and He died a pacifist's death.

Yes, yes he did.
And yet, as God he allows everything to happen that does happen on earth. And come the judgment he decrees the unrepentant shall suffer Hell.
While Satan remains lord of the earth and exacts all manner of evil in the midst of his omniscience.

Why do all Christians not do exactly as we should nowadays? We are imperfect. Christ was quick to admonish Peter and heal the injury Peter caused.

All is as God created it to be. Nothing happens without God's will behind it.

There were things in the world to defend against besides humans, and defending against humans is not prohibited. I believe killing humans is prohibited, but putting up a defense short of killing an attacker is acceptable.

And yet a sword is an implement that is best used wielding as a warning one is armed for self defense. And if necessary to kill. A pacifist has no need of a sword, for it is not good for plowing fields.

 

[quilbilly]

Why would you make the claim I would euthanize a pet, when I made no such claim?

It is not our place to end someone's life, when we do, we are playing God.

Are we also playing God when we extend a life with medical procedures?

 

[Hawisher]

Guessing is guessing. It means to judge and make a decision based on what you think. It means to estimate. What it does not mean is to know. If you know something, you do not have to guess.



If you want to call it a solution or an answer because it is a mathematical process, go right ahead. The reason I called it a guess is because the solution or answer you receive lacks certainty.

Sure, in the sense that it's not an exact date but rather a range of dates, but the important thing is this: it CAN give an exact answer to some yes/no questions. For example, "is the Earth older than 1 billion years?"

The exact answer provided by science is yes.

 

[seeking Christ]

And why is that? The presence of the police could prevent any harm to anyone.

Do NOT count on this. Seriously. Law enforcement ceased thinking of this as their role some time ago (I forget which specific court case)

I am not a vegan, but I do not eat people. I am not sure how this relates.

As a stand-alone line, this is hysterical! Somebody should make this their tagline

I believe killing humans is prohibited, but putting up a defense short of killing an attacker is acceptable.

This is actually very related to our Nation's rising concern over guns, partially manifested by the more than enough threads here to have our own gun sub-forum. Some defending themselves from attack have killed their attacker, and not been prosecuted. Some have saved their attacker's life at great personal risk of injury to themselves, been prosecuted, served much time in prison, and had their lives for the most part ruined. I think our legal system is pretty terrible in this area.

 

[Paradoxum]

We do have to have their DNA to prove that it is their DNA. There is the DNA found that is tested, and there is the DNA in the person that is tested to verify that it is his DNA. When carbon dating an item that is of an unknown age, there is no verification process available.

How do you know that the DNA that is tested hasn't changed? How do you know something weird hasn't happened? Something that expert scientists haven't considered, even though that is what they spend their lives doing? Or something scientists have heard of and say is false.

How do you know? Are we guessing?

The carbon dating is the proof. It doesn't change. We know the laws of physics.

I do not know what radiometric dating is, but if it is used to determine the age of an artifact with an unknown age, I cannot see how its results are known to be accurate. Its seems to be limited by the same problem that affects carbon dating, a lack of verification.

I mean no offence by this, I really don't, but if you don't know what radiometric dating is then you probably don't know much about carbon dating. If you have read up on carbon dating you would have some across radiometric dating. The word is important and I've seen it come up alot. I'm saying this to help, not to poo poo your knowledge.

There is no reason to doubt it is works. The people who say otherwise aren't trustworthy sources.

 

[Sectio Aureo]

The old age of the universe isn't even in conflict with Genesis, so who gives a crap?

The universe is aprox 13,750,000,000 years old, the Earth is aprox 4,540,000,000 years old and according to genesis the Earth is merely only 6,000-10,000 years old.