Is this is a sin...?

[homewardbound]

The commandments were given so that sin could be revealed. When God said, "Thou shalt not kill", he was referring to killing as a sin, i.e. murder.

Killing is murder when it is rooted in evil, whether it be anger, hatred, lust, jealousy, envy, or greed. Killing isn't murder (or sinful) if it is to prevent serious harm to you, your family, or society. God has also used it to remove evil from the world, and the Israelites were used as agents to carry out that task. But, just as I'm sure the vast majority of us do, the Israelites understood the difference between murder and following God's commands.

 

[relspace]

If two families are on an island, that has 1 fruit tree (The only sourse of food), that can only support one family (if they try to share it between 2, people WILL starve), is it a sin to try to kill members of the other family so your can survive?

Say your the head of one family, what should you do (With respect to what God would want you to do)?

It is not only a sin but downright evil. Furthermore, only a souless demon or the utterly damned would pursue such a solution. Such selfish panic is inexcusable.

 

[MrsJoy]

But isn't it contradictory of god to say "you cant kill" and then order the israelites to do just that? The point being made is that killing isn't ALWAYS a sin.

disobeying God always IS sin.
again, men did not decide when they would war, God did.
God commands us not to kill-WE cannot decide when it's ok, so for us to decide in a situation such as the one given is sin.

 

[mooduck1]

It is not only a sin but downright evil. Furthermore, only a souless demon or the utterly damned would pursue such a solution. Such selfish panic is inexcusable.

I'll admitt that you have to assume lots of things to even respond to this, but I suppose one of the things I assumed was there was no other solution, or that all other solutions had been tried. If that's the case, are you saying that in the absence of any survivable solution it would be morally correct to allow your own family to die so that others may eat? If it was just myself, I'd agree! but allowing my wife and Kids, to starve or be killed for principle would be just as souless, imo.

 

[mooduck1]

disobeying God always IS sin.
again, men did not decide when they would war, God did.
God commands us not to kill-WE cannot decide when it's ok, so for us to decide in a situation such as the one given is sin.

Sorry, maybe im confused, Are you saying that war is only justifyable if a leader gets an audible voice command from God and the whole contry hears it? Isn't there a desicion making process involved even if you feel God leading you to an action?

 

[mooduck1]

The commandments were given so that sin could be revealed. When God said, "Thou shalt not kill", he was referring to killing as a sin, i.e. murder.

But, just as I'm sure the vast majority of us do, the Israelites understood the difference between murder and following God's commands.

Hmmm not sure I follow you here. Would you mind elaborating on this? Can you give some examples where the 'vast majority' knew the difference? I'm seeing much disagreement even in this thread.

 

[MrsJoy]

Sorry, maybe im confused, Are you saying that war is only justifyable if a leader gets an audible voice command from God and the whole contry hears it? Isn't there a desicion making process involved even if you feel God leading you to an action?

~YOU used the example of war in the old testament.
I responded to this foolishness.
~we are told to follow and obey the authorities placed over us.
Yet again, this does not justify personally deciding to murder and it being excusable.
Following and obeying authority is not only biblical, it is commanded.

 

[MrsJoy]

Hmmm not sure I follow you here. Would you mind elaborating on this? Can you give some examples where the 'vast majority' knew the difference? I'm seeing much disagreement even in this thread.

without the law to show what was sin, sin could not be shown.
the law was need to point it out.
and yes, the vast majority would have known this.
Read the begining of the Old Testament.
All of God's laws were taught to His people in great detail.
They were indeed very aware.

 

[holo]

without the law to show what was sin, sin could not be shown.
the law was need to point it out.
and yes, the vast majority would have known this.
Read the begining of the Old Testament.

I see no mention of the law in the beginning of the OT. Like Paul said, sin was indeed around before the law came (but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life). People were conscious of right and wrong anyhow though.

 

[relspace]

I'll admitt that you have to assume lots of things to even respond to this, but I suppose one of the things I assumed was there was no other solution, or that all other solutions had been tried.

But such an assumption makes no sense. It is impossible that murder would be a reasonable option because of a lack of fruit.

I think what you are really talking about is fighting over the fruit like a bunch of savages as opposed to sharing equally and you are making equivocating and self-justifiying arguments to behave like savages.

The only way that the question of murder would be involved is if we are talking about cannabalism. I can say that I would feel perfectly justified in puting such a degraded homo sapien down as no different than a rabid dog.

If that's the case, are you saying that in the absence of any survivable solution

Life has no survivable solutions. I do not see trading ones soul/integrity for few more measly years, whether for myself or for my family. We are all going to die. That is not only unavoidable, but we cannot choose the hour of our death. The only thing we really have power over is how well we have lived. Under the proper circumstances, I would indeed sacifice my life and/or the lives of my family members for the sake of others.

would be morally correct to allow your own family to die so that others may eat? If it was just myself, I'd agree! but allowing my wife and Kids, to starve or be killed for principle would be just as souless, imo.

Again you are not making any sense. How is allowing others to eat the same as letting your own family die? Perhaps you are willing commit murder based on such guesses about the future but I call that souless and evil.

I would not allow anyone to be murdered.

I notice how you twist things slowly from "allowing others to eat" to "letting your family die" to finally "allowing your family to be killed". This is a blatant tactic of rhetoric, which you are using to convince your self of something which has no moral foundation. None of these things are the same in any way whatsoever.

It sounds like you see the survival of your family as justifying anything. I see you dashing out the brains of a child in the other family so that your own children can live. Will you have your children watch so they can see how it is done, or will you finish by taking your own life so they don't have to share the rest of their life with a scumbag?

--------------------------------------------------

Here is a better puzzle. As a result of an accident, two families are in the middle of the ocean with one small lifeboat which cannot hold more than one family. The evil family might indeed try to club the other so they can have the lifeboat to themselves. But more civilized people are more likely to put the children in the lifeboat while the capable adults swim along side.

Lets make it more difficult and assume that some of the adults are severly wounded and that some of the children have to do the swimming. Well now in that case some people will indeed have to make some difficult choices. But insisting that one of the injured adults take a turn at swimming is not quite the same as clubbing someone to death.

Ok now lets make it even more difficult. As people start getting really tired and put more of their weight on the boat, the boat begins to sink. What then? Push some of the heavier people off? Hmmmm...? If I had the strength to do that then I must be swimming, right? Pulling off the heaviest adult might kill him and it might kill me to. Under those conditions I might go for it.

 

[MrsJoy]

accidentally repeated

 

[MrsJoy]

I see no mention of the law in the beginning of the OT.

are you being serious?
Exodus, Leviticus, numbers, deuteronomy and full of the laws that God gave to His people!

Like Paul said, sin was indeed around before the law came (but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life). People were conscious of right and wrong anyhow though.

no, Paul aid that sin has always been around and that the law showed it for what it was.
the law was needed to show us what sin was. the law did not create sin. it created a knowledge of sin.

 

[holo]

are you being serious?
Exodus, Leviticus, numbers, deuteronomy and full of the laws that God gave to His people!

I was thinking like, Genesis. Anyway, the law wasn't given until Moses.

no, Paul aid that sin has always been around and that the law showed it for what it was.
the law was needed to show us what sin was. the law did not create sin. it created a knowledge of sin.

Yes, the law made sin "exceedingly sinful" - sin took advantage of the commandment and produced "every covetous desire". The commandment is the power of sin. It's been like that from the beginning - the only way the serpent could get to Adam and Eve was via the commandment.

That's why the Lord would rather have us DEAD to the law and LIVING according to the Spirit instead

 

[dayhiker]

halo ... very well put.
That's what I cringe when I see parents pronouncing laws for their kids ever time they do something. I've seen parents great 5 laws for their kinds every time I visit with them.
I created almost no laws for my kids, I didn't want them to rebel. Sure enough they didn't. I remember being in a conferance with my son's HS teahers about his education plan just after he turned 18. He was asked if he still wanted his parents approving the plan or did he want to. He said he was fine with us approving. I got the impression the teachers were quite surprised at his answer.

People love laws, God loves relationships.
dayhiker

 

[homewardbound]

Hmmm not sure I follow you here. Would you mind elaborating on this? Can you give some examples where the 'vast majority' knew the difference? I'm seeing much disagreement even in this thread.

What I'm saying is that the Israelites knew that following God's command to kill someone (not a sin) was far different than murder (clearly a sin).

Maybe the majority of us don't realize the difference.

 

[mooduck1]

But such an assumption makes no sense. It is impossible that murder would be a reasonable option because of a lack of fruit.
Imo, you're being a bit silly here. I agree it s clearly an obsurd set of cercumstances that I don' EVER expect to have to deal with. It's not reality, it's a freakish cartoon. The real question that is being asked is simply this "Are there cercumstances whereby killinbg another human is not murder?" I'm just saying that there are if we are talking self preservation. I can kill to survive if that is my only choice. I can also choose to sacrifice myself. But either way, fighting for my life would not be a sin, even IF i chose to die for priciple.

 

[relspace]

Imo, you're being a bit silly here. I agree it s clearly an obsurd set of cercumstances that I don' EVER expect to have to deal with. It's not reality, it's a freakish cartoon. The real question that is being asked is simply this "Are there cercumstances whereby killinbg another human is not murder?" I'm just saying that there are if we are talking self preservation. I can kill to survive if that is my only choice. I can also choose to sacrifice myself. But either way, fighting for my life would not be a sin, even IF i chose to die for priciple.

LOOK, either its an unbendable rule or the circumstances are important. BUT, if the circumstances are important then the circumstances are important, and I cannot ignore certain aspects of the question you have posed to answer an abstract question that you haven't really posed. But you have ignored the questions that I have asked, and practically everything else that I have said.

There is a difference between fighting for your life and murder and no amount of prevarication and self-justification is going to erase that difference. Yes there are circumstances where killing someone is not murder. But you have not even come close to those circumstances, because it is not NEED that makes the difference, it is the behavior of the person in question that makes the difference. Just saying that it is not murder doesn't make it not murder.

That was not the question you orignally posed! The question you originally posed was: in principle is it ok to murder some people in order to save yourself and/or your family? The most simple and clear example of this is cannabalism. NO! IT IS NOT OK! IT IS EVIL! And when you dash out the brains of a child of the other family, I want to know: do you have your children watch to show them how it is done, or do you finish by killing yourself so that your children to not have to live the rest of their lives with a scumbag?

 

[mooduck1]

LOOK, either its an unbendable rule or the circumstances are important. BUT, if the circumstances are important then the circumstances are important, and I cannot ignore certain aspects of the question you have posed to answer an abstract question that you haven't really posed. But you have ignored the questions that I have asked, and practically everything else that I have said.

There is a difference between fighting for your life and murder and no amount of prevarication and self-justification is going to erase that difference. Yes there are circumstances where killing someone is not murder. But you have not even come close to those circumstances, because it is not NEED that makes the difference, it is the behavior of the person in question that makes the difference. Just saying that it is not murder doesn't make it not murder.

That was not the question you orignally posed! The question you originally posed was: in principle is it ok to murder some people in order to save yourself and/or your family? The most simple and clear example of this is cannabalism. NO! IT IS NOT OK! IT IS EVIL! And when you dash out the brains of a child of the other family, I want to know: do you have your children watch to show them how it is done, or do you finish by killing yourself so that your children to not have to live the rest of their lives with a scumbag?

You know, I think we agree in principle here. We are just Reading the question differently. Do I believe it is okay to kill the other family with no provocation, when we can agree to some sort of situation whereby we draw straws or somthing to see which adult will take care of all the kids while the others fast to death, or there is fishing available or any other viable solution that I may not have read into the question as you have done? Of course not! I'm not the'scumbag' you have made me out to be. Whether it be warfare or self defence, 'raising your hands in anger' must ALWAYS be the last resort. Maybe I didn't read enough into the question. Perhapse I assumed less possiblities that were stated. Perhapse i assumed there were boundries to answering that were not intended by the original author (though I don't think so). I'm not a 'scumbag' and I'm not a barbarian. And if ANYONE HAD to be killed on the Island I would pray it be so that others may be spared. But honestly, I don't think ANYONE posting here is posting with the attitude that Killing would be anything but a last resort, and so IMO, while you may have given a more thoughtful answer to the question than I did (for the sake of argument ), I think that you TOTALLY missed the mark as to the spirit of what i was saying.
I'm sorry that I did not go back and respond to every accusation you posted point by point nevertheless I hope this makes my position clearer.

 

[relspace]

Of course not! I'm not the'scumbag' you have made me out to be. Whether it be warfare or self defence, 'raising your hands in anger' must ALWAYS be the last resort. Maybe I didn't read enough into the question. Perhapse I assumed less possiblities that were stated. Perhapse i assumed there were boundries to answering that were not intended by the original author (though I don't think so). I'm not a 'scumbag' and I'm not a barbarian. And if ANYONE HAD to be killed on the Island I would pray it be so that others may be spared. But honestly, I don't think ANYONE posting here is posting with the attitude that Killing would be anything but a last resort, and so IMO, while you may have given a more thoughtful answer to the question than I did (for the sake of argument ), I think that you TOTALLY missed the mark as to the spirit of what i was saying.

I'm sorry that I did not go back and respond to every accusation you posted point by point nevertheless I hope this makes my position clearer.

There is no accusation involved, unless you have in fact committed murder. The question was entirely predicated on the assumption that you did carry out this program of murder. Since you have so much difficulty anwering the question then I shall answer it myself: I would NOT murder the other family in order to save my own, but I would kill a man attempting to do so, removing the need for him to kill himself in order to protect his own children.

Furthermore, I posed a much more difficult question involving a boat. (So what are all these accusations you are talking about?)

Here is a better puzzle. As a result of an accident, two families are in the middle of the ocean with one small lifeboat which cannot hold more than one family. The evil family might indeed try to club the other so they can have the lifeboat to themselves. But more civilized people are more likely to put the children in the lifeboat while the capable adults swim along side.

Lets make it more difficult and assume that some of the adults are severly wounded and that some of the children have to do the swimming. Well now in that case some people will indeed have to make some difficult choices. But insisting that one of the injured adults take a turn at swimming is not quite the same as clubbing someone to death.

Ok now lets make it even more difficult. As people start getting really tired and put more of their weight on the boat, the boat begins to sink. What then? Push some of the heavier people off? Hmmmm...? If I had the strength to do that then I must be swimming, right? Pulling off the heaviest adult might kill him and it might kill me to. Under those conditions I might go for it.

 

[mooduck1]

There is no accusation involved, unless you have in fact committed murder. The question was entirely predicated on the assumption that you did carry out this program of murder. Since you have so much difficulty anwering the question then I shall answer it myself: I would NOT murder the other family in order to save my own, but I would kill a man attempting to do so, removing the need for him to kill himself in order to protect his own children.

Furthermore, I posed a much more difficult question involving a boat. (So what are all these accusations you are talking about?)

Furthermore, I posed a much more difficult question involving a boat. (So what are all these accusations you are talking about?)


Quote:
Originally Posted by relspace
Here is a better puzzle. As a result of an accident, two families are in the middle of the ocean with one small lifeboat which cannot hold more than one family. The evil family might indeed try to club the other so they can have the lifeboat to themselves. But more civilized people are more likely to put the children in the lifeboat while the capable adults swim along side.

Lets make it more difficult and assume that some of the adults are severly wounded and that some of the children have to do the swimming. Well now in that case some people will indeed have to make some difficult choices. But insisting that one of the injured adults take a turn at swimming is not quite the same as clubbing someone to death.

Ok now lets make it even more difficult. As people start getting really tired and put more of their weight on the boat, the boat begins to sink. What then? Push some of the heavier people off? Hmmmm...? If I had the strength to do that then I must be swimming, right? Pulling off the heaviest adult might kill him and it might kill me to. Under those conditions I might go for it.

This is likely a question for a different string. But I'll answer this one less like a barbarian if possible. Do I push someone off who is weighting the boat down? IS that the question? Well, I mean if he's an adult I'd try reasoning with him for the sake of his children. I'd ask him to sacrfice himself ( as I would if I was injured and could not paddle and the boat was sinking because of my big butt.) You know, this case seems to be one where there was mutal cooperation between the groups and I'm sure we could work something out without a fight. I could be falsely altruistic and say "I'll join you" but that would almost be selfish becasue although I'D feel better joining a person in his death than causing it, the fact might be that I am needed to paddle. Your question leaves open more possibilities than I beleived the original string starter though. Here it is assumed that there is cooperation and open even friendly communication with the other family. There is the possibility of escape and salvation beyond devine intervention. TBH there are way to many variables to make this as focused a discussion on morality than the first question posed to us all. Perhapse if you give me more paramiters i could be more direct but honeslty as your question is posed, it's not answerable unless i was there and knew more than I know now.