Thou Shalt Not Murder

[Arc F1]

Are you saying the Ten Commandments no longer applies?

OB

How did you read that into my post?

 

[Occams Barber]

The Law itself provides more context. It calls for capital punishment after a fair trial with sufficient evidence for a number of sins. Such capital punishment that meets these standards is not murder, there are even different Hebrew words that are used to describe each.

There seems to be a fixation on capital punishment. The OP was not about capital punishment. Capital punishment was one of 12 examples of variability in what states/cultures define as unlawful killing.

As an extreme example: Aztecs habitually sacrificed humans to placate their gods. Within Aztec society this was a right, proper and legal thing to do. Since the 5th Commandment stipulates that thou shalt not commit murder (i.e. unlawful killing) and Aztec sacrifice was lawful killing, it seems that this ritual sacrifice is condoned by the Commandment.

Another example: The laws in State A allow abortion. The laws in State B forbid abortion. Since the 5th only stipulates that killing must be lawful, both States are consistent with the 5th.

Do you see a problem here?

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

How did you read that into my post?

The NT seems to say self defense and leave the rest to God.

I may have misunderstood what you meant by this.

OB

 

[zippy2006]

Correction - the unlawful intentional/premeditated killing of a person (their lack of innocence doesn't necessarily make it legal to kill them)

No, it is and has always been a matter of innocence. Defining it according to "law" manufactures the problem you seem fixated on.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Hi Carl

I'm not sure how your comments apply to the question I raised in the OP.

OB

You raised the question of the relative definition of murder being inconsistent across cultures. I am saying that this only occurs when regimes abuse their God given authority , and in this case the individual has no obligation to submit.

 

[Sketcher]

There seems to be a fixation on capital punishment. The OP was not about capital punishment. Capital punishment was one of 12 examples of variability in what states/cultures define as unlawful killing.

As an extreme example: Aztecs habitually sacrificed humans to placate their gods. Within Aztec society this was a right, proper and legal thing to do. Since the 5th Commandment stipulates that thou shalt not commit murder (i.e. unlawful killing) and Aztec sacrifice was lawful killing, it seems that this ritual sacrifice is condoned by the Commandment.

Another example: The laws in State A allow abortion. The laws in State B forbid abortion. Since the 5th only stipulates that killing must be lawful, both States are consistent with the 5th.

Do you see a problem here?

OB

Yes I do see a problem, and since I consider the Bible as my moral authority, using Aztec sacrifice as an example of lawful killing in their culture is irrelevant to the question of interpreting the Biblical verses. The Aztecs did not have the Old Testament until the Spanish came, and their ritual slaughter was of course well established by then. I'm not sure why you would consider their example relevant to interpreting what the Bible says.

If you want to understand the meaning of the Fifth Commandment, understand its context. That's in part why I brought up capital punishment in the OT (also because you mentioned capital punishment in your OP). Many people are confused about the Fifth Commandment because they misinterpret it, and they misinterpret it because they do not understand or acknowledge its context.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Hi VC

Your answers to my past questions have usually been a model of clarity - thank you. Unfortunately in this case you seem to be overthinking it. I'm having a deal of trouble understanding where you're coming from.

Through the mist I think you're saying that it's the state's role to determine what killing is lawful. This is consistent with a couple of other replies. The problem I have is that states have varied enormously in their determination of what is lawful killing. Think of things like legal infanticide or human sacrifice. (there are some end notes in the OP covering both topics).

If the state decides, we have huge differences between them in what constitutes legal killing. In spite of these differences all would be consistent with the 5th since it doesn't specify what is legal killing. Since I believe that morality is relative to time, place and culture, this would match my expectations but I doubt that Christians would agree.

OB

In essence, yes--the dispensation of civil justice is the possession of the State. Therefore what is commanded against is killing outside of civil law.

The rest of what I wrote was an attempt, largely, to explain that the State's authority to exercise civil judgment does not make what the State does inherently good or right (in any objective sense); nor that one must regard civil law as an objective standard of right and wrong. Only that it is up to the State to determine civil justice.

Therefore the commandment teaches me that I cannot kill. But it does not (necessarily) mean that when a government executes civil justice by use of the sword that this is an infringement against the commandment; since the commandment is against extra-judicial killing. And thus I must see the commandment in relationship to myself and my own behavior toward my neighbors.

I suppose that would have been much easier to say.

Though the commandment is also understood to go much deeper than that; as Christ says that to even harbor anger in one's heart against another is to violate the commandment. Thus, at least from the context of the Lutheran tradition, our Confessions read,

"But the cause and need of this commandment is that God well knows that the world is evil, and that this life has much unhappiness; therefore He has placed this and the other commandments between the good and the evil. Now, as there are many assaults upon all commandments, so it happens also in this commandment that we must live among many people who do us harm, so that we have cause to be hostile to them.

As when your neighbor sees that you have a better house and home [a larger family and more fertile fields], greater possessions and fortune from God than he, he is sulky, envies you, and speaks no good of you.

Thus by the devil’s incitement you will get many enemies who cannot bear to see you have any good, either bodily or spiritual. When we see such people, our hearts, in turn, would rage and bleed and take vengeance. Then there arise cursing and blows, from which follow finally misery and murder. Here, now, God like a kind father steps in ahead of us, interposes and wishes to have the quarrel settled, that no misfortune come of it, nor one destroy another. And briefly, He would hereby protect, set free, and keep in peace every one against the crime and violence of every one else; and would have this commandment placed as a wall, fortress, and refuge about our neighbor, that we do him no hurt nor harm in his body.

Thus this commandment aims at this, that no one offend his neighbor on account of any evil deed, even though he have fully deserved it. For where murder is forbidden, all cause also is forbidden whence murder may originate. For many a one, although he does not kill, yet curses and utters a wish, which would stop a person from running far if it were to strike him in the neck [makes imprecations, which if fulfilled with respect to any one, he would not live long]." - The Large Catechism, Part I, the 5th Commandment, paragraphs 183-186

That is, in its gross outward sense, the commandment puts a wall between the individual and violence, restraining violence only to the exercise of governing authorities for the maintaining of civil order. But in its deeper sense, it also acts as a wall, that I might be stopped short--to not give in to anger and hostility, but that these must be cut off at the bud. Also, as Law, it condemns me as a sinner--for I have harbored resentment and anger toward my fellow man, I have cursed whether under my breath or out loud or in a fit of emotion wished harm against another.

So the commandment--like all of God's commandments--establish the division of right from wrong; act as a mirror reflecting my own erring sinful thoughts, feelings, words, and actions; and provides instruction on how I ought to conduct myself in this life in regard to my fellow man.

I may not kill, I have no such right to take life from anyone.
I may not so much as even harbor resentment against another, even if they have or wish to cause me harm. Retribution and vengeance are not mine to take.
I am instead to respect the life of my neighbor, and live in peace, harmony, with love and forgiveness toward all God's creatures.

That is the meaning of the commandment.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[DiscipleHeLovesToo]

Sorry DHLT. I have no idea what you're on about apart from something about capital punishment.

OB

no worries

you asked this question in your first post:

Whose law determines when killing is or is not lawful?

my answer: God's law; and He's the only One who is able to rightly judge

 

[disciple Clint]

So whatever the state determines is 'just' is OK?
So if the State determines that assisted suicide is OK then it would be allowable under the 5th Commandment? Ditto for abortion, capital punishment etc.

And since the State, in the past, allowed for burning heretics, was this also consistent with the 5th?

OB

You need to reread that post, go for content this time.

 

[EnderTwo]

Who determines what killing is unlawful ...?
OB

The State determines what killings are unlawful, but the church has set bounds on what executions are just. The State has an obligation to impose penalties that are commensurate in severity with the crime, neither too harsh nor too severe. The church has always recognized the legitimacy of capital punishment as a just punishment for (at least) the crime of murder.

The answer to your question is straightforward: the State. That says nothing, however, about which "lawful" killings are just. The church has given her answer to that question as well:

Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
A. Human life may be lawfully taken:

1. In self-defense...
2. In a just war...
3. By the lawful execution of a criminal... (Baltimore Catechism)

 

[WrappedUpinHisLove]

God hates the shedding of innocent blood. So killing done in self defence is permissable. I guess this could include defending ones country in times of war

 

[Moral Orel]

Maybe I'm crazy, but aren't y'all overthinking this? "Thou shalt not murder" is a law in a specific legal code, so what is justifiable killing is defined in that legal code.

 

[FireDragon76]

Honor killing, in societies that practice it, is a matter of honor, not law. Honor and law are distinct concepts.

 

[LightLoveHope]

Thou Shalt not Murder

One of the great cornerstones of Christian morality is the 5th Commandment (or 6th for Catholics):

Thou shalt not murder​

On the surface this seems to be a fairly straightforward moral law, but there is a complication. The standard definition of ‘murder’ is “the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another”. If this commandment has a universal application whose legal/moral system is used to determine what is or is not unlawful?

Legal (or traditionally acceptable) acts of killing have varied enormously through time and between cultures. Examples include:

• Honour killing
• Mass killing/genocide
• Human sacrifice
• Burning heretics
• Intentional killing of non-combatants
• Stoning for various crimes
• Infanticide
• Revenge killing

Even today there are differing views of what constitutes legal killing between culturally similar, developed Western countries. Obvious areas of difference are:

• Capital punishment
• Euthanasia/assisted suicide
• The circumstances under which killing in self-defence is acceptable
• Abortion

Given this variability, the 5th Commandment appears to lack definition unless it’s tied to a particular legal/moral system.


Whose law determines when killing is or is not lawful?

OB


More Reading:
Thou shalt not kill - Wikipedia
Murder - Wikipedia
Honor killing | sociology | Britannica
Human sacrifice - Wikipedia
capital punishment | Definition, Debate, Examples, & Facts | Britannica
euthanasia | Definition, History, & Facts | Britannica
burning at the stake | History & Facts | Britannica
United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect
Stoning - Wikipedia
Revenge - Wikipedia
Homicide - Wikipedia
Infanticide - New World Encyclopedia
BBC - Ethics - Abortion: Historical attitudes to abortion

The point is morally taking anothers life is sinful unless allowed.

The first relies on equality of life. Are all lives equally valuable? Murder can be through torture or miss treatment.

Methods of defining guilt vary, roll of the dice, asking God, the rulers edict.

Execution varies. An executioner or community stoning.

Through all this the principle stands unjust execution is evil. Each society has to work out how to resolve the dilemma. We agree murder is rare, and imprisonment resolves lots of issues, especially corrupt use of capital punishment to support idiological groups.

Does a society become guilty of murder by unjustly killing innocents?
This is where nutcases start to justify mass killing by implicated guilt.

Muhammed used the idea killing one individual by an opposing group through one action, forfieted the lives of the whole group. It is why war becomes possible, when the boundaries break down, and its power blocks.

Above this confusion life is sacred. So here we need to return.

God bless you