Before the gates of Heaven (poll fixed)

Sat Jan 29, 2011 4:56 am

Re: Before the gates of Heaven (poll fixed)

Pretty sure it's murder in both of the branches of Christianity.

Nope. For the Lutherans it's not to murder, for the Catholics and Orthodox it's not kill. I just checked my own bible and on the net so I am pretty damned sure it is so. That said, you are allowed to act in self-defense as the commandment relates to preserving life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_d ... mmandments

Njall

Sat Jan 29, 2011 9:15 am

Re: Before the gates of Heaven (poll fixed)

Mcduffie wrote:If the military "loses" a nuclear device (stolen) it's supposed to be gotten back at all costs. Meaning that if innocent bystanders are in the way, they die.

Just a "fun to know" fact. Since someone brought up "saving 1 for 1000."

Yes. And your point is? Would you prefer the alternative? Truly?

Fivelives

Sat Jan 29, 2011 8:46 pm

Re: Before the gates of Heaven (poll fixed)

Io.Draco wrote:
Pretty sure it's murder in both of the branches of Christianity.

Nope. For the Lutherans it's not to murder, for the Catholics and Orthodox it's not kill. I just checked my own bible and on the net so I am pretty damned sure it is so. That said, you are allowed to act in self-defense as the commandment relates to preserving life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_d ... mmandments

Catechism is children's bible school. They don't introduce it as "murder" because children are inherently innocent, and introducing them to the concept of murder would violate that innocence - at least after age 7. Anything prior to the 7th birthday isn't even considered a sin by the christian dogma, assuming that they were baptised to atone for original sin.

Oh, and catechism starts at 7 and ends with confirmation at age 12, then first communion sometime after that. It's been awhile since I attended seminary, but I want to say first communion is around 14-16 years old.

But yeah, I can look in any copy of the bible you'd like me to look in, but every translation is specific on the "murder" vs "kill" wording.

NIV

Exodus 20:10-17 wrote:10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
12 “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.
13 “You shall not murder.
14 “You shall not commit adultery.
15 “You shall not steal.
16 “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

NKJ

Exodus 20:10-17 wrote:10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
12 “ Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God is giving you.
13 “You shall not murder.
14 “You shall not commit adultery.
15 “You shall not steal.
16 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”

KJV

I ... actually stand corrected here. The King James Version of the bible uses "Thou shalt not kill" in Exodus, but all other references (in Matthew and Leviticus mainly) refer to murder instead of the broader "kill".

Oh, and I'm not normally one to harp on how unreliable wikipedia is (because it's fairly reliable - at least as reliable as printed encyclopedias, if not moreso), but for religious arguments, I'd suggest not using it. Religion isn't fact, it's faith, something that's different for everyone.

Koatanga

Sat Jan 29, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Before the gates of Heaven (poll fixed)

Fivelives wrote:There's a common misconception that the 5th commandment is "thou shalt not kill", when it's "thou shalt not commit murder". There's a distinct difference between killing (which may or may not be justified, e.g. self-defense or war) and murder (which is never justified - murder is the intentional ending of a human life for no valid reason. "I just didn't like them/I felt like it" isn't a valid reason).

Fortunately, "we completely fail at diplomacy" is a valid reason to kill people, otherwise armies would kinda be out of business.

Ruex

Sat Jan 29, 2011 9:38 pm

Re: Before the gates of Heaven (poll fixed)

Earlier forms of the proverb omit the first three words. Cf. [St. Francis de sales, Letter lxxiv.] le proverbe tiré de notre saint Bernard, ‘L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés ou désirs’, the proverb taken from our St. Bernard, ‘Hell is full of good intentions or desires.’

Hell is full of good desires.
[1574 E. Hellowes tr. Guevara's Epistles 205]

It is a saying among Divines, that Hell is full of good Intentions, and Meanings.
[1654 R. Whitlock Observations on Manners of English 203]

It is a true saying,‘Hell is paved with good intentions’.
[1736 Wesley Journal 10 July (1910) I. i. 246]

I shall have nothing to hand in, except intentions,—what they say the road to the wrong place is paved with.
[1847 J. A. Froude Shadows of Clouds ix.]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
[1855 H. G. Bohn Hand-Book of Proverbs 514]

Brekkie

Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:31 pm

Re: Before the gates of Heaven (poll fixed)

Io.Draco wrote:
Pretty sure it's murder in both of the branches of Christianity.

Nope. For the Lutherans it's not to murder, for the Catholics and Orthodox it's not kill. I just checked my own bible and on the net so I am pretty damned sure it is so. That said, you are allowed to act in self-defense as the commandment relates to preserving life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_d ... mmandments

You are mistaken.
The Catholic Church believes in Just War Doctrine (i.e. there are certain circumstances where you are morally justified and morally obligated to use violence, when it comes down to a last resort). Pretty hard to fight a war without ever killing anyone.

EDIT: See below, from the very wikipedia article that you linked, but apparently misunderstood or didn't read thoroughly.

The Catechism asserts that "it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life."[89] Kreeft says, "self-defense is legitimate for the same reason suicide is not: because one's own life is a gift from God, a treasure we are responsible for preserving and defending."[90] The Catechism teaches that "someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow."[89] Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.[89]

The Church requires all to pray and work to prevent unjust wars, but allows for just wars if certain conditions are met:

1. The reasons for going to war are defensive.
2. "The damage inflicted by the aggressor ... must be lasting, grave, and certain."
3. It is a last resort taken only after all other means of putting an end to the "grave damage" have been ineffective.
4. The ultimate aim is peace and there is a serious chance of success.
5. No graver evils are produced that overshadow the evil to be eliminated. This forbids the use of arms to eliminate whole cities and areas with their inhabitants.
6. Respect and care is required for non-combatants, wounded soldiers and prisoners. Soldiers are required to disobey commands to commit genocide and ones that violate universal principles.[65][91]

In this way, those Catholics, such as myself, who serve in the military may not be struck with some kind of moral paradox about the basic nature of our duties.
St. Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits, the order who I've always had a very intimate connection with in my life, was originally a soldier. There have been many militant orders of Catholics in the Church's history.

Mcduffie

Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:48 pm

Re: Before the gates of Heaven (poll fixed)

Njall wrote:
Mcduffie wrote:If the military "loses" a nuclear device (stolen) it's supposed to be gotten back at all costs. Meaning that if innocent bystanders are in the way, they die.

Just a "fun to know" fact. Since someone brought up "saving 1 for 1000."

Yes. And your point is? Would you prefer the alternative? Truly?

I fully support that idea. A nuclear weapon doesn't need to be in the hands of a bad guy. For me, I'd definitely shoot the civilians in the way. But it would be a morally confusing ground for most people.

Just stirring the pot.

Barathorn

Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:54 am

Re: Before the gates of Heaven (poll fixed)

There doesn't appear to be an option for,

'Punch him in the face and ask why bad things happen to good people?'

/mutters.

Skye1013

Mon Jan 31, 2011 1:45 am

Re: Before the gates of Heaven (poll fixed)

Barathorn wrote:There doesn't appear to be an option for,

'Punch him in the face and ask why bad things happen to good people?'

/mutters.

I lol'd... so that being an action... with the intention neither good nor bad... does that mean I'm going to Hell?

Masumi

Wed Feb 16, 2011 11:08 am

Re: Before the gates of Heaven (poll fixed)

I myself do not go to church, but I believe that they would be judge on what is on their heart. no one is really truly bad so I would say that their intension would be judged.

Santcuff

Wed Feb 16, 2011 11:10 am

Re: Before the gates of Heaven (poll fixed)

Masumi wrote:I myself do not go to church, but I believe that they would be judge on what is on their heart. no one is really truly bad so I would say that their intension would be judged.

History would disagree with that, but I'm not going to start anything here

Flipthebird

Wed Feb 16, 2011 12:30 pm

Re: Before the gates of Heaven (poll fixed)

Barathorn wrote:There doesn't appear to be an option for,

'Punch him in the face and ask why bad things happen to good people?'

/mutters.

He'd dodge ya and remind you that we live in a fallen world, made fallen by adam and eve. Bad things are going to happen, but to good people? According to the bible no one is good. Jesus even asked why his disciples were calling him good.

bldavis

Wed Feb 16, 2011 1:05 pm

Re: Before the gates of Heaven (poll fixed)

Flipthebird wrote:
Barathorn wrote:There doesn't appear to be an option for,

'Punch him in the face and ask why bad things happen to good people?'

/mutters.

He'd dodge ya and remind you that we live in a fallen world, made fallen by adam and eve. Bad things are going to happen, but to good people? According to the bible no one is good. Jesus even asked why his disciples were calling him good.

if we were good, we would be without evil

without evil, we would be without fualt and therefore perfect
...crap i forgot the name of the guy, but someone in the old testament was translated (taken to heaven without tasting death) as he was perfect

therefore: being here on earth and alive means we are not purely good.

Mcduffie

Wed Feb 16, 2011 1:15 pm

Re: Before the gates of Heaven (poll fixed)

bldavis wrote:if we were good, we would be without evil

without evil, we would be without fualt and therefore perfect
...crap i forgot the name of the guy, but someone in the old testament was translated (taken to heaven without tasting death) as he was perfect

therefore: being here on earth and alive means we are not purely good.

Guy is Elijah. Years of Christian education finally doing something for me.

So, let's say a nuclear weapon is stolen by some terrorists. While escaping in their vehicle, a civilian SUV with a mother and her 3 kids inside is blocking traffic. You're pursuing the terrorists and trying to recover the nuclear weapon. The fastest way to get it back is to ram the vehicle, and potentially kill everyone inside. What do you do? How does it line up with "not murdering anyone" and having the "best intentions?"

bldavis

Wed Feb 16, 2011 1:21 pm

Re: Before the gates of Heaven (poll fixed)

Mcduffie wrote:
bldavis wrote:if we were good, we would be without evil

without evil, we would be without fualt and therefore perfect
...crap i forgot the name of the guy, but someone in the old testament was translated (taken to heaven without tasting death) as he was perfect

therefore: being here on earth and alive means we are not purely good.

Guy is Elijah. Years of Christian education finally doing something for me.

So, let's say a nuclear weapon is stolen by some terrorists. While escaping in their vehicle, a civilian SUV with a mother and her 3 kids inside is blocking traffic. You're pursuing the terrorists and trying to recover the nuclear weapon. The fastest way to get it back is to ram the vehicle, and potentially kill everyone inside. What do you do? How does it line up with "not murdering anyone" and having the "best intentions?"

<-- devout church go-er from age 4 to age 20, then just stopped, am now 27

anyway, sa bad as i feel saying this, sorry family, if i have to choose between avoiding hitting you and saving your lives, or stopping a terrorist with a nuke from killing potentionally millions.....
i dont get paid enough to make that desicision, i would have to follow orders

edit: i think it would look better to have the blood of a mother and 3 kids on my hands than who knows how many people if that nuke goes off

Mcduffie

Wed Feb 16, 2011 1:28 pm

Re: Before the gates of Heaven (poll fixed)

bldavis wrote:<-- devout church go-er from age 4 to age 20, then just stopped, am now 27

anyway, sa bad as i feel saying this, sorry family, if i have to choose between avoiding hitting you and saving your lives, or stopping a terrorist with a nuke from killing potentionally millions.....
i dont get paid enough to make that desicision, i would have to follow orders

<--Atheist, went to Christian college to study Christianity.

Killing civilians wouldn't be an act of war. Double that, considering they're US citizens. Plus, what if you're killing off the inventor of a pill that cures cancer? Wouldn't that also kill millions of people?

My point is, life is made up of a lot of decisions. You have to make these decisions. Weighing the "eternal" benefits only creates problems. I'm with you, I'd kill the civilians. Short-term, foreseeable result is a nuclear weapon that could kill lots of people. Eternal, unforeseeable result is religious condemnation in the afterlife or maybe the death of someone that could invent something cool. I'm gonna go with what I can see.

inb4 "fath is being sure of what you hope for, and certain of what you do not see"

God might be pleased with you picking the "eternal" benefit. But the millions of people melting and suffering nuclear fallout wouldn't.

Fivelives

Wed Feb 16, 2011 5:23 pm

Re: Before the gates of Heaven (poll fixed)

Faith is a good idea. The problem is, somewhere along the line it got turned into a belief. Ideas can be changed, but people will die for their beliefs.

Brutalicus

Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:06 pm

Re: Before the gates of Heaven (poll fixed)

Fivelives wrote:Faith is a good idea. The problem is, somewhere along the line it got turned into a belief. Ideas can be changed, but people will die for their beliefs.

Die, and do so much worse. I'm not ashamed to say I'm Catholic, but it's kind of hard not to be ashamed of a lot of things people of faith (not the least of whom were Catholic) have done some baaaaad things in the name of their religions. I think it would be kind of naive for a religious person to say people are only judged on their words, their actions, or their CBH (or appreciation thereof, for us males). That said, I'm voting CBH.

Passionario

Thu Feb 17, 2011 1:02 am

Re: Before the gates of Heaven (poll fixed)

Mcduffie wrote:So, let's say a nuclear weapon is stolen by some terrorists. While escaping in their vehicle, a civilian SUV with a mother and her 3 kids inside is blocking traffic. You're pursuing the terrorists and trying to recover the nuclear weapon. The fastest way to get it back is to ram the vehicle, and potentially kill everyone inside. What do you do? How does it line up with "not murdering anyone" and having the "best intentions?"

How about "don't let terrorists steal nuclear weapons"? Or, better yet, "don't create nuclear weapons in the first place"?

bldavis

Thu Feb 17, 2011 1:33 am

Re: Before the gates of Heaven (poll fixed)

Passionario wrote: better yet, "don't create nuclear weapons in the first place"?

if only it were possible to go back and stop WWII from happening....
but then again to do that you would have to go back and stop hitler from coming to power
in turn stop the great depression and WWI .....

can we have a redo of the 20th century pls?

Skye1013

Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:18 am

Re: Before the gates of Heaven (poll fixed)

bldavis wrote:
Passionario wrote: better yet, "don't create nuclear weapons in the first place"?

if only it were possible to go back and stop WWII from happening....
but then again to do that you would have to go back and stop hitler from coming to power
in turn stop the great depression and WWI .....

can we have a redo of the 20th century pls?

Didn't a lot of those "bad" discoveries coincide with a bunch of "good" ones as well? If the a-bomb hadn't happened, would we also have some of our other technological advances that have saved as many, if not more, people than the nukes have killed?

*Disclaimer: I am unable to find anything specifically that came from the a-bomb discoveries, other than "technological advances," but I'm fairly certain we wouldn't be where we are today, scientifically or technologically, without it. Not to mention, Germany was already working on one, so it would require rewriting history far more than just the Manhattan Project, as bldavis mentioned.

bldavis

Thu Feb 17, 2011 4:06 am

Re: Before the gates of Heaven (poll fixed)

it is true we would be farther behind in nuclear medicine
and really the cold war nuke fest came from both the us/uk and the ussr grabbing any and all german nuclear scientist they could
we got some, they got some, and without a common enemy.... let me just say the enemy of my enemy is my friend

i honestly think Germany would have won WWII if Hitler had honored his non-aggression pact with Stalin at least until Britain was overran

Passionario

Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:22 am

Re: Before the gates of Heaven (poll fixed)

My point was that McDuffie's scenario is a trap - it's fundamentally the same as "The villain of Saw series locked you in a room and told you to disembowel seven pregnant women with a butcher knife in order to retrieve keys that have been implanted in their bodies. If you do not get all seven keys within five minutes, a machine will release mustard gas into a room full of children. What would you do?"

In both situations, the true villain is the one who engineered the situation, and you are merely one of the victims trying to cope with it and minimize the damage.

Invisusira

Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:53 am

Re: Before the gates of Heaven (poll fixed)

"What if" is a pretty pointless game to play. Almost as pointless as "Before the gates of Heaven."

Skye1013

Thu Feb 17, 2011 7:08 am

Re: Before the gates of Heaven (poll fixed)

bldavis wrote:it is true we would be farther behind in nuclear medicine
and really the cold war nuke fest came from both the us/uk and the ussr grabbing any and all german nuclear scientist they could
we got some, they got some, and without a common enemy.... let me just say the enemy of my enemy is my friend

i honestly think Germany would have won WWII if Hitler had honored his non-aggression pact with Stalin at least until Britain was overran

There are a number of "what ifs" that could be played out to have led to a better outcome for Hitler. Like... What if Japan hadn't bombed Pearl Harbor? What if Hitler had finished conquering Europe before going after the USSR? What if he had managed to complete the nuke before the Allies? What if the US had decided not to "drop the bomb" on Japan? What if he had quit while he was ahead, to potentially finish up later, after things had calmed down a bit?

Any of those could have led to Hitler "winning." Now, what constitutes a win in each scenario may vary, but there would likely be far more German speakers, and far fewer Jews.