Thou shalt no kill

[ewmon]

I think the bible says "thy shalt not murder"

Thank you, AutoEngr (not a sock puppet, honest). As someone who was almost murdered, I can say that there's a world of difference between being murdered and, for example, being slain in battle. People agree to go to battle; they don't agree to be murdered. Otherwise, people would have to rant at every nation on Earth (beginning, hopefully, with their own).

 

Let me say something ... years from now (hopefully sooner than that), advanced humans will look back and wonder how nations could send their finest and most hopeful young men and women to die in war. So, unless people are frantically writing their elected officials about marching them off to war, I sense a bit of double-sidedness in them. I find this image extremely disturbing, as should everyone, yet people apparently allow it to continue as they angrily debate slayings and enslavements that may have occurred (if one chooses to believe the Bible), did and done, thousands of years ago.

 

People can hate God or the Bible as they please, but at the end of the day, they must still deal with any internal inconsistencies of theirs.

[Dekan]

It seems to me, that male humans really like the idea of killing each other. This is proved by the huge popularity of:

 

1. War films (plenty of "Action" - ie mass slaughter)

2. Murder mysteries (who done the murder - admire its ingenuity man!)

3. Video/computer games (don't they all involve the rampant and wholesale extinguishing of life).

 

Shouldn't we face it - men, at heart, thoroughly enjoy a bout of good clean killing. Whereas women in general, seem less keen on the idea. Perhaps for biological reasons.

 

Odd though, that some of the best writers of murder mysteries were women, Agatha Christie, Dorothy Sayers, why would that be?

[Auto Engineer]

It seems to me, that male humans really like the idea of killing each other. This is proved by the huge popularity of:

 

1. War films (plenty of "Action" - ie mass slaughter)

2. Murder mysteries (who done the murder - admire its ingenuity man!)

3. Video/computer games (don't they all involve the rampant and wholesale extinguishing of life).

 

Shouldn't we face it - men, at heart, thoroughly enjoy a bout of good clean killing. Whereas women in general, seem less keen on the idea. Perhaps for biological reasons.

 

Odd though, that some of the best writers of murder mysteries were women, Agatha Christie, Dorothy Sayers, why would that be?

 

You would need to look back into the book of Genesis where Adam was given a command not to eat from the tree of knowledge. I don't remember reading anything about God or Adam saying to Eve that she must not eat from the tree of knowledge.

 

I have however always been in thought provoking mode when I try to understand how or why Eve became in such a close proximity to this tree of knowledge?

 

The bible doesn't really answer all the questions that we can think about?

 

Time is not mentioned in the book of Genesis and I wonder if a perfect woman would have a menstral cycle because according to the bible they after all were not wearing any garmets were they?

 

So from the time Eve was created to somehow putting herself in such a close proximity to this tree of knowledge, this must have occured within a few weeks and I just don't understand how a perfect human could have a conversation with a snake?

 

I mean come on a perfect woman talks to a snake and this snake being Satan convinces her that the fruit is good and she would positively not die, then Adam sees she has eaten the fruit and not died, and Eve must have told Adam that she had been talking to the surpent through a snake, then Adam eats the fruit also where immediately their eyes are opened to the fact that they have now sinned. The bible says that Eve was deceived but Adam was not, however Eve made the first move to the tree of knowledge, which the bible does not tell us why or how she became to desire this tree, or even if she was lead to it by satan at that time making her do something she might not have ordinarily done?

 

So you see, Eve for whatever reason made the first move to the fruit which was bad for us, so it is right and proper then that Eves offspring will do the same like the woman you now talk about writing books as you say above.

[John Cuthber]

It seems to me, that male humans really like the idea of killing each other. This is proved by the huge popularity of:

 

1. War films (plenty of "Action" - ie mass slaughter)

2. Murder mysteries (who done the murder - admire its ingenuity man!)

3. Video/computer games (don't they all involve the rampant and wholesale extinguishing of life).

 

Shouldn't we face it - men, at heart, thoroughly enjoy a bout of good clean killing. Whereas women in general, seem less keen on the idea. Perhaps for biological reasons.

 

Odd though, that some of the best writers of murder mysteries were women, Agatha Christie, Dorothy Sayers, why would that be?

I think the evidence says otherwise.

Even in war a lot of people (and most will be men) were found to avoid killing.

It's an interesting paradox.

Religion says "thou shalt..." but most armies have priests of some sort.

Also, it seems to have been military policy over the years to "demonise" the enemy. It's much easier to persuade people to kill what they see as "sub humans".

Being the "wrong" religion is seen as one way of being sub human.

So, while they say "thou shalt not kill" they also lend legitimacy to those who, for whatever reason, want to see lots of the other guys dead.

[dimreepr]

AFAIK the percentage of men on the front line that deliberately shot to avoid killing was up to 95%, the other 5% were known as “heroes”. In peacetime these men/women are known as sociopaths. Most people can easily tell the difference between a game or entertainment and life. Demonising the enemy is one way of subverting this fact; another is to train the modern army in a way that normalises the act of killing.

 

 

[Moontanman]

AFAIK the percentage of men on the front line that deliberately shot to avoid killing was up to 95%, the other 5% were known as “heroes”. In peacetime these men/women are known as sociopaths.

 

that seems more than a bit harsh, that might be true in some small percentage but I don't think such a broad assertion can be supported.

 

Most people can easily tell the difference between a game or entertainment and life. Demonising the enemy is one way of subverting this fact; another is to train the modern army in a way that normalises the act of killing.

 

This i agree with.

[zapatos]

AFAIK the percentage of men on the front line that deliberately shot to avoid killing was up to 95%, the other 5% were known as “heroes”. In peacetime these men/women are known as sociopaths.

That is an outlandish and unfounded statement and I resent it greatly.

[dimreepr]

Ok so my memory of the stats was exaggerated, it turns out it was 15% to 20% willing to kill.

 

http://www.cynical-c.com/2007/08/08/only-15-to-20-of-combat-soldiers-in-wwii-would-fire-at-enemy/

 

http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/hope_on_the_battlefield

 

Not too sure this miss remembered stat is worth 2 neg rep points though.

 

Edit/ I can’t find the paper/article that supports my assertion directly but these are close.

 

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/kuszewski20091117/

 

http://www.sociopathworld.com/2012/04/natural-born-killer.html

 

http://www.alternet.org/story/130947/america_is_a_dangerous_vigilante,_heroes_are_sociopaths%3A_the_not-so-mythical_world_of_'watchmen'/?page=3

 

 

 

That is an outlandish and unfounded statement and I resent it greatly.

 

I’m sorry you feel this way, maybe you misinterpreted my post? Many people seem to interchange the term psychopath with sociopath there is a difference.

 

http://suite101.com/article/the-difference-between-psychopaths-and-sociopaths-a258748

 

 

Edited June 15, 2012 by dimreepr

[zapatos]

I’m sorry you feel this way, maybe you misinterpreted my post? Many people seem to interchange the term psychopath with sociopath there is a difference.

No, I didn't misinterpret. I resented you referring to my father as a sociopath.

[Joatmon]

AFAIK the percentage of men on the front line that deliberately shot to avoid killing was up to 95%, the other 5% were known as "heroes". In peacetime these men/women are known as sociopaths. Most people can easily tell the difference between a game or entertainment and life. Demonising the enemy is one way of subverting this fact; another is to train the modern army in a way that normalises the act of killing.

 

 

As an ex-member of the British Armed Services I would be interested where you got these "facts" from.

Any armed person in the British Forces is governed by Rules of Engagement. These are changed according to circumstance and not published as it's not in the interest's of our Forces for any enemy to know when lethal firepower might be allowed.(And when it may not).

But basically, by the time lethal firepower is allowed you are under fire yourself or definite threat of coming under fire. I cannot imagine someone deliberately aiming to miss the enemy under these circumstances.

I must admit that I was fortunate in never actually having to be in that position.

 

 

[dimreepr]

No, I didn't misinterpret. I resented you referring to my father as a sociopath.

 

 

I didn’t, either actually or by inference. I do understand this issue is very emotive and I apologise for any offence I have caused. However this is a science forum and as you can see from the links I have supplied my post does have, at least some, foundation. Of course as with any stat it’s not universal true 100% of the time.

 

 

 

As an ex-member of the British Armed Services I would be interested where you got these "facts" from.

Any armed person in the British Forces is governed by Rules of Engagement. These are changed according to circumstance and not published as it's not in the interest's of our Forces for any enemy to know when lethal firepower might be allowed.(And when it may not).

But basically, by the time lethal firepower is allowed you are under fire yourself or definite threat of coming under fire. I cannot imagine someone deliberately aiming to miss the enemy under these circumstances.

I must admit that I was fortunate in never actually having to be in that position.

 

 

 

 

I’m not really sure of your point, in WWII it has been documented that this was the case on both sides. To account for this the modern army has altered its training regime.

 

 

[Joatmon]

I'm not really sure of your point, in WWII it has been documented that this was the case on both sides. To account for this the modern army has altered its training regime.

 

Sorry, I thought the comment implied that attitudes were still the same today. My apologies.

[John Cuthber]

I'd just like to thank Dimreepr for backing up my assertion with the references.

 

Joatmon.

I don't understand why you asked where he got his figures from. They are in the references cited.

It's possible that they are total hogwash but even then it's unfair to mark someone down for reporting them in good faith.

[Joatmon]

I'd just like to thank Dimreepr for backing up my assertion with the references.

 

Joatmon.

I don't understand why you asked where he got his figures from. They are in the references cited.

It's possible that they are total hogwash but even then it's unfair to mark someone down for reporting them in good faith.

 

For the record I have apologised and I did not mark him down.

 

 

 

[John Cuthber]

The last comment was meant to be general. Sorry for not making that clear.

[ewmon]

I’m sitting here trying to explain the Old Testament to you guys, and I’m wondering why you’re directing all this negativity at the Christian belief.

 

Christians accept the Old Testament as true, and they accept God’s commands to the Israelites in the OT (for example, to wipe out the Midianites) as legitimate, which God did to get the Israelites into the Promised Land. But Christians have accepted it as a one-shot deal, and they have accepted Christ as their Lord. Christian scriptures say to “love your enemies” (Matthew 5:44), and that “we do not fight against flesh and blood, but against … the spiritual forces of evil” (Ephesians 6:12).

 

Jews, on the other hand, obviously have not accepted Christ as their Messiah, and in fact, they crucified Christ because he claimed to be the "King of the Jews" but not their military commander who they expected as their king who would lead them to victory over their enemies. If anyone still has that Old Testament mentality of God wiping out their enemies, it's the Jews, and not the Christians. It's the Jews who are still trying to wrest their "Holy Land" from the possession of the Muslims (who also consider it to be their "Holy Land"); whereas Christians really don't consider any land as "holy". So, the negativity against those who continue to hold such beliefs about wiping out their enemies seems to be more anti-Semitic rather than anti-Christian.

[iNow]

Maybe they're just, "anti-stupid beliefs and worldviews." No need to invoke anti-semitic fervor. I'm an equal opportunity basher of ridiculous religious beliefs and other ignorant bullshit in all of its various forms and flavors.

Edited June 15, 2012 by iNow

[Moontanman]

I’m sitting here trying to explain the Old Testament to you guys, and I’m wondering why you’re directing all this negativity at the Christian belief.

 

Christians accept the Old Testament as true, and they accept God’s commands to the Israelites in the OT (for example, to wipe out the Midianites) as legitimate, which God did to get the Israelites into the Promised Land. But Christians have accepted it as a one-shot deal, and they have accepted Christ as their Lord. Christian scriptures say to “love your enemies” (Matthew 5:44), and that “we do not fight against flesh and blood, but against … the spiritual forces of evil” (Ephesians 6:12).

 

Jews, on the other hand, obviously have not accepted Christ as their Messiah, and in fact, they crucified Christ because he claimed to be the "King of the Jews" but not their military commander who they expected as their king who would lead them to victory over their enemies. If anyone still has that Old Testament mentality of God wiping out their enemies, it's the Jews, and not the Christians. It's the Jews who are still trying to wrest their "Holy Land" from the possession of the Muslims (who also consider it to be their "Holy Land"); whereas Christians really don't consider any land as "holy". So, the negativity against those who continue to hold such beliefs about wiping out their enemies seems to be more anti-Semitic rather than anti-Christian.

 

 

That is the most outrageous misrepresentation of what the reality of the situation is that I have ever read.... Seriously, Christians don't think the Holy land is Holy? How many crusades? How many millions of deaths fighting the Muslims over the so called Holy land?

[John Cuthber]

And, once again, I have to thank someone for providing my references for me.

Thanks Ewmon.

When I pointed out that a good way to get over the fact that most people don;'t want to kill other people (even in war) was to demonize them, and that religion did a good job of this I didn't supply any evidence.

this “we do not fight against flesh and blood, but against … the spiritual forces of evil” is exactly the sort of thing I meant.

The first half is clearly not true- felsh an blood is exactly what you stick a word into.

The second half is the "justification", you pretend that you are killing the "forces of evil".

I grant that religion isn't the only thing that does it. Mr Bush's "axis of evil" is essentially the same, but much of his motivation also seems to be religious too.

Incidentally, since there are 3 major religions that accept the old testament, if I take the piss out of it I'm not being any more anti Christian than I'm being anti Jewish or anti Islamic.

Labelling it as anti Christian is either massive bias or illogical (or possibly both).

Like iNow I'm an equal opportunity religion basher.

Edited June 16, 2012 by John Cuthber

[ewmon]

That is the most outrageous misrepresentation of what the reality of the situation is that I have ever read.... Seriously, Christians don't think the Holy land is Holy? How many crusades? How many millions of deaths fighting the Muslims over the so called Holy land?

The reality of the situation is that the vast majority of Christians in the world don't consider the "Holy Land" as holy, and they have very little interest in who owns it or what happens to it. As I said, only the Jews and Muslims think it's holy, and they are the ones fighting over who owns it and controls it. And we're not talking about the ancient history (and stupidity) of the crusades that happened almost a thousand years ago. We're talking about what the situation is.

 

this “we do not fight against flesh and blood, but against … the spiritual forces of evil” is exactly the sort of thing I meant.

The first half is clearly not true- felsh an blood is exactly what you stick a word into.

The second half is the "justification", you pretend that you are killing the "forces of evil".

Oh please, you removed "spiritual" from "spiritual forces of evil" — you misquoted me — and you're sticking a "word" into "flesh and blood"? How bizarre. How truly bizarre. Are you serious? So, in the same sense, are we sticking words into each other on this forum? Does anyone consider this physical violence? Are we killing each other here? Should someone call the police, or at least report it to the forum moderators? Come on, you're smarter than that.

 

spiritual

1. of the spirit or the soul as distinguished from the body or material matters

2. of, from, or concerned with the intellect; intellectual

3. of or consisting of spirit; not corporeal

 

Notice how these definitions describe spiritual as distinguished from the body and as not corporeal. It's impossible to stick words into flesh and blood, and killing the spirit is the opposite of killing the body. So, are we one the same page now? Spiritual warfare is not bodily warfare.

 

Incidentally, since there are 3 major religions that accept the old testament, if I take the piss out of it I'm not being any more anti Christian than I'm being anti Jewish or anti Islamic.

Labelling it as anti Christian is either massive bias or illogical (or possibly both).

Like iNow I'm an equal opportunity religion basher.

The Old Testament is the entirety of the Jewish holy scriptures. Knocking the Old Testament is clearly being more anti-Semitic than being anti-Christian because, if the Jewish Bible (Old Testament) vanished, the Christian New Testament would generally stand on its own. The Jews are still waiting for the Messiah of the Jewish Bible — their religious military commander who will violently defeat their enemies.

[John Cuthber]

Oops! Typo.

try again with "The first half is clearly not true- felsh an blood is exactly what you stick a sword into.

The second half is the "justification", you pretend that you are killing the "forces of evil"."

Or , if you prefer

" spiritual forces of evil".

It hardly matters because actually it's killing people.

Edited June 17, 2012 by John Cuthber

[Moontanman]

The reality of the situation is that the vast majority of Christians in the world don't consider the "Holy Land" as holy, and they have very little interest in who owns it or what happens to it.

 

So you know this how? Have you conducted polls to confirm this attitude about The Holy Land?

 

As I said, only the Jews and Muslims think it's holy, and they are the ones fighting over who owns it and controls it.

 

So you think this conflict is only of interest to Jews and Muslims? You know this how?

[ewmon]

you pretend that you are killing the "forces of evil"."

Or , if you prefer

"spiritual forces of evil".

It hardly matters because actually it's killing people.

Again, you don't see the difference between spiritual and bodily. Plus, there's no "killing" of the spiritual forces of evil. It's impossible. The spiritual forces are always there ... the urges to do this or that. People struggle against those urges. Imagine if everyone followed every urge that came to them? Resisting those urges is battling against the spiritual forces of evil. People don't kill anything in order to resist those urges. For example, someone doesn't kill anything when they resist getting angry at a driver who cuts him off, or jumping out of the car and punching the guy in the nose. There is no killing, either spiritually or bodily. Is this making any sense to you?

 

The reality of the situation is that the vast majority of Christians in the world don't consider the "Holy Land" as holy, and they have very little interest in who owns it or what happens to it.

So you know this how? Have you conducted polls to confirm this attitude about The Holy Land?

And have you conducted polls to confirm your attitude of what Christians think about the Holy Land? How many Christians have you known? How many of them have said that the Holy Land is holy? And that Christians must own it and control it?

 

I have been a Christian for the past 25 years and attended well over 15 churches along with various other Christian gatherings, and I have met, and talked with, and had various relationships with a wide variety of Christians (numbering in the thousands). I can say that the vast majority of Christians I have known have not expressed anything that would lead me to believe that they considered the Holy Land as holy or that they thought Christians should own it and/or control it.

 

As I said, only the Jews and Muslims think it's holy, and they are the ones fighting over who owns it and controls it.

So you think this conflict is only of interest to Jews and Muslims? You know this how?

Please see my previous answer.

 

Britain controlled Jerusalem 100 years ago, so why did it relinquish control if Christians wanted to own/control it? Or why did Britain not return the Jews to Jerusalem at that time? The British Mandate for Jerusalem says about Jerusalem as it stood back then: Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

 

The closest that any Christians I've met have come to thinking the Holy Land is holy is that a few of the very conservative Christians (who are typically the King-James-Version type of Christians) believe that the creation of the state of Israel by the UN in the 1940's was God's will (even though the same Christians usually think that the UN is the beginning of the evil "one-world government" that must be avoided!) and an important step (the return of Jews to the Holy Land) toward the end of times. Personally, I think that the creation of the state of Israel is not God's will.

 

The closest thing that I've ever seen that approaches Christian "shrine worship" (considering a plot of ground as holy) is when Catholics claim to have seen the Mother Mary somewhere, and people visit the site to be healed, etc. A well-known example being the Grotto of Massabielle (aka "Lourdes") in France where, in 1858, a local teenage girl, Bernadette Soubirous, claimed that Mary appeared to her. The Roman Catholic Church now owns and controls that plot of ground.

 

So, what have you ever heard a Christian say that makes you think s/he considered the Holy Land as holy and wants to own it and control it?

[John Cuthber]

"Again, you don't see the difference between spiritual and bodily."

I rather doubt that the victims of, for example, the crusades saw that difference as they bled out.

You can dress it up however it works for you, but in the end, the battlefields are covered in bodies.

 

If we are talking about people killing other people (or not doing, because they know it's wrong), on the battlefield then the nuances of fighting urges really doesn't matter a fig.

[ewmon]

"Again, you don't see the difference between spiritual and bodily."

I rather doubt that the victims of, for example, the crusades saw that difference as they bled out.

You can dress it up however it works for you, but in the end, the battlefields are covered in bodies.

 

If we are talking about people killing other people (or not doing, because they know it's wrong), on the battlefield then the nuances of fighting urges really doesn't matter a fig.

Ancient history. I wasn't there, and neither were all the Christians I have met. I don't know anyone (Christian or not), who want to start up another crusade. The Crusades were un-Christian. Murder is wrong? Of course it is, but by what standard? The scientific survival of the fittest? No. The Judeo-Christian thou shalt not murder? Yes.