Killing or Murder?

[Follow the Wolves]

I'm curious as to the opinions of the others in this guild as to killing versus murder.

Is there a distinction?

What instances, if any, call for one or the other, if a difference does exist?

Do you support the death penalty?

Do you believe in Levitical Law's continued application to modern Christians?  

[Beth Turner]

At The Churches End

I'm curious as to the opinions of the others in this guild as to killing versus murder.

Is there a distinction?

What instances, if any, call for one or the other, if a difference does exist?

Do you support the death penalty?

Do you believe in Levitical Law's continued application to modern Christians?

Killing could be done in self-defense, murder is pre-meditated seeking-out of someone and killing them, though they may not have attacked you.
As for the death penalty, yes, I support it in some cases, but I believe more in a Rogerian method when it comes to crime and punishment.
No, Levitical Law is no longer valid for the Christian- forgiveness reigns the Christian heart, not death and judgement for sins.  

[Follow the Wolves]

What is your Biblical precedence for the claim on the invalidation of Levitical Law?

Rogerian method?  

[Retermined]

To me, if killing is within self defense or accidental standards, I'd consider it fine, but frowned upon for it is a loss of a life.

Murder, however, is meant to be a killing, thus it is bad.  

[Avzel]

Taking enemy lives during war (in general) is not murder.
Taking the life of your attacker who is trying to do violence to you is not murder.

Murder is done more out of personal reasons, such as killing a spouse, someone you are jealous of, or someone you are trying to rob...that is the personal taking of life. Self-defense and national defense are different.  

[Retermined]

Nollij

Taking enemy lives during war (in general) is not murder.
Taking the life of your attacker who is trying to do violence to you is not murder.

Murder is done more out of personal reasons, such as killing a spouse, someone you are jealous of, or someone you are trying to rob...that is the personal taking of life. Self-defense and national defense are different.

I agree with that fully.

I think I worded mine wrong. It sounds like I hate troops and what they are doing o.o;  

[Follow the Wolves]

Murder is the act of violating another's right to life. This person has made no transgression against you, but you take their life regardless. You place their value to you at zero, and act upon it.

Killing is the act of taking a life, but is separate from murder. Killing can be in response to the infringement upon basic human rights, or to enact justice upon the guilty.


I personally believe that if a person so much as attempts to steal a single red cent from me, they have violated my rights. They have established that single penny is more valuable than my life. From there, their life is at my mercy.

I'm still waiting on Biblical precedence for the abolition of Levitical Law.  

[DeleteThis191919]

Perhaps murder would become killing if you did it to protect someone else, not yourself.

Or I would even go as far to say, murder is murder, unless instructed to do so by the lord all mighty.  

[Follow the Wolves]

But there are many instances where we can kill another and it be under his instruction.

It's called Justice.

If a man kills my daughter, his head is mine.  

[Avzel]

At The Churches End

I'm still waiting on Biblical precedence for the abolition of Levitical Law.

Was the Law abolished?

This last sentence of the first post doesn't seem to go with the rest. Is your argument that Levitical Law allows murder, or forbids all killing under all circumstance? How does Levitical Law connect with talking about the death penalty? Please explain...  

[Follow the Wolves]

Nollij

At The Churches End

I'm still waiting on Biblical precedence for the abolition of Levitical Law.

Was the Law abolished?

This last sentence of the first post doesn't seem to go with the rest. Is your argument that Levitical Law allows murder, or forbids all killing under all circumstance? How does Levitical Law connect with talking about the death penalty? Please explain...

First off, I'm not going to list verses. I'm not one for doing that. I prefer to give maybe a book, and then let people look on their own from there.

You raise a good point. The law wasn't abolished. However, Beth Turned stated that it was, and that the law was something that chained us as people, bringing death and judgment.

I've requested precedence for any of that, and have yet to receive any.

Levitical Law does not allow murder, but certainly allows for kidding.

There are a fair number of trespasses for which Levitical Law calls for the Death Penalty. Things such as murder, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, even a disobedient son(possibly child of any gender. I'd have to reread to be certain on that detail).

However, an argument against the Leivitical Law's condoning and implementing of the death penalty is when Jesus spared the adulterous woman, the source of the phrase "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Does anyone see a problem with that?  

[Berezi]

At The Churches End

First off, I'm not going to list verses. I'm not one for doing that. I prefer to give maybe a book, and then let people look on their own from there.

You raise a good point. The law wasn't abolished. However, Beth Turned stated that it was, and that the law was something that chained us as people, bringing death and judgment.

I've requested precedence for any of that, and have yet to receive any.

Levitical Law does not allow murder, but certainly allows for killing.

There are a fair number of trespasses for which Levitical Law calls for the Death Penalty. Things such as murder, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, even a disobedient son(possibly child of any gender. I'd have to reread to be certain on that detail).

However, an argument against the Leivitical Law's condoning and implementing of the death penalty is when Jesus spared the adulterous woman, the source of the phrase "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Does anyone see a problem with that?

It's specifically a disobedient son.

And the precedent people have for that claim is in Collosians. Care to refute it? I know that in Hebrews, the author outlines how the Law was FULFILLED through Jesus Christ. Also, if you read through the Law, it's a pretty convicting thing. At least it was for me. Not because I eat shellfish, but because I became very aware of how sinful I was. People were stoned for things that I would do and have to some degree. I became very aware of how lightly I take prayer, when people got fried for such things in the Law. I don't think we have to live by the letter of the law anymore - collosians takes care of that pretty well*. But, I do think we have to live by the spirit of it, because that was fulfilled in Jesus. Jesus outlines pretty well what that is supposed to look like. I think the Law was inevitably supposed to bring about the conclusion of "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." We all deserve it.

Why else would people weep when the Law was read during the re-building of Jerusalem (Ezra/Nehemiah)? Nobody stoned each other, but they were convicted of sin.

*Also, God TOLD Peter to eat of the Gentile's food. Fleshly circumcision was no longer a requirement for faith in God. Something about the letter of the law must not be valid anymore for such infringements on it to be ordained by God, though that doesn't necessarily repudiate the sin it marks out. Where purity in food was, purity in Christ stands. Where fleshly circumcision was, circumcision of the heart now stands. The principles still apply, but the way in which we abide by them has changed - they are through Christ these days. It's pretty clear in the NT what things still constitute sin - homosexuality, witchcraft, disobedience, and all that. It's also pretty clear which ones don't. The penalty is still death, but CHRIST died for us.  

[Avzel]

At The Churches End

Levitical Law does not allow murder, but certainly allows for kidding.

Was that intentional, or just a typo?
Here is what I see, if I take your posts seriously:

The Law exists to show how far we fall short of what God intended us to be. We cannot hope to be his equals in holiness. Paul tells us that the law is over, but does that mean we should break it? God forbid.

Would you like scripture citations?  

[Follow the Wolves]

Berezi

It's specifically a disobedient son.

And the precedent people have for that claim is in Collosians. Care to refute it? I know that in Hebrews, the author outlines how the Law was FULFILLED through Jesus Christ. Also, if you read through the Law, it's a pretty convicting thing. At least it was for me. Not because I eat shellfish, but because I became very aware of how sinful I was. People were stoned for things that I would do and have to some degree. I became very aware of how lightly I take prayer, when people got fried for such things in the Law. I don't think we have to live by the letter of the law anymore - collosians takes care of that pretty well*. But, I do think we have to live by the spirit of it, because that was fulfilled in Jesus. Jesus outlines pretty well what that is supposed to look like. I think the Law was inevitably supposed to bring about the conclusion of "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." We all deserve it.

Why else would people weep when the Law was read during the re-building of Jerusalem (Ezra/Nehemiah)? Nobody stoned each other, but they were convicted of sin.

*Also, God TOLD Peter to eat of the Gentile's food. Fleshly circumcision was no longer a requirement for faith in God. Something about the letter of the law must not be valid anymore for such infringements on it to be ordained by God, though that doesn't necessarily repudiate the sin it marks out. Where purity in food was, purity in Christ stands. Where fleshly circumcision was, circumcision of the heart now stands. The principles still apply, but the way in which we abide by them has changed - they are through Christ these days. It's pretty clear in the NT what things still constitute sin - homosexuality, witchcraft, disobedience, and all that. It's also pretty clear which ones don't. The penalty is still death, but CHRIST died for us.

Matthew 5: 16-19

16 Even so let your light shine before men; that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

17 Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.

19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (American Standard Translation)  

[Follow the Wolves]

While I'm thinking about it.

The book of Exodus is also part of the Old Testament Law. Even the Ten Commandments.

Surely, those are the foundation for the rest of the law, the precedence on which it is built.

Yet we teach those ten commandments from the time Christians are knee high onwards.

Isn't that picking and choosing?