TexasCHLforum.com

So a few days ago, the wife and me were having a few beers on the porch and somehow the quote 'thou shall not kill' got brought up. I quickly pointed out, sorry but that's misquoted/mistranslated, its 'thou shall not murder'. The wife kinda gave me a goofy look and was like, "whats the difference ?". In her eyes taking a life is taking a life morally/religiously. She understand the need for laws to distinguish but she herself doesn't I guess.

So this brings me to my point, and my question. Do you believe there is a difference between Killing and Murdering? Is it 'Thou shall not Kill' or 'Thou shall not Murder' in your mind ?

My view is religious based(and from an ethics point of view as well), I whole heartily believe there is a huge chasm of difference between killing and murder. Just curious if others believe the same ?

I'm not trying to spark a religious debate, more a moral/ethics one and curious if I'm alone.

There is no difference in the act of taking a life between simple killing and murder -- a life ceases in either case. The only difference (and it is vast/significant) is the moral/ethical justification or lack thereof for the act.

"HOMICIDE, n. The slaying of one human being by another. There are four kinds of homocide: felonious, excusable, justifiable, and praiseworthy, but it makes no great difference to the person slain whether he fell by one kind or another—the classification is for advantage of the lawyers."

-- The Devil's Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce

When it says "thou shall not murder" the Hebrew implies premeditation. The word "kill" does not.

Depending on the translation, both words are used. King James version uses "kill". NIV uses "murder".

I think what you're asking is as a Christian is there justification for some killings. I believe yes. There are many examples in scripture. Jesus advises his disciples to sell their cloak and buy a sword so they can defend themselves.

If you're interested, Martin Luther once wrote a letter, "Whether Soldiers too can be Saved". It was in response to a soldier's conflicted conscience. Luther goes into great length to separate the human from his occupation. It is part of the foundation that has come to be known as "The two Kingdoms Doctrine".

Here is Bible commentary from Matthew Henry ( look him up if you don't know of him).

The sixth commandment concerns our own and our neighbour's life (Exo 20:13): “Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not do any thing hurtful or injurious to the health, ease, and life, of thy own body, or any other person's unjustly.” This is one of the laws of nature, and was strongly enforced by the precepts given to Noah and his sons, Gen 9:5, Gen 9:6. It does not forbid killing in lawful war, or in our own necessary defence, nor the magistrate's putting offenders to death, for those things tend to the preserving of life; but it forbids all malice and hatred to the person of any (for he that hateth his brother is a murderer), and all personal revenge arising therefrom; also all rash anger upon sudden provocations, and hurt said or done, or aimed to be done, in passion: of this our Saviour expounds this commandment, Mat 5:22. And, as that which is worst of all, it forbids persecution, laying wait for the blood of the innocent and excellent ones of the earth.

This thread is going to run for a while.

I'm not getting into the two words for "killing" and "murder" as we understand them that exist in both Hebrew and Greek (four terms total), as that subject has been covered in volumes if anyone wants to research it. I will point out that God does not violate His own commandments nor does He tell His people to do so. Therefore, if the King James translation is correct in its use the word "kill," then God would have ordered the Jews to disobey His commands when He ordered them to kill thousands of people in the conquest of the promised land. I'm not talking about people killed in battle, but the killing of every man, woman and child in some locations. (He ordered this when the people at issue sacrificed their own children to false gods.)

Chas.

koine2002 wrote:
Thomas Aquinas built upon this same line of thinking for the just war theory. The death penalty follows Aristotelian logic. Our founders were steeped in Aristotelian thinking (following Locke). While pre-dating Aristotle, biblical law allows for killing for this same reason: there may be cases where killing is indeed more consistent with the greater virtue.

....

Locke considered self defense "the first law of nature". You'd be hard pressed to find any natural law philosopher that would argue otherwise. Milton, Locke, Hobbs.....on and on. Milton and Locke both credit Luther with influence in their philosophy. I've found no natural law that is completely removed from some type of religion.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:This thread is going to run for a while.

I'm not getting into the two words for "killing" and "murder" as we understand them that exist in both Hebrew and Greek (four terms total), as that subject has been covered in volumes if anyone wants to research it. I will point out that God does not violate His own commandments nor does He tell His people to do so. Therefore, if the King James translation is correct in its use the word "kill," then God would have ordered the Jews to disobey His commands when He ordered them to kill thousands of people in the conquest of the promised land. I'm not talking about people killed in battle, but the killing of every man, woman and child in some locations. (He ordered this when the people at issue sacrificed their own children to false gods.)

Chas.

Yep. And don't forget the time he flooded the earth....sparing only Noah's family and 2 of every animal.

Killing would be ending a life for what ever reason whether it be a human, animals, insects, virus', etc. Murder is when a person unlawfully kills another person.

We covered this back in another thread in March. The words in Hebrew for "kill" or "murder" are as separate and distinct as they are in English. The Commandment translates exactly to "Thou shall not murder" (in Hebrew; "Lo Tirzach").

The most important distinction between a killing and murder is that of motivation and intent.

koine2002 wrote:

TXBO wrote:

koine2002 wrote:
Thomas Aquinas built upon this same line of thinking for the just war theory. The death penalty follows Aristotelian logic. Our founders were steeped in Aristotelian thinking (following Locke). While pre-dating Aristotle, biblical law allows for killing for this same reason: there may be cases where killing is indeed more consistent with the greater virtue.

....

...I've found no natural law that is completely removed from some type of religion.

That is quite true. Aristotle himself tried to work independently of the religious and deal with the sign and not the thing. However, he could not get away from the "uncaused cause" to make his philosophy work. And yes, Luther's influence is felt just about every area of western thinking. One cannot escape God.

You're most obviously a learned gentleman.
I find it fascinating that the great minds all find the root of nature in a creator. Though I don't agree with Hobbs belief in a monarch, I find his theory of the state of nature without social contract most accurate. Conscience, authority and morality must then originate from a creator.

Working with what Mr. Cotton said, and adding that Almighty God can see what is in a person's heart, I tend to believe He would see a difference between killing to preserve other lives, and murder.