Yes, it was, with examples where it is possible that you can kill an innocent person and it will not be a murder, which you didn´t replied on and just decide that its silly.
There were no point in this conversation when we were clearly able to agree when a murder is a murder and when it is just a kill.
Sure, there are examples, where it is a clear case, but then it is a very slippery slope in the middle of it.
The Nazis didn´t murder any jews from their perspective, they had to kill them, for the pure reason of self defense. Nazi germany was a Christian nation by the way, Hitler didn´t killed the jews on his own.
Power doesn´t come from the top, power comes from the stronger majority from the bottom.
“Gott mit uns” - God with us, the beltbuckle of german soldiers in the second world war.
Yes because MURDER, has a very specific definition. I’m starting to think you’re playing dumb.
If i run someone over with my car on accident and it kills them, i just killed an innocent person. But it’s not murder, because i did not intend to or premeditate the action.
Where is this slippery slope?
Their perspective is wrong. You keeping using that word like it actually has any impact on reality and the definition of words.
Your point?
The majority of Germans were Christian, but Hitler and Himmler were not Christians during their rule over Germany.
Hitler even wished that the battle of Tours had been won by the Islamic forces, since he admired Islam over Christianity due to it’s war like nature. And btw most Nazi symbolism is Pagen, like the swastika. Not to mention Hitler regularly spoke his hatred of Christianity in private.
If you’re implying that Christianity, a religion founded by a Jew for largely Jewish people is responsible for the Holocaust then you’re quite simply retarded.
Both causes can be just or unjust. Thou Shall not kill doesn’t make the distinction between a just or unjust war for the solider. It’s very clear that a solider who fights and kills other soldiers in war is not committing murder.
Justified killing: due consequence for crime[edit]
The Torah and Hebrew Bible made clear distinctions between the shedding of innocent blood versus killing as the due consequence of a crime. A number of sins were considered to be worthy of the death penalty including murder,[14] incest,[15] bearing false witness on a capital charge,[16] adultery,[17] idolatry,[18] homosexual acts,[9] bestiality,[19] human sacrifice to pagan gods,[20] cursing a parent,[21] fortune-telling,[22] and other sins.
For example, the Exodus narrative describes the people as having turned to idolatry with the golden calf while Moses was on the mountain receiving the law from God. When Moses came down, he commanded the Levites to take up the sword against their brothers and companions and neighbors. The Levites obeyed and killed about three thousand men who had sinned in worship of the golden calf. As a result, Moses said that the Levites had received a blessing that day at the cost of son and brother.[23] On a separate occasion, a blasphemer was stoned to death because he blasphemed the name of the Lord (Yahweh) with a curse.[24]
The Hebrew Bible has many other examples of sinners being put to death as due consequence for crimes. Achan is put to death by Joshua because he caused defeat of Israel’s army by taking some of the plunder and hiding it in his tent.[25][26] David ordered that an Amalekite be put to death because he claimed to have killed King Saul.[11] Following the advice of his father, Solomon ordered that Joab be killed:
Strike him down and bury him, and so clear me and my father’s house of the guilt of the innocent blood that Joab shed. The Lord will repay him for the blood he shed, because without the knowledge of my father David he attacked two men and killed them with the sword. Both of them—Abner son of Ner, commander of Israel’s army, and Amasa son of Jether, commander of Judah’s army—were better men and more upright than he. May the guilt of their blood rest on the head of Joab and his descendants forever. But on David and his descendants, his house and his throne, may there be the Lord’s peace forever.
— 1 Kings 2:31-33 (NIV)
The biblical refrain for those justly executed as due punishment for crimes is that “their blood will be on their own heads.”[27] This expresses the idea that those guilty of certain actions have brought the shedding of blood upon themselves, and those carrying out due punishment do not bear bloodguilt.
Justified killing: in warfare[edit]
Further information: Herem (war or property)
The ancient Hebrew texts make a distinction between the moral and legal prohibition of shedding of innocent blood and killing in battle.[28] Rabbi Marc Gellman explains the distinction between “harag” (killing) and “ratzah” (murder) and notes the different moral connotations. “…there is wide moral agreement (not complete agreement) that some forms of killing are morally just, and killing an enemy combatant during wartime is one of them.”[29] For example, the Torah prohibits murder, but sanctions killing in legitimate battle.[30][31] The Bible often praises the exploits of soldiers against enemies in legitimate battle. One of David’s mighty men is credited with killing eight hundred men with the spear,[32] and Abishai is credited with killing three hundred men.[33]
The 613 Mitzvot extend the notion of lawful killing to the nations that inhabited the Promised Land, commanding to exterminate them completely. Deuteronomy 20:10-18 establishes rules on killing civilians in warfare:
the population of cities outside of the Promised Land, if they surrender, should be made tributaries and left alive (20:10-11)
those cities outside of the Promised Land that resist should be besieged, and once they fall, the male population should be exterminated, but the women and children should be left alive (20:12-15)
of those cities that were within the Promised Land, however, everybody was to be killed.[11]
Justified killing: intruder in the home[edit]
As described in the Torah, the ancient understanding of the prohibition of murder made an exception for legitimate self-defense. A home defender who struck and killed a thief caught in the act of breaking in at night was not guilty of bloodshed. “If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed.”[34]
A man’s house is his castle, and God’s law, as well as man’s, sets a guard upon it; he that assaults it does so at his peril.
— Matthew Henry, Henry, M. “1706. Commentary on the whole Bible, volume I (Genesis to Deuteronomy). Christian Classics Ethereal Library.”
Nürnberg, Germany 1949
25 prisoners of war are accused to be war criminals. 12 are facing the death penalty, by an christian american tribunal.
185 other prisoners of war, were accused to be war criminals of war too, 24 are facing the death penalty.
they were prisoners of war, not a thread anymore, the war was over, they were completely under control and locked up, no threat to anyone anymore. But still 36 People are dead at the end.
If this is justified (killing), then everthing is fine (so far), but if not (murder), whos christian american soul is buring in hell right now? The Executioner? The Judge? President Truman?
The question is, was the execution killing, or murdering?
If the death penalty was justified (killing), is it justified because of the crime the person did, or is it because a judge said so?
You said, self defense isn´t murder. Also if somebody wants to kill a loved one, it is also not murder.
Now!
You are in your bedroom with your wife. She killed somebody in her past on purpose, but she didn´t told you about it, for obvious reason.
A stranger enters your bedroom with a gun, he is pointing the gun at your wife and says to you: "Don´t worry, I don´t want to harm you, I am just here to kill your wife."
What you don´t know is, your wife killed a loved one of this person, who is even a judge/executioner, and for this reason, he can now kill your wife and it will not be a murder, it will be just killig.
He will still be an innocent person. Now you can kill him, because he killed a loved one of you.
Will it be a kill or a murder?
If he was not justified to kill your wife, if it was murder. What was the reason?
What was the major difference on her compared to the war criminals who died in Nürnberg?
The scale of the crime? Then how many jews could they have killed before the death penalty of the Nazis had become justified?
mur·der
ˈmərdər/Submit
noun
1.
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
verb
1.
kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.
They are fine by Christian morals.
The Torah and Hebrew Bible made clear distinctions between the shedding of innocent blood versus killing as the due consequence of a crime. A number of sins were considered to be worthy of the death penalty including murder,[
That would be killing in self defence of another, again not a hard thing to wrap your head around.
So, you say, it was not justified of him, to come to your bedroom to kill your wife? But she is a murderer, and killing her was justified. If not, why was it justified to kill the Nazis?
Because they were found guilty of murder in a court of law, and sentenced to death.
Which is different then taking matters into your own hands, breaking into someones house and blowing their brains out. Evidence is reviewed, and there is a proper and fair trial, not vigilante justice.
So the important part is not what they did, but that it is justified in a bureaucratic process?
What is the purpose of the bureaucratic process? Is it there to determine for the society who is guilty, or for god, because god doesn´t know who is guilty and who is not?
If the vigilanty knows that the murderer was the murderer for sure, because he have seen it, why does the bureaucratic process makes a difference?
And again, why kill the nazis. Accourding to your definition, they killed but didn´t murdered. They were bureaucratic too and only fullfilling the law.
Okay, then using your logic on the death penalty if i see someone is not paying their taxes, i can force them at gun point into a cage, and if they resist, i can shoot them, since the government does it all the time, it’s no different if i do it.
I guess you’re an anarchist now.
No they committed the unlawful premeditated killing of innocent people, who committed no crimes worthy of a death penalty in the eyes of the bible, and western morals.
Germany also signed numerous international treaties, stating that killing civlians, and POWs is illegal.
Well no. My argument is that the bureaucratic procress is indeed imporant because it is a matter of society, not a matter of god.
Your argument is, the bureaucratic process is imporant, because it is a matter of god. I am taking your point here and ask, why is the bureaucration process important for god to determinine between an unlawfull murder and a lawfull killing?
I said western morals were Christian in nature, and that that we should rejected moral relativism.
You then tried to trip me up by listing what you thought were actions taken by western men that are/were contradictory to the bible and Christian mortality, essentially coming back to the “you’re a hypocrite, and cherry pick your beliefs” .
But if you had bothered to spend five seconds googling the definition of murder, and thou shall not kill, your attempt wouldn’t have fallen flat on its stupid face.
What is the purpose of the bureaucratic process? Is it there to determine for the society who is guilty, or is it there for god, because god doesn´t know who is guilty and who is not?
As you don´t answer my questions anymore, I have to guess what you are meaning.
You say that the judge uses christian moral to come to an conclusion on what is right or wrong; justified or not justified to find out if a crime was for example murder or a kill.
Before this decision, it is unknown if the crime was lawful or unlawful. It is both at the sime time, like schrödingers cat.
You say, this decisionmaking is important, if someone has to face the death penalty.
I ask, why is this important before god. If someone know that someone else killed a loved one of his, what does the curt do? Does it create gods decision? Doesn´t god know without this decision that the crime was unlawful? God is the one, who sends the sinner to hell, not the curt.
Why does god need the decision of a judge, to interpret his law, before an unlawful revenge and murder becomes an lawful kill?
To provide law, order, and stability in a society obviously.
What questions did i not answer?
No a judge uses evidence, and the decision of the jury. But the moral justification for putting someone (in the west) to death comes from Christianity.
I haven’t read anything to suggest it is important before god. It doesn’t say you have to execute people, it simply says you will not be committing sin if you do. It is not a commandment in it’s self, it’s an exception to said commandment.
The commandment isn’t designed to help out god, it is designed to help out society as whole.
Anyway. You say, god made the rules on which our law bases, I get that. You don´t get my point completely.
I will give my characters names, to make it more easy to understand.
Franz und Martin are Murderers. They killed loved ones of Helmut and Carl. Helmut and Carl exactly know who did it, there is no doubt.
Helmut charges a Hitman to kill Franz, because he lives in a state without death penalty. This is his only way to get justice, because the curt would not decide in the right law of god.
Carl know exactly that Martin killed a loved ones of him. He helpes the police, and only with his help the curt was able to make the right decision before god, it accepts the punishment which he is demanding and kills Martin in the death penalty.
Years later, Helmut and Carl die and they stand before god.
God says to Helmut, you hired a hitman to kill Franz. Franz was a murderer, but it was your order to kill him. Franz died because of your order. This was murderer. There was no Judge involved to agree with you. Eternal punishment!
God says to Carl, you ordered the police to catch Martin. Martin is a murderer and a judge agreed to your demand to kill Martin. Martin died because of your order. Justified kill. Eternal heaven!
There is another strange layer. If Helmut was not justified to interpret gods law before the eyes of god and hires a hitman, why is a Judge able to do it?
The crime stays the same, the punishment for the murderers stays the same. Only the decision of the Judges are the difference between Helmuts eternal punishment and Carls eternal visit in heaven.
Why is a judge so important for god? Why can´t god interpret his own law?
