How do the different Abrahamic faiths (especially Christianity sects) feel about killing?
>>371055
Murder is wrong. Killing within the bounds of law (war and punishment) is acceptable.
>>371060
Hypocrisy.
>>371085
Care to elaborate?
>>371085
It's generally the civilized view of the topic, regardless.
Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment
>>371085
Well it's either my life or your life, and I ain't leavin, I like breathin.
>>371055
It's written to not take the life of another man so just don't do it.
Also the law of nature, my consciousness tells me to not kill.
>>371202
What if someone tried to kill you?
>>371202
No, actually it's written not to murder.
For instance, the very first thing we ever see an adult Moses do (a righteous man in every Abrahamic branch I'm aware of) is to kill an Egyptian striking a Hebrew slave.
>>371118
Dre pls
>Judaism
Don't kill... those from your tribe anyway. Fuck the enemy.
>Christianity
Don't kill. At all. Seriously.
>Islam
Don't murder, but you can kill the enemy if you're attacked first (we know Muhammad didn't exactly follow this rule though, but that's another question).
Note that this only applies to people obviously. Animals are to be taken care of, but can also be used as food if needed.
>>372580
According to Islam you can kill anyone who "wages war against Allah and his Messenger", but that's an extremely vague term, disagreeing could be considering waging war
>>372580
I thought Christians were supposed to follow the 10 commandments.
From an Orthodox perspective, it is always wrong. But understandable when you are protecting innocent lives.
>>371060
>the persecution of Christians was acceptable
>>372580
>Don't kill. At all. Seriously.
Do Christians actually believe Christianity is a pacifist religion?
>>372647
Considering what Christ said when Peter tried to defend him
I will come into your house and rape your other and kill you
>>372689
Arming themselves might just have been for deterrence. Similarly, I don't think he actually whipped anyone when he drove out the money changers, I think he just brandished the scourge.
None of them resisted, because Christ did not, and he said to go out as lambs among wolves.
>>372608
That includes "don't kill", but while the Jewish commandments only apply to Jewish tribes, the Christian commandments apply to everyone a Christian interacts with.
>>372647
Jesus wasn't armed, let himself get arrested and killed, and insisted quite a lot about giving the other cheek, blessing your oppressors, etc.
>>372598
Killing is accepted in defense of the self and of Islam.
>>372752
I'll add that overall, early Christianity was pretty strong on the position that the political and the religious must remain separated, that no violence is to be done (especially for non-Jewish followers who weren't even subjugated to the Law), and that God is a loving father above all. Judaism and Islam are pretty different on these matters. Christianity itself also stopped giving a shit one century later anyway.
>>372746
>That includes "don't kill"
No, it quite literally does not.
לֹא תִרְצָח
Do not murder/slay/ smash to pieces.
That's why you have differing laws for murder as for accidental killings and manslaughter. See Exodus 2:10-11, Exodus 20:12, and Numbers chapter 35.
The order issued in the Ten Commandments quite clearly makes a distinction between "murder" and "killing", regardless of whom it applies to.
>>372746
So Muslim can go and kill any non-Muslim?
>>372778
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Just_war
>>371055
>>372768
I was obviously saying that generally. What I meant is that the same law applies to all, not just people of the same religion or tribe. Paul was also pretty adamant about not revolting against the government or taking up arms against others, to love others and let oneself be captured or killed like Christ did.
>>372771
If said non-Muslims were at war with Muslims, yes.
This is obviously not the case, but some terrorist groups' interpretation says that the very fact western civilization isn't conform to Islam is a declaration of war, and so they feel justified in their actions.
>>372796
But waging war is a ambiguous term, how do we know its a literal war?
>>372768
The Hebrews had different laws, but killing polluted you, period. There was no difference in word for killing justly and killing unjustly, the word simply means "kill". Notice that David could not build God's temple because he had too much blood on his hands.
>>372828
The original Hebrew gives total support for that notion, because the word is used in warfare and in judicial punishment.
>>372826
It doesn't have to be a literal war. Muhammad asked for the execution of some guy who made a depiction of him after all, if hadith is to be believed.
But western nations aren't waging war against Islam for the sole reason that they're not even giving a crap about it, and Muslims are generally well-treated.
You have to remember that the Quran is full of verses about mercy and tolerance too, although the book is definitely attached to warfare.
>>372828
Man I feel you, I've met too many people who didn't know anything about the Bible besides a couple verses from their particular translation. I'm lucky the translation of the Bible I'm reading is pretty good.
>>372841
>I'm lucky the translation of the Bible I'm reading is pretty good.
Which is it?
>>372841
The Caliphs waged war against the Sassanids and Byzantines for the sole purpose of pushing the religion though, how is this different?
>>372840
The rest of the OT obviously doesn't, what's with how much God-justified warfare it contains, with little to no punishment for the Jews for burning down entire communities and killing all men, women and children. Hell, Moses himself commanded the death of many sinful Israelites, didn't he?
>>372834
Not really. Death or even non-life gave you Tumah, not killing. Touch a dead animal? Tamaih. Ejaculate and not impregnate a woman? Tamaih. The act of killing had little import of whether or not you were ritually unclean, a guy who died of natural causes impurifies you just as much as someone who had their head cut off.
> There was no difference in word for killing justly and killing unjustly, the word simply means "kill".
But there are differences for intentional and unintentional killings, as well as killings done during wartime.
>>372840
It quite literally is not used for warfare. War-killing is בְּפַעַם not תִרְצָח. And executions are usually הָרַגְ.
>>372848
The Jerusalem Bible. It's in French, but the latest edition is from the 90's and each book has a lenghty introduction that introduces and discusses the contents of said book from theological, historical and philosophical points of view. It's really good, there's even a timeline at the end putting in parralel Biblical and factual history (and no, it doesn't claim the Earth is 5,000 years old). It also does a great job at reflecting the different styles of writings in a different language too.
>>372851
Again, I'm only going off the Quran. We know what the Quran preaches and what early Islam actually did didn't really fit perfectly, but that's another debate.
I think it would be depressingly hilarious if we found out Jesus was actually a Che Guevara-like revolutionary who got himself killed by fighting, and his apostles tried to correct this mess though.
>>372867
>Death or even non-life gave you Tumah, not killing.
Whatever it was, David literally could not build God's temple because of all the people he killed in war. That is why Solomon got to build it, even though Solomon was an idolater who worshiped false gods.
>>372867
>It quite literally is not used for warfare. War-killing is בְּפַעַם not תִרְצָח. And executions are usually הָרַגְ.
See Numbers 35:30
The word used often in war can also be equally applied to murder, it's used for Cain and Abel.
>>372867
I'm stupid, I meant to write חֲרֵם not פַעַם.
>>371405
However, as far as we can tell, Moses himself considered it a murder, as well as his fellow Hebrews.
>>372892
>Whatever it was, David literally could not build God's temple because of all the people he killed in war. That is why Solomon got to build it, even though Solomon was an idolater who worshiped false gods.
True on the first part, only half right on the second. Solomon only falls long after he builds the temple.
>See Numbers 35:30
The execution of a murderer.
>The word used often in war can also be equally applied to murder, it's used for Cain and Abel.
הָרַגְ is used for Cain and Abel, not חֲרֵם .
>>372944
You're basing this on Exodus 2:14? I'm not so sure that "His fellow Hebrews" considered it murder, only the guy that he found guilty of beating up his fellow Hebrew, who is not exactly an uninterested party.
>>372647
It clearly is
>>374844
i've not come to bring peace but a sword
>peace
>>371055
if you're going to kill, kill the person you want to kill, his entire family, entire village, all his relatives and everyone in his entire country. That's the lesson we didn't learn. which is why we have conflicts that last for hundreds of years instead of one day.
>>371055
In Orthodoxy killing is unconditionally a sin, but it can be somewhat permissible if what would happen if you didn't kill is worse than the killing itself.
In Catholicism there's just war theory, which is absolutely ridiculous.
