Right to kill?

[tjogs]

To expand my own view I ask propably very sensitive and also difficult guestion:

Bible tells us that we shall not kill but still many people are killed in Bible also in name of God.

So how we are suppose to define the cases where killing someone or something is or would be acceptable? And why is it sometimes right and other time wrong? (like cases mentioned below

would anyone ansvering also consider cases below as exampe or if I may miss something add your own.

-Person injured or other way so severe that he/she don't have any consious left and is only kept alive artificially like a plant
-Person who is known for mental instability and twisted liking for killing. He/she is imprisoned but if ever let outside he/she would continue killing other
-Mother carrying baby but having also critical complication. If treated the baby will be aborted, if left untreated the mother will die.
-Man is attacked by other man or animal and by the fierce attack that he think that the attacker is trying to killl him. (should he restrain his strengt for avoiding to kill the attacker in risk of his own severe injyry or death)

 

[kenisyes]

The Old Testament Law is for the people of Israel, and is fulfilled in Christ. Now, the OT law says "thou shalt not murder", not "thou shalt not kill". The distinction is defined by the rest of those laws. A higher understanding applies to us, as Christians.

My interpretation is that God gives life, and we are not to take it. But that represents an act of the will, not the result of what may happen. In other words, we can never choose to take a life. Human life is probably the single most precious gift that God has given to this planet. As long as a person is alive, he can be saved/healed/changed. To take human life on purpose is to use your own judgment over God's plan. We do not need to prolong life when it is God's time to take it, either.

Animal life is different. The choice whether to kill an animal is always "what will killing it do to you and your relationship with God?" If it feels hurtful to you, don't do it. If you need to defend yourself, or to eat it, you are free to do as you choose.

1. If the person is dying and it is his time, you are not obligated to keep the person alive either. Let God do as He chooses. Likewise, if a person has chosen to die, you are not obligated to keep the person alive. It is a very difficult decision sometimes, especially if you are a doctor. or suicide counsellor. If the person is psychologically ill, they cannot make that choice for themselves. But our doctors have ways of keeping people alive past God's timetable.
2. Killers who cannot be stopped: God can change anything. You should not kill them.
3. Mother or baby will die; that's the same as case 1. If you cannot resolve the doubt, act to preserve the life of both, and let God make the choice.
4. Your duty is to stop the sin of the attacker. That means control the attack. This defends you or the other person at the same time, and protects you from using too much force.

When I was just a little older than you, I watched my mother make that decision for my dad, and thought I would never understand. When I had to make the decision for my wife, God had so prepared me several years ahead, that I knew. God ordered every instant of that 15 minutes, so there was absolutely no doubt it was His choice. Based on experience, if you follow the Lord, you'll know when it's time.

 

[dmdave17]

Dear tjogs,

I cannot really expand on what kenisyes said, but I would like to point out that, as far as I know, the only God-sanctioned killing in the Bible took place when the Israelites were establishing themselves in the Promised Land, or when they were warring with obviously evil nations (like God's command to Saul concerning the Amalekites, "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." ... 1 Samuel 15:3)

And the Lord had good reason for this. He knew that, if left to their own devices, the Israelites would begin to be absorbed by the wicked cultures of the peoples they were supplanting, and would eventually turn away from Him. His solution was to order the total destruction of these peoples so they could not tempt the Israelites away from the path He had laid out for them.

As we all know, they didn't (destroy all remnants of the conquered peoples), and they did (turn away from God to worship idols and worldly pursuits). So it appears that God, in His infinite wisdom, knew exactly what He was doing when He gave His marching orders to men like Joshua and Saul. By ignoring His commands, the Israelites set themselves up for ultimate destruction and exile.

 

[WolfInOxHide]

Every time we cuss someone for their bad driving I believe we murder that person.

If my dad halts medical treatment on my great grandpa who is unconscious and dying within a week, I do not believe it is murder.

It's the intent of the heart that makes the difference. That being said, I can only imagine very few instances where perfect intent of the heart leads to killing.

I believe to "stone" someone is a term from an extremely archaic language that means to testify against their wrongdoing until they die to the sin, and was made literal by the Pharisees for more control. The same way a few modern churches literalize "fire" to gain more control.

I believe the epic war and pillage stories involving God's people are poetic elaborations of peaceful takeovers from within, constructed symbolically as such to make the story get passed down, along with the "oracles", it's true explanation, which are now forgotten.

 

[kenisyes]

Every time we cuss someone for their bad driving I believe we murder that person.

If my dad halts medical treatment on my great grandpa who is unconscious and dying within a week, I do not believe it is murder.

It's the intent of the heart that makes the difference. That being said, I can only imagine very few instances where perfect intent of the heart leads to killing.

I believe to "stone" someone is a term from an extremely archaic language that means to testify against their wrongdoing until they die to the sin, and was made literal by the Pharisees for more control. The same way a few modern churches literalize "fire" to gain more control.

I believe the epic war and pillage stories involving God's people are poetic elaborations of peaceful takeovers from within, constructed symbolically as such to make the story get passed down, along with the "oracles", it's true explanation, which are now forgotten.

I love your first sentence.

I have trouble believing the last sentence. If that much of the Bible is really symbolic elaboration, how do we know Jesus' resurrection isn't also "symbolic elaboration".