/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14072520]

I'm just getting into Christianity and I have a question that I think some anons can answer:
Isn't it a sin to kill another person?
Why does it say on the Bible, for example, that the woman that is cheating on his man should be killed for her acts?
It also mentions that the guy that was with her should be killed too.
Please explain, Christibros.

[Anonymous No.14072525]

>>14072520
The death penalty isn’t murder. In nations with the death penalty, they never put executioners to death for killing. Is this really a question?

[Anonymous No.14072533]

>>14072520
This practice (lapidation of whores) got debunked long ago in the bible.

[Anonymous No.14072547]

>>14072533
How so?

>>14072525
I didn't know part of that. Thank you, anon.

[Anonymous No.14072550]

>>14072525
an executioner is only empowered by the law to murder someone, which does not make it right. And a country's law is not a very good moral rulebook

[Anonymous No.14072586]

>>14072525
fun fact, several executioners have themselves been executed

[Anonymous No.14072587]

>>14072520
The commandments say Do Not Murder.
It doesn't say Killing which is different from Murdering.

[Anonymous No.14072621]

>>14072520
it's not sin if it's based basically haha roasties BTFO'd again lmaooooo

[Anonymous No.14072659]

>>14072520
There's a distinction between Killing and Committing Murder. Killing someone is justified in war (as long as the war is "just" as defined by the theology of just war) law-enforcement (but only when there's no pratical way to reintegrate the criminal in the community; at least this is the modern interpretation) and in a few other circumstances (which have mostly been phased out as justifiable as society and the legal system evolved).
I counsel you against biblical literalism, since the Bible itself says it is a spurious interpretation.

[Anonymous No.14072676]

>>14072550
>an executioner is only empowered by the law to murder someone, which does not make it right.
An executioner is empowered by law to enforce a sentence of execution. Murdering is killing outside the limits of the law. Which is to be taken In context since at the time there was no distinction between secular and religious law.
It was obviously the Church which created and enforced this distinction as a mean to stop political power to encroaching into It's prerogatives.

[Anonymous No.14072906]

>>14072676
Semantics are not important when talking about such a grave matter as killing another person, the action of taking another person's life is wrong.

[Anonymous No.14072909]

>>14072906
>Semantics are not important
It's not a problem of semantics, its a matter of philosophy of law.

[Anonymous No.14072917]

>>14072520
Is it a sin to kill someone who is about to shoot 50 people? Maybe not. So maybe it's not a sin to kill people in certain circumstances. Is adultery it, idk. I'm not God bro, ask him.

[Anonymous No.14072919]

>>14072520
Can you faggots stop spamming this board?

[Anonymous No.14072925]

>>14072906
Semantics are because smenantics define circumstance and context is everything.

[Anonymous No.14072992]

>>14072520
Thou shalt not kill is known to be closer to murder, it's just you kill(murder) an ally but kill (execute) an enemy. Executions would be acts of the state rather than of the individual

[Anonymous No.14072993]

causing the death of another and murder aren't the same

[Anonymous No.14073007]

>>14072993
Same end result innit

[Anonymous No.14073014]

>>14072906
If you take it to that extent, thinking about killing others is wrong as well, and Christ agrees.
Our species has a few flaws.

[Anonymous No.14073047]

>>14073007
תִּרְצָח ; lo tirṣaḥ
"Shed innocent blood, murder".
Confront to "harag", to kill.
The words are never interchangeably used, as to imply that murder is It's own thing separated from killing.
The result isn't the same. If innocent blood has been shed a crime has been committed and a sin. If someone has been killed, not necessarily.
You're trying to conflate two different things.