The Freedom From Religion Foundation presents -----

The ABC's of the Bible

Compiled by Ruth Hurmence Green

Independent reading of the Bible is a traumatic experience for someone taught from childhood that the bible is a "book about love." Side by side with some morally defensible admonishments, one finds repeated instructions to hate and to kill. The Mosaic law, that commands the reader to kill the child who curses its father and mother and to stone the woman not a virgin when she marries, was upheld by Jesus, "every jot and tittle."

The "loving" gods of both the Old and New Testaments emerge as mean and vengeful, possessed, as Bertrand Russell said, of "an uneasy vanity."

The apologist for the bible, who insists that it is just an occasional passage that is a problem, overlooks the avalanche of mass murders commanded and perpetrated by the biblical Lord. Live burials, beatings, burnings, cannibalism, buying and selling of human beings, and the chopping off of heads, hands, feet, ears and plucking out of eyes all fill the pages of the "Good Book."

Here is a listing of bible images. When you read it you will know why Thomas Paine called the bible "a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize." You will know why kind and discerning individuals in our society object to the bible's use in public ceremonies. You will understand why educational organizations such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation are endeavoring to work for the absolute separation of state and church.

Anne Nicol Gaylor
Freedom From Religion Foundation

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A

A delicate woman doing evil to her children and eating them
Deut. 28:56-57

A fair woman without discretion resembling a jewel of gold in a swine's snout
Proverbs 11:22

A human body wallowing in blood on the highway
II Sam. 20:12

Abandoning orphans
Psalms 109:7-20

An angel killing 185,000 warriors in one night
II Kings 19:35

Angels consorting with women of earth
Gen. 6:4

Asking your neighbors to help you stone a stubborn son to death
Deut. 21:18-21

B

Bears devouring 42 children
II Kings 2:23-24

Beating slaves to death in stages
Ex. 21:20-21

Beating your child black and blue
Proverbs 23:14
Proverbs 22:15
Proverbs 22:13
Proverbs 20:30

Boiling and eating your son
II Kings 6:29

Breaking and chopping up human bones and seasoning human flesh, flaying flesh off bones
Micah 3:2-3
Ezekiel 24:10
Daniel 6:24

Burning books, denouncing science, closing mouths, becoming fools
Acts 19:19 (books)
Titus 1:10-11 (mouths)
I Timothy 6:20 (science)
I Cor. 3:18 (fools)

Burning women accused of witchcraft and men accused of wizardry
Lev. 20:27
Ex. 22:18

Burning your only daughter alive to fulfill a promise
Judges 11:39

Burning your son as a sacrifice
II Kings 3:27

Burning 250 princes alive
Num. 16:35

Burying a criminal's wife and children alive
Num. 16:27, 33

Buying a wife with 200 male foreskins
I Sam. 18:25

Buying your brother to be your slave
Deut. 15:12

Buying your rape victim for your wife
Deut. 22:29

Way to cut & paste, FT. Tell me, have you ever had an original thought?

The bible, (whichever bible you mean there are many of them), is known to contain more rape, mayhem, murder, sex, love, romance, torture, in fact every aspect of human life, than any other book. I hope you are not just discovering this.
Does this detract from all the other aspects it contains. Well, that depends on your viewpoint.

Ever notice that FT is way more bible literate than almost anyone else you know?

The bible, (whichever bible you mean there are many of them), is known to contain more rape, mayhem, murder, sex, love, romance, torture, in fact every aspect of human life, than any other book.......
Does this detract from all the other aspects it contains.

Well, I believe it detracts from the claim of a "loving" god.

C

Castrating men for the Lord
Isaiah 56:4-5
Matt. 19:12

Chopping off heads, hands, feet, ears and plucking out eyes
Matt. 18:8-9
John 18:10
Num. 25:9
Matt. 14:10
II Sam. 4:7, 12

Circumcising a child with a sharp stone
Ex. 4:24-26

Circumcising thousands at one time
Joshua 5:2-8

Circumcising yourselves to the Lord and taking away the foreskins of your heart
Jeremiah 4:4

Cursing a tree and three cities
Matt. 21:19 (tree)
Matt. 11:22-23 (cities)

Cursing children and animals
Deut. 28:18

Cursing people with blindness, leprosy, hemorrhoids, consumption, madness, sickness, starvation, thirst and pestilence
Num. 12:10
II Kings 5:27
II Kings 15:5
II Kings 6:18
Acts 13:6-12
Lev. 26:16-39
Deut. 28:15-68
I Sam. 5:6
II Sam. 24:15

Cutting up a woman's body and distributing the pieces
Judges 19:29 ]

You've made your point. How many more posts are you going to make in order to really belabour it? At about 20 verses per post, you've got what, 666 posts to go?

Ever notice that FT is way more bible literate than almost anyone else you know?

hahaha, definitely.

Does this detract from all the other aspects it contains. Well, that depends on your viewpoint.
I think it makes those points less meaningful and shows that the book is hypocritical. If the book denounces killing another person in one sentence, but a few pages later it condones murder in certain situations then it is being hypocritical and the original message is not true. The message in the Bible is that murdering is okay if it's the right situation (your daughter has sex before she's married).

And your problem with all that is what???? Almighty YAHWEH hates sin, but loved us enough to send YAHSHUA to pay for our sins.
Your problem is going to be that YAHWEH is real and you will meet Him. It is not for you to decide what kind of a god you think He should be .He is The Creator and you are the creation, get over it.

Ever notice that FT is way more bible literate than almost anyone else you know?
He's read the Bible too much, or has a fantastic memory. I doubt that most priests and ministers of this country could pull that all out.

And your problem with all that is what????
The bible is hypocritical and the messages it sends are not all good. That's my problem with it, which I stated in my last post.

Almighty YAHWEH hates sin, but loved us enough to send YAHSHUA to pay for our sins.
Your problem is going to be that YAHWEH is real and you will meet Him. So I'm going to heaven then? Hah! If God was real and he didn't like atheists I would be in hell the second my heart stopped.

It is not for you to decide what kind of a god you think He should be.Yes it is. It is absolutely for me to decide my own thoughts. Isn't free will one of your major beliefs?

He is The Creator and you are the creation, get over it.
He's not The Creator, I am! Bow down to me!

Well, I believe it detracts from the claim of a "loving" god.


Me too. If this is true and really in the bible, please post the rest, I'd love to see them..and print them out..and send it to a few folk!!! :D
seriously.

He's read the Bible too much, or has a fantastic memory. I doubt that most priests and ministers of this country could pull that all out.

umm its from a website...

or the "Freedom From Religion Foundation"...

FT didn't come up with it.

and FT seems to be confused with the idea that every word in the bible and every story told in the bible is what humans should do. Like i said earlier, much if it is merely a record of history.

Ever notice that FT is way more bible literate than almost anyone else you know?

--He is perhaps way more Bible literal, but to me being literate implies understanding more than just the ability to quote verses. Besides, I have no doubt if one were to look one would find some web page that he has lifted all that from.

--Still, I think such lists serve a good purpose; they remind us that the Bible has to be taken as written by fallible humans. What, if any, divine inspiration may be lurking in the interstices is going to take work and devotion to find.

--Martin

And your problem with all that is what???? Almighty YAHWEH hates sin, but loved us enough to send YAHSHUA to pay for our sins.
Your problem is going to be that YAHWEH is real and you will meet Him. It is not for you to decide what kind of a god you think He should be .He is The Creator and you are the creation, get over it.

--Can you explain to me, if you have a moment, how a God of Love can find himself "hating" anything? It seems to me to be an inescapable contradiction.

--I also sometimes wonder how this "sin" is permitted to exist for even a split second in a world where there is an omnipotent God who hates it.

--Martin

umm its from a website...

or the "Freedom From Religion Foundation"...

FT didn't come up with it.
He has read the article, and likely looked at the passages themselves. If pressed into discussion about these verses, he'll likely be aware of them more than an average Christian. And not just in this thread, but all over AllForums FT has showed a deep scouring of the pages of The Bible.

If the book denounces killing another person in one sentence, but a few pages later it condones murder in certain situations then it is being hypocritical and the original message is not true.

I suppose most of us can therefore be accused of hypocrisy. Many of us agree that killing of others is OK in some circumstances, yet forbidden in other circumstances.

I also sometimes wonder how this "sin" is permitted to exist for even a split second in a world where there is an omnipotent God who hates it.


Perhaps it's because we do have free will?

I suppose most of us can therefore be accused of hypocrisy. Many of us agree that killing of others is OK in some circumstances, yet forbidden in other circumstances.

I don't know that this can be said to be hypocrisy. The Gestapo at my front door asking the whereabouts of Anne Frank, who happens to be hiding in my attic, seems to me appropriate reason for lying.

It is for this reason I understand the phenomenon of pious fraud--these people think they are saving souls.

Similarly, slaughtering a population if the nation is truly evil and God commands it would be righteous behavior.

The problem is not people's ethics, but their delusions.

Perhaps it's because we do have free will?

Postulating free will does not solve the problem. If God is omnipotent, he can do anything, and that would include being able to do two difficult things at the same time.

Therefore he could eliminate sin and give us free will at the same time. Saying otherwise is to say God is not omnipotent. Now if he "hates sin," then, I repeat my question--how can it possibly exist for even an instant?

You've made your point. How many more posts are you going to make in order to really belabour it? At about 20 verses per post, you've got what, 666 posts to go?

I will provide you a hint.

The name of the thread is *The ABC's of the Bible*.

I have already made posts for the letters *A*, and *B*, and *C*.

Do you sense a pattern emerging? Anything? Anything?

No?

No, I don't think you've figured it out yet.

Let's delve into this complicated subject of how many posts it will take to complete the motif of "the ABC's" of the Bible.

There are 26 letters in the alphabet. (this fact can, i promise you, be confirmed easily with a web search)

Now, since we have already reiterated the fact that I have made posts for the letters *A*, and *B*, and *C*, that would equal three posts.

So, a bit of math is required here.

We have to somehow determine what 26 less 3 is.

I did this complex equation, and came up with 23, not --as you have conjectured-- 666.

So, that would mean there are 23 posts to go.

Hope that clears up this numerical quandry for you.

:thumbs:

You've made your point. How many more posts are you going to make in order to really belabour it? At about 20 verses per post, you've got what, 666 posts to go?

I will provide you a hint.

The name of the thread is *The ABC's of the Bible*.

I have already made posts for the letters *A*, and *B*, and *C*.

Do you sense a pattern emerging? Anything? Anything?

No?

No, I don't think you've figured it out yet.

Let's delve into this complicated subject of how many posts it will take to complete the motif of "the ABC's" of the Bible.

There are 26 letters in the alphabet. (this fact can, i promise you, be confirmed easily with a web search)

Now, since we have already reiterated the fact that I have made posts for the letters *A*, and *B*, and *C*, that would equal three posts.

So, a bit of math is required here.

We have to somehow determine what 26 less 3 is.

I did this complex equation, and came up with 23, not --as you have conjectured-- 666.

So, that would mean there are 23 posts to go.

Hope that clears up this numerical quandry for you.

:thumbs:

D

Dashing little ones against the stones
Psalm 137:9
Isaiah 13:16

Delivering people up to the torturer
Matt. 18:34-35
Matt. 13:41-42

Designing an eternal torture chamber for most people of the world and describing their screams
Matt. 13:50
Matt. 7:14
Luke 13:24
Matt. 13:42

Devils tearing peoples' bodies to get out, jumping into pigs, talking and walking about, turning into snakes
Luke 8
Luke 9:38-42
Job 1:7
Mark 3:11
Mark 1:23-28
I Peter 5:8
Gen. 3:1

Discovering women's secret parts
Isaiah 3:16-17

Dividing the prey, to every man a damsel or two
Judges 5:30

Drinking poison, handling snakes, jabbering nonsense
Mark 16:17-18

Drinking the blood of the slain
Num. 23:24

Drinking your own urine and eating your own excrement. Urinating on public walls
Isaiah 36:12
I Kings 14:10

Drowning women, men, children, embryos and and animals by inches
Gen. 7:23

You are sadly uninterested in discussion of anything, but only interested in broadcasting your propaganda. It is from people like you that the trouble of the world comes from. I say that not because I disagree with you--in fact you are probably right about some Christians in a limited sort of way, but because the hostile, "in your face" approach to things that you and so many others exemplify changes no minds and only deepens human divisions and hatreds.

Yea, are the ABC's of the Qaran coming also?

Nope, no anti-christianity bias here

Yea, are the ABC's of the Qaran coming also?

Nope, no anti-christianity bias here
Let's see...do most Americans, or even the international people of these boards, frown upon barbarism present in religious text? Yes.

Yet many Americans seem to have a distaste for Islam, while they are practicing Christians. The problem is that both The Bible and The Qu'ran are filled with this sort of primitive violent behavior.

E

Eating human flesh and drinking human blood
John 6:53

Eating the flesh of your own arm, the flesh of your children and of a friend
Lev. 26:29
Isaiah 9:2
Jeremiah 19:9
Deut. 28:53

Eyes consuming away in their holes and tongues consuming away in their mouths
Zechariah 14:12

Exorcising devils from people's bodies
Mark 1:23-27
Mark 1:34
Mark 5:2-14
Mark 16:17
Matt. 8:28-32
Matt. 17:14-18
Matt. 9:32-33
Matt. 12:22
Luke 8:28
Luke 13:32
Luke 8:2
Luke 9:1
Luke 10:17
Luke 9:39, 42

You are sadly uninterested in discussion of anything,...

Quite the contrary. I live for discussion.

.....the hostile, "in your face" approach to things that you and so many others exemplify changes no minds and only deepens human divisions and hatreds.

I am under NO illusion whatsoever that it is possible to change the minds of people indoctrinated with that form of mental imbalance known as "belief in god".

To *change their mind*, to release their irrationality and to begin to think critically would mean they'd have to jettison their belief that some part of them is immortal, and will never die,.....and they cannot give that up.

_________________________________________

"Religious people often accuse atheists of being arrogant and placing ourselves in the position of god, but really it is the theist who has all the vanity. The religionist is an ignorant coward who can't stand to think that he will ever cease to exist".____Marian Noel Sherman

I suppose most of us can therefore be accused of hypocrisy. Many of us agree that killing of others is OK in some circumstances, yet forbidden in other circumstances.

Yes, but most of us do not say that "killing is forbidden". There are many acceptible situations to kill a person.

Yea, are the ABC's of the Qaran coming also?

Nope, no anti-christianity bias here

I think we're all in agreement on the Koran

There are many acceptible situations to kill a person.
Name an acceptable situation that justifies murder.

Sniping a madman before he launches a nuke on a city

Sniping a madman before he launches a nuke on a city
It is not necessary to kill him in that situation, you'd just like to so you don't have to make extra effort to stop him in another way.

Quite the contrary. I live for discussion.


Then discuss. You made your point, now talk about it. I think it uneccessary to post the rest of your alphabet, don't you?

Name an acceptable situation that justifies murder.

The law in Wisconsin defines several defences to criminal prosecution for murder including self-defense, or yourself or someone else, coercion, preventing imminent public disaster, and probably a few others.

The law in Wisconsin defines several defences to criminal prosecution for murder including self-defense, or yourself or someone else, coercion, preventing imminent public disaster, and probably a few others.
Killing in self defense or in the defense of the public good, as Windwip brought up, does not qualify as "murder" in my book. Murder is the cold and calculated slaughter of a person or a group of people, murder is unlawful. Killing your aggressor as a defensive tactic is not unlawful in most places, to my understanding.

Yeah, if it isn't on 20/20 or an anti Christian website FT doesnt have content for it.

Then discuss. You made your point, now talk about it. I think it uneccessary to post the rest of your alphabet, don't you?
If kathaksung can post five hundred articles of his ridiculous bullshit, FT should be able to make 26.

Name an acceptable situation that justifies murder.
"Murder" is a legal concept, and we must avoid making moral decisions about our behavior based on what is legal and what is not. After all, the law only reflects the decisions of those who make the law, and therefore at best can only approximate morality.

(How many times has the corporate CEO justified outrageous behavior by asserting that it was "legal.")

I start with the presumption that any killing of any sentient being is wrong. However, the error here is in concluding that "wrongness" is an absolute (I think this comes from Christian thinking about "sin.")

That is to say, some things in some circumstances are more "wrong" than others. Further, sometimes the wrongness of a given act is outweighed by the wongness of not committing the act.

(In my earlier example, while lying is wrong, failing to lie to the Gestapo on the whereabouts of Anne Frank would be a worse wrong).

The problem is not that people aren't ethical--except for the sociopath people always are. It is that they are often misinformed or even deluded about the relative rightness and wrongness of things.

"Murder" is a legal concept, and we must avoid making moral decisions about our behavior based on what is legal and what is not. After all, the law only reflects the decisions of those who make the law, and therefore at best can only approximate morality.
What is morality to you, and why should I believe in the concept?

What is morality to you, and why should I believe in the concept?
I think a closer reading of the rest of what I posted could give you some clues, since I identified "killing" and "lying" as wrongs.

A fuller list is in the quote I have in my profile of the Kassapa Buddha: "Killing, striking, wounding, dishonoring, enslaving, stealing, lying, deceiving, superstition, infidelity: these are stench, not eating meat."

If your question seeks to go to the essense of "wrongness," I fear I have no answer. It is largely a matter of stench.

I think a closer reading of the rest of what I posted could give you some clues, since I identified "killing" and "lying" as wrongs.

A fuller list is in the quote I have in my profile of the Kassapa Buddha: "Killing, striking, wounding, dishonoring, enslaving, stealing, lying, deceiving, superstition, infidelity: these are stench, not eating meat."

If your question seeks to go to the essense of "wrongness," I fear I have no answer. It is largely a matter of stench.
I note on re-reading that I did not address why you should believe in the concept.

what you believe is your business; I think it behooves you in both the short run and certainly in the long run to behave as though you believe. What goes around comes around.

Even in the absence of that, you could view it as a matter of self-respect and as the basis of your happiness. People who behave immorally almost always have worked out elaborate justifications of what they do--rationalizations needed for no purpose but to maintain their self-respect and happiness.

Why force oneself to rationalize all the time when doing what is right in the first place is so easy once one is in the habit?

Killing in self defense or in the defense of the public good, as Windwip brought up, does not qualify as "murder" in my book.

Murder is defined as "the unlawful killing of another". If you are telling me now that your question is "how can I lawfully commit an unlawful act?", I'll tell you your question is invalid.

What goes around comes around.

May I ask you to elaborate here please?

Why force oneself to rationalize all the time when doing what is right in the first place is so easy once one is in the habit?
That begs the question, what is right?

Part of what you are posting weren't commands they are history of what the Jews did.
As to the children look at the terrible mess our kids are in today , libs way sure isn't working.

Name an acceptable situation that justifies murder.
if it's justifiable, it's not murder.

if it's justifiable, it's not murder.
Perhaps in your world.

It is not necessary to kill him in that situation, you'd just like to so you don't have to make extra effort to stop him in another way.

Fine, I'll remove all other options. The nuke is going off in 1 minute, there is a remote mine strapped to the guy's head and you're 10 miles away with the control for the remote mine. You're only options would be to either let him nuke the city, or blow his head off.

if it's justifiable, it's not murder.

Dude, of course it is. As long as you killed them on purpose and it's illegal then it's murder. Justified or not.

Fine, I'll remove all other options. The nuke is going off in 1 minute, there is a remote mine strapped to the guy's head and you're 10 miles away with the control for the remote mine. You're only options would be to either let him nuke the city, or blow his head off.
Kill him, it will only be illegal at the time. You'll be exonerated later. :D

Ever notice that FT is way more bible literate than almost anyone else you know?

True of many Athiests and Agnostics. Ignorance makes faith easier, but the untested faith is weak.

Almighty YAHWEH hates sin...

You know, you aren't supposed to be using his name in vain like that.

I think it uneccessary to post the rest of your alphabet, don't you?

Perhaps unecessary.

But I think it'll be pretty enlightening, don't you?

If you as a prosecutor had a man on trial for molesting and killing 26 children, you wouldn't just tell the jury about the murder of one of the kids, and then say -- "Aw well, there's really no need going into any of the evidence of the other 25 kids he murdered".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

F

Fastening human beings to trees
Mark 15:25
Joshua 8
Acts 5:30

Filling the altars and courtyards with blood of sacrificial animals
Lev. 16:11, 15

Filling the courts with the slain
Ezekiel 9:7

Filling the sword of the Lord with blood
Isaiah 34:2-6
Judges 7:18

Forbidding men to touch the bodies of women and the dead
I Cor. 7:1
I Cor. 7:29
Lev. 21:11

Forbidding women to learn, adorn themselves, speak in church, teach or visit friends
I Cor. 14:34-35
I Tim. 2:11-12
I Tim. 5:13
I Tim. 2:9

Forcing a woman to marry seven brothers
Luke 20:29-32

May I ask you to elaborate here please?
"What goes around comes around."

In other words, "those who live by the sword die by the sword." I suspect you could find your own cliches for this.

Take the typical criminial--not the glorified fiction of the movies, but the real criminal--he leads a miserable life, either in jail or struggling on the outside to live with a criminal record.

That begs the question, what is right?
It is not necessary to "know" the essense of "right and wrong" to be able to appreciate it. It is like "truth." When we get enough evidence, some threshold is tripped in our mind and we conclude that some proposition is "true" or "false," but we really don't understand the detail.

I would venture than 99 percent of the time (99 percent of the real-life situations people encounter--not made-up scenarios designed to draw out differences), any two people will have the same ethical assessment of a given situation, regardless of what cultures they are from.

For example, read the Socratic dialogues--coming from a different culture and a completely different era--and you have no trouble seeing the same quandaries Socrates posits.

I would venture than 99 percent of the time (99 percent of the real-life situations people encounter--not made-up scenarios designed to draw out differences), any two people will have the same ethical assessment of a given situation, regardless of what cultures they are from.
Bullshit. Even the simplest scenario can draw out elaborate distinctions from people as to what is ethical or not. And no one will agree on those those distinctions.

Real-world situations are messy. Often times, a lot of discussion is needed to flesh out a situation and to come up with a consensus on which is right and what isn't. We wouldn't have trials and law if the life were simple like you say.

The art of persuasion makes it even worse. I've talked people countless times out of one interpretation into another one, many times for no other reason than to see if I can, because most times, I'm not interested in having an opinion. Every time it happens, I have essentially usurped another person's sense of right and wrong. There is no consensus, there is only a play of rhetoric on the parts of the participants.

You are talking off the top of your head. The reality is people and cultures have a high--extremely high--degree of agreement as to right and wrong. I cited evidence for this (the Socratic Dialogs) which you ignore in your bombast (messages that start of the way you stared yours only sour the milk and demonstrate someone who is thinking with their balls instead of their head).

I like to play a game of positing various ethical dilemmas to my Vietnamese or Chinese or Thai acquaintances, and the responses are consistently the same.

You are talking off the top of your head.
Get used to it.

I like to play a game of positing various ethical dilemmas to my Vietnamese or Chinese or Thai acquaintances, and the responses are consistently the same.
So? I thought we were talking about real world scenarios, not made up ones.

Yes--real world scenarios. Probably the most interesting dilemma the Vietnamese have to deal with are the suicide immolations of monks during the American War. The ethical problems to a Vietnamese are not different from the ethical problems to an American.

Too much is made, I think, of cultural differences. You point out tribalism, but the fact is all nations are capable of it. Have you seen any WWII war propaganda films? What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Is this comparable to the mythical victories of the Israelites over Canaan?

if it's justifiable, it's not murder.

Right, as in self-defense, or the picking off of crooks who've taken hostages.

It's called justifiable homicide, not classified as murder.

Right, as in self-defense, or the picking off of crooks who've taken hostages.

It's called justifiable homicide, not classified as murder.

This is true, but it does not make "justifiable homocide" a good thing, nor even necessarily an ethical thing.

I repeat myself: that something is legal does not make it right.

I think most people would agree that one has a moral obligation to preserve human life if at all possible, and not to judge any person as worthy of death without due judicial process (one wonders about even then).

The behavior of some police departments of "taking out" the hostage taker is particularly reprehensible, since it puts the hostage in unnecessary peril and invites such situations because of the "suicide by police" phenomenon. Of course there are exceptions to every rule.

This is true, but it does not make "justifiable homocide" a good thing, nor even necessarily an ethical thing.

I repeat myself: that something is legal does not make it right.

.

Perhaps not, but I see it as extremely ethical to protect oneself, even more ethical to protect one's children.
I speak as a parent. I see no ethical conflict here, especially if the perpetrator seeks to hurt you or your children to either enrich himself or in order to gain some kind of personal satisfaction.

Perhaps not, but I see it as extremely ethical to protect oneself, even more ethical to protect one's children.
I speak as a parent. I see no ethical conflict here, especially if the perpetrator seeks to hurt you or your children to either enrich himself or in order to gain some kind of personal satisfaction.
It kinda goes without saying that you have the right to protect yourself and others; I would also assert that you have no right to kill someone.

Now what happens when the two rights conflict--that killing someone is necessary to save someone else's life (singling out members of your family is perhaps inappropriate)? Fortunately very, very few are ever presented with this choice. I would only say that one has every responsibility to do everything possible to avoid using deadly force.

It kinda goes without saying that you have the right to protect yourself and others; I would also assert that you have no right to kill someone.

Now what happens when the two rights conflict--that killing someone is necessary to save someone else's life (singling out members of your family is perhaps inappropriate)? Fortunately very, very few are ever presented with this choice. I would only say that one has every responsibility to do everything possible to avoid using deadly force.

LOL, while you are thinking this over, hoping to do the ethical thing, hoping to avoid using deadly force, you're already dead.
I say, you DO have a right to kill someone.

This is the animal womb speaking. In such a case I would rather be dead, but you exaggerate. What happens in such situations is not thought out at all unless you have meditated on the subject in advance--something I haven't done but now I think I may do.

This is the animal womb speaking. In such a case I would rather be dead, but you exaggerate. What happens in such situations is not thought out at all unless you have meditated on the subject in advance--something I haven't done but now I think I may do.

No doubt, we are animals, and no different from , say, a mother grizzly or tiger protecting her young.

However, I don't believe I exaggerate in any way. I can name a dozen criminal cases off the top of my head in which lives were saved because a potential victim used deadly force. Rather more common than you might imagine. No, it is not thought out--these people reacted within seconds, instinctively.
Which is why it's called homicide, not murder; why it's also justifiable, both ethically and legally, IMO. We think alike on this topic I'd say, except I would NOT rather be dead. :)

I just have to ask how you can know that the situation could not have been resolved without killing? News reports about such things certainly may make it seem that way--for their own reasons--but I doubt it is really all that common. (Far more common may be inappropriate use of deadly force that is not brought to justice--no one, including myself, is eager to bring charges in such a situation).

We do not know for certain, but, if an enraged drunken man is beating his wife with an axe, she is on the ground, he is kicking her, he is smashing her head, we can say with 99.99999999% certainty that the only way to effectively stop this man from doing further harm is by killing him.

Which is what the woman's teenage son did. A true story, reported locally.

I dunno--shoot him in the leg; tackle him; grab the ax. There are many things that may be possible short of killing him.

Heck, thislin, I don't know about you, but I sure wouldn't tackle a big mean guy wielding an AXE.
I'd do what the son did--grab a gun, take aim, and kablam. He may not have meant to kill the guy--his father. He may very well have aimed for a leg, arm, anything. But what's that old saying?

Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

This is the problem with second-guessing anectdotal events--we don't really know what the situation was. If he had a gun, though, and he killed him rather than shooting him in the leg or somewhere like that, one has to wonder.

My point is simple--any killing of a human being (indeed of a sentient being) is "wrong." Exactly how "wrong" it is will depend on circumstances, but it remains wrong, and something to be avoided if at all possible.

I dunno--shoot him in the leg; tackle him; grab the ax. There are many things that may be possible short of killing him.

But should the potential victim risk their life to save the life of the potential murderer? Sure, you don't know that non-deadly force wouldn't correct the problem, but it's not uncommon that making that determination will kill you.

G

Giving your children away
Deut. 28:32

Gods impregnating human beings
Matt. 1:18
Luke 1:35
Genesis 6:2

What's wrong with gods impregnating human beings? After all, that's how Hercules was born, and where the hell would we be today without him??

:D

But should the potential victim risk their life to save the life of the potential murderer? Sure, you don't know that non-deadly force wouldn't correct the problem, but it's not uncommon that making that determination will kill you.
Everybody sure seems determined to kill the "bad guys." I think that may be the problem--we are "good" and they are "bad." The reality is, as we already know, that things are much more complicated.

In the example, the "bad guy" is drunk. Alcoholism is not a sign that someone is "bad," but that they have a disease. While this particular disease can result in serious difficulty for others, does this mean that alcoholics deserve to die?

As for risking oneself, I dare say if a child fell through the ice on a lake, most of us would risk ourselves to save him. Change the circumstances a little--it is a "bad guy" who has fallen through the ice, and we do nothing. Therefore, it is not the risk to ourselves that really matters, but our judgment of the worth of the other.

The point is that we are judging the other person, something we are not equipped to do, since we never know the whole story.

In my view, then, we should always be willing to take reasonable risks with our lives to save someone else.

So now it comes down to the issue of whether, in the example, the risk was reasonable. Man--think about it--the kid had a gun and all the drunken man had was an ax. It does not seem to me that the man should have been killed, but only maimed.

What probably really happened is that the son, along with the wife, had been objects of drunken abuse for a long time, and the son hated his father, not being able to see through the effects of alcohol to the real man. Therefore he opted to kill him when it wasn't necessary.

For this reason the son should not be persecuted--but that does not mean what he did was right or justified.

What probably really happened is that the son, along with the wife, had been objects of drunken abuse for a long time, and the son hated his father, not being able to see through the effects of alcohol to the real man. Therefore he opted to kill him when it wasn't necessary.

For this reason the son should not be persecuted--but that does not mean what he did was right or justified.

So, a guy who abuses his wife and son for years doesn't deserve to die? I'd sure say so.

What's wrong with gods impregnating human beings? After all, that's how Hercules was born, and where the hell would we be today without him??

:D
Considering the difference in power and authority between a god and a human being, one has to conclude that any such act is rape--not different from an adult having sex with a child.

The Christian story, however, is different, since here the human woman remains a virgin--the deity did not "have sex" with her but instead performed an act that we might see comparable to artificial insemination.

I Therefore he opted to kill him when it wasn't necessary.

.

I respectfully disagree.

The man was trying to KILL the woman.

A few more blows, and he would have succeeded.

Now, in the heat of the moment, and with only a few seconds to react, what would YOU do? Or any person, seeing a helpless woman in such a situation? Previously you mentioned anecdotal cases. ALL crimes are anecdotal. Which is why each should be judged on an individual basis.

It it much too easy for us to sit in front of a keyboard in the comfort of our homes and say we'd do this that or the other. To say we should attempt to reason with a crazed and murderous man who is clearly beyond reasoning with, is almost laughable, and I say that with no disrespect directed towards you.

Let's face it, shooting the axe out of his hand, wrestling it away, or performing any other such "noble" act only happens in the movies. Real human beings don't react in those ways.

PS. You're correct about the family background. The father had been exceedingly abusive towards his entire family for years.

And finally, he paid the ultimate price.

I respectfully disagree.

The man was trying to KILL the woman.

A few more blows, and he would have succeeded.

Now, in the heat of the moment, and with only a few seconds to react, what would YOU do? Or any person, seeing a helpless woman in such a situation? Previously you mentioned anecdotal cases. ALL crimes are anecdotal. Which is why each should be judged on an individual basis.

It it much too easy for us to sit in front of a keyboard in the comfort of our homes and say we'd do this that or the other. To say we should attempt to reason with a crazed and murderous man who is clearly beyond reasoning with, is almost laughable, and I say that with no disrespect directed towards you.

Let's face it, shooting the axe out of his hand, wrestling it away, or performing any other such "noble" act only happens in the movies. Real human beings don't react in those ways.

PS. You're correct about the family background. The father had been exceedingly abusive towards his entire family for years.

And finally, he paid the ultimate price.
It may be that you think noble acts "only happen in the movies." I thhink otherwise, and I would urge you to reconsider this lest it become an excuse for suppressing your own nobility.

You make one good point, however--it is easy for me to sit here and say one should take personal risk, but I cannot say for sure what I would actually do, and, for that reason, I do not judge the son.

Considering the difference in power and authority between a god and a human being, one has to conclude that any such act is rape--not different from an adult having sex with a child.

The Christian story, however, is different, since here the human woman remains a virgin--the deity did not "have sex" with her but instead performed an act that we might see comparable to artificial insemination.
Greek gods were not omnipotent, and they were more like superheroes, that is humans with supernatural powers, than "gods" by our standards today. They, like humans, were subject to the higher power of the Fates.

Yes, I know that. The point is that a superman having sex with a woman is still rape.

Yes, I know that. The point is that a superman having sex with a woman is still rape.
Not if there's consent! And what woman wouldn't consent to sex with Superman? Clark Kent is a hunk!

Dude, you need to turn in your man card. No self-respecting guy says "hunk," even in jest.

Well, sparky calls guys "studs" all the time... and that's at least as bad. :lolhit:

Not if there's consent! And what woman wouldn't consent to sex with Superman? Clark Kent is a hunk!
That is to me like saying an adult having sex with a child is acceptable if the child "consents."

Any time one figure is significantly more powerful or in a position of authority over another, the presence or absence of consent becomes moot. At least that is how I see it.

That is to me like saying an adult having sex with a child is acceptable if the child "consents."

Any time one figure is significantly more powerful or in a position of authority over another, the presence or absence of consent becomes moot. At least that is how I see it.

Well, traditionally, the woman impregnated with the child of a god is considered blessed. Since this is all hypothetical, I'm speaking with regards to all the son-of-god myths.

Any time one figure is significantly more powerful or in a position of authority over another, the presence or absence of consent becomes moot. At least that is how I see it.
That can be the best kind of sex!

Dude, you need to turn in your man card. No self-respecting guy says "hunk," even in jest.
Get over here, sugar.

That can be the best kind of sex!
Now I mean it.

Sorry bud, you've been replaced.

Everybody sure seems determined to kill the "bad guys." I think that may be the problem--we are "good" and they are "bad." The reality is, as we already know, that things are much more complicated.

I'm not determined to kill the bad guys, I'm determined not to get myself killed.

In the example, the "bad guy" is drunk. Alcoholism is not a sign that someone is "bad," but that they have a disease. While this particular disease can result in serious difficulty for others, does this mean that alcoholics deserve to die?

Certainly not. I'm not saying the bad guy deserves to die, I'm saying I'm not going to risk my life to save him from himself.

As for risking oneself, I dare say if a child fell through the ice on a lake, most of us would risk ourselves to save him. Change the circumstances a little--it is a "bad guy" who has fallen through the ice, and we do nothing. Therefore, it is not the risk to ourselves that really matters, but our judgment of the worth of the other.

If someone falls through the ice I'll risk my life to try to save them because I don't know anything about them and will therefore assume he's a good person until proven otherwise. If the guy is trying to hack up a woman with an ax, I'll try to save her, but I'm not going to risk my life or her life to save his life. I'm not going to kill him just to kill him, but if I can't save the other two lives without taking his, well, then I'm going to take his life.

The point is that we are judging the other person, something we are not equipped to do, since we never know the whole story.

You're correct. But again, I don't care to die a painful death by ax just to give him the benefit of the doubt.

In my view, then, we should always be willing to take reasonable risks with our lives to save someone else.

Agreed. Trying to get close enough to an ax-wielding maniac to wound him in order to get him to drop the ax isn't even close to a reasonable risk.

So now it comes down to the issue of whether, in the example, the risk was reasonable. Man--think about it--the kid had a gun and all the drunken man had was an ax. It does not seem to me that the man should have been killed, but only maimed.

In Hollywood, sure, but in real life most people aren't good enough of a shot to just maim him. And keep in mind that if you miss him, he's going to come after you with the ax. You'd better make the first shot count.

Napster,

You are one hunky stud.
:rolleyes:

That is to me like saying an adult having sex with a child is acceptable if the child "consents."

Any time one figure is significantly more powerful or in a position of authority over another, the presence or absence of consent becomes moot. At least that is how I see it.
I was obviously being facetious.

I was obviously being facetious.
It's hard to know on these message boards. I don't know you and I don't here tone of voice or see posture. I'm also a rather literal type of person.

Gods impregnating human beings
Matt. 1:18
Luke 1:35
Genesis 6:2

What's wrong with gods impregnating human beings?

Uhhhhh......other than the bloody, barbaric, hurtful, insane supernaturalist belief systems that are predicated on such fantasies??

Nothing, I guess.

Uhhhhh......other than the bloody, barbaric, hurtful, insane supernaturalist belief systems that are predicated on such fantasies??

Nothing, I guess.
FT, stop.

The second half of that message clearly outlined the facetious nature of it if you missed it in the first half. And then there was a smiley.

Why is there even a need to respond to that in such a way as you did?

A book of parables and mythology written by men for men and a colection of short stories from around the known world of it's time who were in there time called (SCRIBES) and who are in our time called (JEWISH LAWYERS.) The word of Go0d written by lawyeres???

Is it any wonder that these Jewish lawyers self anointed the Jewish people as God's chosen people???

(The lawyer.)

To the Jewish lawyer the words ill eagle represent nothing more tha a sick bird and outragious fees.

A book of parables and mythology written by men for men and a colection of short stories from around the known world of it's time who were in there time called (SCRIBES) and who are in our time called (JEWISH LAWYERS.) The word of Go0d written by lawyeres???

Is it any wonder that these Jewish lawyers self anointed the Jewish people as God's chosen people???

(The lawyer.)

To the Jewish lawyer the words ill eagle represent nothing more tha a sick bird and outragious fees.

You really make absolutely no sense sometimes. Was that what you were going for?