Thread: I never know what to say about such things!

Some people justify their actions by e.g using the 'thou shalt not murder' commandement as a divine allowance for murdering the doctor.
Others use e.g. Jimmy's quote to say 'it's not up to you to be an avenging angel'

So both positions can be supported by the bible, and it just becomes a matter of who can make the most convincing argument.

Some time ago I saw a documentary about fighting terrorism not with bullets, but with words. (It was in an islamic country but I forgot the name) Basically, captured terrorists who used the koran to justify their actions were confronted by a collective of respected and knowledgable imams / scholars to help them interpret the parts of the koran that excplicitly forbid their actions.

One of the examples was that in any islamic nation that has a non-secular government, its participation in nato provides an umbrella of protection over all nato partners from citizens of that country, according to the islamic laws of hospitality. The remarkable thing was this had a very high success rate. And people who were eventually released (this was a gradual process) were perfectly content to remain under monitoring.

Again, both positions for terrorism and against terrorism can be supported by the same holy writings. It's just a matter of interpretation.
And this is why I think it is a bad idea to use holy writings to 'justify' any actions.

Thank you Bruno, to take one verse, sentence or idea and raise it above any others is to be unbalanced in the whole of the teaching. The entire bible, koran or any other teaching must be considered or the teaching is taken out of context, and when the teaching is taken out of context the errors begin. This is probably the best reason for the old saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

I would agree with that 100%. Concentrating on a single part or parts out of overall context is generally what leads to problems, whether it be the Bible, or anything else. Not understanding or knowing the whole story, yet assuming you do, is always problematic.

James.

True, contraception is not all; I was speaking more generally before I found out more about this story. What Dr. Tiller was attacked for was his performing of late-term abortions, a procedure almost never done for "frivolous" reasons, but out of medical necessity. (The woman could die giving birth, the fetus is no longer viable i.e. dead or soon will be due to birth defects,etc.) Do people opposed to this not realize the fetus will die anyway if the mother is killed? And then two will be dead rather than one...

Interesting to see the real militant anti-abortion groups immediately trying to distance themselves from this after years of harassment: posting his home address, the names and addresses of his family members--sometimes in the style of wanted posters, where his children attended school(!), his comings and goings on their websites, calling him a "murderer on the loose", and saying he "must be stopped..." Bill O'Reilly 29 times on his "show" referred to this man as "Tiller the Baby Killer"! Operation Rescue had it's own "Tiller Watch." I don't think it's a stretch to say these people played a serious role in this man's death.

Thanks (no doubt in part) to their actions, his family has lost their father, husband, and grandfather. And yet some who celebrate (yes, I have read news comments saying exactly that) this man's murder as a good thing (sociopaths, really) have the gall to, with a straight face, no less,call themselves "pro-life"...

Just sick.

There's legal and then there's moral. Sometimes killing will fit in both categories (depends on your local jurisdiction and personal moral beliefs).

If a killing is both legal and moral, then no one calls it murder. Then it is called "duty" or "justifiable". Do enough of it and you will get some medals and a pat on the back. If it isn't both, to someone, then someone will call it murder.

Since law, morality, and people vary with circumstances, it's a never ending argument.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Some people justify their actions by e.g using the 'thou shalt not murder' commandement as a divine allowance for murdering the doctor.
Others use e.g. Jimmy's quote to say 'it's not up to you to be an avenging angel'

So both positions can be supported by the bible, and it just becomes a matter of who can make the most convincing argument.

.

I know that people can twist things any way they please Bruno, but do you really believe "Thou shall not murder" really supports a murderers actions? Do you really believe both positions are supported by the bible?

Originally Posted by JMS

I know that people can twist things any way they please Bruno, but do you really believe "Thou shall not murder" really supports a murderers actions? Do you really believe both positions are supported by the bible?

I don't think that either position is supported biblically, but that a person could easily find either position supported if that was what they wanted to find.

The bible says "Though shall not murder," but it also says "An eye for an eye," and "turn the other cheek."

One man reads that murder is wrong, but equal retribution is right.

Another man reads that murder is wrong, but that we should do nothing about it.

A third reads that retribution is both right and wrong, and gives the bible up as hopelessly contradictory.

The critical reader sees that murder is wrong, and that retribution is just; but that it is not our place as mortal men to take that retribution in our own hands.

The bible isn't one book, but many. Far too often people choose to read and acknowledge the books and passages that justify what they have already decided to be the right course.

As has been pointed out before, it's all about interpretation.

"Thou shalt not murder."

In the eyes of the doctor -- abortion is not murder. (Black and white.)
In the eyes of the shooter -- preventing deaths of innocents, even if it means killing, is not murder. (Black and white.)
In the eyes of the law -- abortion (within stated limts) is not murder. Manslaughter is not murder. etc. (Grey/Gray area.)

And according to the bible...? Well, since the author isn't around to ask, it falls back to interpretation again.

Mark's response "do you really believe "Thou shall not murder" really supports a murderers actions?" suggests he sees the shooting as murder, and would/could cite one of the ten commandments to deplore the shooter's actions.

A.N.Other member here (I have no-one specific in mind) might cite the same commandment to deplore the doctor's actions and support the shooter's actions.

If there's one thing 10 years of (mandatory) CofE upbringing demonstrated to me, for every biblical quotation there is an equal and opposite biblical quotation. People well versed in the bible's writings are almost always able to use it to back up any viewpoint they have.

Interpretation!

Originally Posted by majurey

...for every biblical quotation there is an equal and opposite biblical quotation...

Hmm, how can this be explained?

1. God wrote it, but he was confused [God is whatever I want him to be]
2. God wrote it, but he was just playing [God is whatever happens]
3. God wrote it, but he wrote it in a confusing way [God is a mystery]
4. God didn't write it [The Bible is no more or less than a collection of people's writings]
5. God didn't write it [God isn't]

did I miss any?

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Hmm, how can this be explained?

1. God wrote it, but he was confused [God is whatever I want him to be]
2. God wrote it, but he was just playing [God is whatever happens]
3. God wrote it, but he wrote it in a confusing way [God is a mystery]
4. God didn't write it [The Bible is no more or less than a collection of people's writings]
5. God didn't write it [God isn't]

did I miss any?

4 and 5 are kinda the same thing, aren't they?