Does moral relativism explain the killing in the bible?

[alsarg72]

God commands Thou Shalt Not Kill, and then commands a load of reasons why thou must kill, and does loads of killing himself in The Bible.

Is moral relativism the means by which Christians and Jews can justify this?

Must Christians and Jews accept that morality is relative then to reconcile these facts?

[Slopeshoulder]

I say, with great humility and trepidation, that a kernal of objective morality likely exists, probably built off the basis of empathy.

But this is a VERY FAR CRY from claiming that any one of us has access to a detailed moral code than we can claim is objectively true.

In my experience, many people fail to see that distinction.

[ChaosBorders]

God commands Thou Shalt Not Kill, and then commands a load of reasons why thou must kill, and does loads of killing himself in The Bible.

Is moral relativism the means by which Christians and Jews can justify this?

Must Christians and Jews accept that morality is relative then to reconcile these facts?

Poor translation. the command is "Thou Shalt Not Murder," not "Thou Shalt Not Kill".

[bernee51]

God commands Thou Shalt Not Kill, and then commands a load of reasons why thou must kill, and does loads of killing himself in The Bible.

Is moral relativism the means by which Christians and Jews can justify this?

Must Christians and Jews accept that morality is relative then to reconcile these facts?

No matter what the translation, the god who supposedly gave that command was a tribal god manifesting in a tribo-centric society. The command only applied to the tribe. Anyone outside the tribe was fair game.

[Tryit]

God commands Thou Shalt Not Kill, and then commands a load of reasons why thou must kill, and does loads of killing himself in The Bible.

Is moral relativism the means by which Christians and Jews can justify this?

Must Christians and Jews accept that morality is relative then to reconcile these facts?

Poor translation. the command is "Thou Shalt Not Murder," not "Thou Shalt Not Kill".

Reaaallly, how did you come to that conclusion. And do you use that same arguement to OK what Saddam Hussein did? If not, why? Or maybe your God didn't tell him he could so that makes all the difference.

[ChaosBorders]

God commands Thou Shalt Not Kill, and then commands a load of reasons why thou must kill, and does loads of killing himself in The Bible.

Is moral relativism the means by which Christians and Jews can justify this?

Must Christians and Jews accept that morality is relative then to reconcile these facts?

Poor translation. the command is "Thou Shalt Not Murder," not "Thou Shalt Not Kill".

Reaaallly, how did you come to that conclusion. And do you use that same arguement to OK what Saddam Hussein did? If not, why? Or maybe your God didn't tell him he could so that makes all the difference.

Here is once source that explains it under the section "A Translation Problem".
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/do ... ommand.htm

It's generally accepted that "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is a poor translation. If you would like me to find more sources it shouldn't be a problem.

And I'm pretty sure that Saddam violated numerous international laws, but I'd have to check on that.

[NoisForm]

...the command is "Thou Shalt Not Murder," not "Thou Shalt Not Kill".

Yes, that seems to be the consensus among scholars. Unfortunately that essentially leaves us with, "You shouldn't kill (murder), except of course when killing is o.k. (killing)" - and this answers precisely nothing regarding morality. It's scarcely prescriptive at all. Only when we get into it being o.k. to bash children's heads against rocks and the like do we get into the real meat of this 'biblical morality'.

One might think that god in his infinite wisdom might have just went ahead with the 'no killing' thing and saved us a lot of hassle - and bloodshed. Or perhaps even simply made it impossible for an individual to extinguish another's life at all. Small potatoes for an omnimax being, surely. But then, the men that actually wrote the book(s) would have found that to be a tad restrictive I imagine.

Oh, and in no way would this take from our supposed 'free will', any more than him not granting us the ability to fly at will. Or turn orange on command. Or quadruple our strength on a whim. He placed many, many limitations on what we could 'freely do'. Curious that he allowed us to butcher each other with such ease, no? Mysterious ways indeed.

Oh, and to the OP, no - objective morality does not exist, with or without the inclusion of a god. Sorry, got a little side tracked.

[McCulloch]

...the command is "Thou Shalt Not Murder," not "Thou Shalt Not Kill".

Yes, that seems to be the consensus among scholars. Unfortunately that essentially leaves us with, "You shouldn't kill (murder), except of course when killing is o.k. (killing)" - and this answers precisely nothing regarding morality. It's scarcely prescriptive at all.

I think that you miss the difference in meanings. You should not kill another human, except when it is allowed under law. In the ten commandments, the exemptions are not explicitly listed, but it is clear that the arbitrary killing of other humans is prohibited. However, I do agree with you, without making explicit what the exceptions are, the law is incomplete and useless. The good thing is that no one really thinks that we should live by the ten commandments.