Jews, Christians and Muslims believe the 10 commandments are Gods words. How do they justify blessing troops or sanctioning killing of others when God has said "Thou shall not kill". Popes sent soldiers on crusades and Islamic leaders have sent people to blow themselves and others up.
The same way many people, anywhere in the world, justify killing based on their moral framework that prohibits it. This is a question of sociology and psychology, not religion.
Actually you have it backwards--it's for you to prove that the word that simply means "kill" in Hebrew everywhere else only specially means "murder" in this particular case because Jesus.
I'm actually more hung up on the thread title's reference to "the three religions," as if there were no others.
How about you either finish or concede the other thread, and then we can worry about the semantics of something I posted two and a half months ago.
Okay then, I'll handle support for this outrageous claim the easy way--what does the passage say in Hebrew? "Kill" or "murder?"
And the one in that passage, and a couple others, is not the one for "murder." It is for "kill." Yet here you are implying it's the different word, even though you (should) know better. Thank you very much. Now if you want me to take your request for more support seriously, how about engaging with the evidence provided in the other thread that you have heretofore ignored?
so, basically, you got nothin', right. if you had anything of substance, you would provide it, but you cannot.
Right, because if you had anything to support your ridiculous view on the descent of life on this planet, you'd have responded extensively in the other thread. Fortunately for me, I don't give a ******** what you think, and I'm confident that anybody else reading this thread knows who the copout artist is. P.S. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fifth sixth commandment murder kill apologetics
No it's just I assume Hindus and Sikhs and other religions just don't follow the 10 commandments as listed in the Torah or old testament. If others are more knowledgeable about other religions they can answer.
But there is such a thing as Sikh extremism (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182) because justifying immoral acts that apparently go against a moral framework is done by every single single group of people. Your question assumes that there is something unique about Christians when in reality they justify apparently immoral acts the same way any other group of people justify acts that go against their moral framework. And the simple answer to your question is that we tend to reframe acts that would be considered immoral so that we can deceive ourselves that they are not. The 10 commandments do nothing to change the equation.
The Original Hebrew word there Does mean Murder, not kill in a generic sense. That's why the Jews killed animals so that they could eat with God's approval. That's why God commanded the Jews to go to war at times and kill the enemies of Israel.
Going back to the original question, I will take a flyer on an answer. Because the Old Testament (which overlaps extensively with the Torah) is scripture in its entirety, there are contradictory messages (which will not surprise many critics of doctrine-by-scripture). Ecclesiastes, for example, says pretty specifically that there is a time for killing, and there are multiple occasions on the OT where God orders his followers to kill an awful lot of people. Perhaps it is uncomfortable for people to recall that the OT exists, but there it is. Some Christian sects, such as the Quakers, hew closely to NT scripture and believe war and conflict are always against God's will. So they advocate for peace and nonviolence even during wider times of war. In Catholicism at least, this has all been boiled down into doctrinal interpretation on when it is permissible to go to war. The official Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2309, lists the following considerations in the Just War Doctrine: "2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: - the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; - all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; - there must be serious prospects of success; - the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good." More reading on doctrinal questions related to the Just War Doctrine can be found here.
Please not I am not arguing what is right or wrong in terms of that doctrine. The OP asks how it is justified, and I am sharing info related to that.
But this incorrectly assumes that people that believe that "thou shalt not kill" but do so anyway are mostly biblical literalists that somehow find loopholes through contradictory statements in the Old Testament. This couldnt be further from the truth. Most people kill because they rationalize the action as something else other than killing. Most Christians, Muslims and Jews rationalize killing in the same way atheists rationalize killing.