55. This should not cause surprise: to kill a human being, in whom the image of God is present, is a particularly serious sin. Only God is the master of life!

Yet from the beginning, faced with the many and often tragic cases which occur in the life of individuals and society, Christian reflection has sought a fuller and deeper understanding of what God's commandment prohibits and prescribes.

[43] There are in fact situations in which values proposed by God's Law seem to involve a genuine paradox.

This happens for example in the case of legitimate defence, in which the right to protect one's own life and the duty not to harm someone else's life are difficult to reconcile in practice.

Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defence.

The demanding commandment of love of neighbour, set forth in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, itself presupposes love of oneself as the basis of comparison: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself" (Mk 12:31).


Consequently, no one can renounce the right to self-defence out of lack of love for life or for self.

This can only be done in virtue of a heroic love which deepens and transfigures the love of self into a radical self-offering, according to the spirit of the Gospel Beatitudes (cf. Mt 5:38-40).

The sublime example of this self-offering is the Lord Jesus himself.

Moreover, "legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the State".

[44] Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason.[45]

Not true. Only murder (taking of an innocent life), is sin.



Only for those who let someone else study the Word for them....



In the original language, "neighbor" is defined as someone "in relationship", or someone we know, or meet in our day to day comings and goings....



Yep!



The above is true, ONLY if the above, (particularly the state), are not violating G*ds law.



Lack of the use of reason is no excuse for transgression. We are all PERSONALLY accountable for our actions before G*d. This includes day to day relationships, our employment, "and going to war". We all must be very careful in what cause we fight.....

[b]In the original language, "neighbor" is defined as someone "in relationship", or someone we know, or meet in our day to day comings and goings....[/b]

You should read about the good Samaritan.

I have....got questions about it??

He meant everyone is your neighbor.

Not attacking you in particular, but I've heard this before and don't find that argument totally compelling.  While there is some ambiguity in translation, the original does not appear to make the distinction, nor does it qualify the commandement (as in innocent vs. not).

Go to [url]www.ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/intro.html[/url]  If killing was against God's law then he would be guilty of violating his own law! May it never be!

I am no Bible believer, but you're incorrect.  The Hebrew for "Thou shalt not kill" translates better to English as "you shall not do murder" and there is a big difference between killing in war or self defense and murdering someone.
Anyone who examined the Old Testament even cursorily could see that the Biblical God has absolutely NO problem with killing in war, even killing noncombatant women and children (see Numbers 31).

Nope...please cite your source/translation...

In a way, I think these both mean the same thing.  A person who is about to do you harm, rob you, rape you, etc would not be a person in whom the image of God is present.  I am no expert, but that seems logical to me.  So killing such a person is not the taking of an innocent life, thus not murder.

What about 'Proactive Self-Defense'?

I get to shoot them first to avoid future problems. Preemptive self-defense.

'I had to shoot him, because I knew he would eventually be a problem.'

 Truer words have never been spoken.

Better take note Rik, this doesn't happen too often. I agree with you. And you are correct in your definition of "kill". In Numbers 31, however, notice that Moses ordered the innocents to be spared death.

[b]Numbers 31:15  "And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
16  Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
17  Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18  But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves" [/b]

Hmmmmm, when I first read this, I thought gee, he's right. After pondering a moment, I wonder.... "Image", in Chaldean means "likeness,or resemblance". Refering to the physical. We get to the same place, but the original premise is wrong.



"In" is a misnomer I think, the "image" is not "in" a person, it's "on". Since the fall, and Christs passion, it's the Holy Spirit that's "in", or not.

Luke 10:30 Read it, because I do not want to type it!


Luke 6:27
    But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,

Luke 6:28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.

Ummm...please don't insult my intelligence.  INFANT MALE CHILDREN ARE JUST AS INNOCENT AS VIRGIN FEMALES.  The Israelites were basically ordered to keep the virgin females as sex slaves and ordered to kill not just male children all the way down to helpless infants, but also pregnant women.  Which I guess makes God an abortionist...if you believe God had anything to do with the whole affair.  Which I don't.

Liberty86, may I ask where you learned to speak Chaldean so well, very impressive? hehehe

Perhaps, "imgage" is a metaphor, not to be taken literally, and "in whom the image of God is present" simply means someone who practices the teachings of God and is not a sinner, i.e. murderer, rapist, mugger, etc.

I don't know, but I can't see that God would not want us to defend ourselves against a vicious person.

I'll bite...

Everyone is a sinner.

Murder is but one of a trillion sins.

God sees all sin as the same...There are no "degrees" or levels of sin...It is all the same. Just thinking of murdering is a sin...Just thinking of lying is a sin. Your locked into it and there is only one way out.

HUMANS have devised "degrees" and levels of sin.

Humans are not God.

So there.

Biblically, male children, (and males in general), are different. I know that for you liberals, males and females are equal, but scriptually, they are not. That's why sin was brought into the world through Adam, not eve, and why the Christ was a male, not a female. Pregnent females were killed because they carried the spirit of the sin of the people. I do not insult your intelligence, you do fine by yourself....

Don't speak it, but know how to look up definitions...Strongs lexicon...

Neighbor in the Samaritan context, is someone who needs our help. Those who would do us harm, (be they individuals, or the state), contrary to G*ds law do not fit in that category, and should be dealt with accordingly. By using the other quotes, are you trying to say self defense is not legitimate and/or not sanctioned by G*d???

NO! But you love the sinner, not the sin!

Is that clear enough?

First off you insult my intelligence and your own by calling me a liberal.  Second, you insult EVERYONE'S intelligence when you state that INFANT MALE BABIES are somehow less "innocent" than INFANT FEMALE BABIES.  That HAS to be THE most asinine thing you've ever put to a post, and that's saying quite a bit.

G*d KILLS sinners.....

All sin and fall short of the glory of God. So were all dead?

Apparently your version of God kills babies.  Even unborn ones...oh and since at least some of the married women that were murdered had to have been pregnant, it's for sure that some of them were pregnant with FEMALE children...which sort of hamstrings your already feeble argument.

Oh haven't you heard? If you don't believe that the blue color of the sky is caused by "waters," if you question whether the earth is flat with four corners, or understand that dead seeds cannot sprout - that means you dare question the inerrant word of God in the bible and thus are - by definition - a liberal. [rolleyes]

Maybe we should start a new board section just for us "liberals." Interestingly, I doubt the overlords at Democratic Underground use the same definition of "liberal" as many of our friends here.


Adam

For lib, a "liberal" is anyone who doesn't agree with him.  It's funny in a way since he's so far around the bend that he is actually pretty much a liberal himself.
He believes that the government is responsible for 9-11, just like the radical liberals believe.
He believes the US is trying to go to war with Iraq over oil, just like the radical liberals believe.
He believes that we are at war with Afghanistan for oil, just like the radical liberals believe.
Seems to me that lib is the REAL liberal here.

God does not kill anyone. He lets people kill people (or, he may let animals kill people, or he may let stupid people kill themselves by being where they shouldnt be...I digress).

God may let your soul die, or he may let your soul live, with him, in heaven...Depends on what you believe.

He certainly did in a bunch of 'em at Sodom and Gommorrah.....

Good grief riky, learn to read will ya? Where do I state that "INFANT MALE BABIES are somehow less "innocent" than INFANT FEMALE BABIES"??? What I said was, scriptually males and females are different! The reason for this, is that accountability is established through the male line. You prove your liberal tendencies when you constantly attribute false statments to people who never said them!

You're the one lying about what you said, lib...not that I blame you, it was an extremely embarassing thing to say, an incredibly dumb statement.  I don't blame you one bit for retreating from it as fast as you can.
Of course your God might blame you, since you're lying.  But that's between you and Him, assuming for argument's sake that He exists.

I'm lying?? This should be easy even for you, it's only a 4 page post.[b]Where do I state that "INFANT MALE BABIES are somehow less "innocent" than INFANT FEMALE BABIES"??? [/b]
Why don't you find where I said it, or show yourself for the  moronic fool .......

FYI from the board conduct code....

[b]6) Pure trolling. Either to piss someone off or simply for your personal enjoyment.
If you become a distraction or disrupt the sites day to day activities, you will be removed.

7) No personal attacks towards ANYONE. If you have a problem with someone, then take it offline with them. If it's with a member of the staff or a moderator, then contact someone from the Senior Staff. Attacking a person, ANY PERSON, in a non-joking manner (clearly visible as a joke) will not be tolerated. [red]This includes provoking someone into an attack.[/red]
[/b]

You're such a flaming hypocrite.  You issue insults and then claim you were "provoked" into it.  Not surprising given how rapidly you attempt to run away from your own words.

Just so you can be clear about which position you're trying to lie your way out of:

LiarOf02 said:
"In Numbers 31, however, notice that Moses ordered the innocents to be spared death.

Numbers 31:15 "And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves"

I responded:
"Ummm...please don't insult my intelligence. INFANT MALE CHILDREN ARE JUST AS INNOCENT AS VIRGIN FEMALES. The Israelites were basically ordered to keep the virgin females as sex slaves and ordered to kill not just male children all the way down to helpless infants, but also pregnant women. "

LiarOf02 said:
"Biblically, male children, (and males in general), are different. I know that for you liberals, males and females are equal, but scriptually, they are not. That's why sin was brought into the world through Adam, not eve, and why the Christ was a male, not a female. Pregnent females were killed because they carried the spirit of the sin of the people. I do not insult your intelligence, you do fine by yourself...."

(And in that post YOU threw out the first insult in the thread...just to show once more how huge of a hypocrite you are.)

So we see RIGHT THERE where you plainly stated that infant female children qualified as "innocents" where infant male children did not.
It isn't trolling to call you on your own words, no matter how embarrassing you find them.