"Thou shall not kill" commandment is hypocritical?

[Vox Populi]

I get so confused on that commandment because like all the wars and things... How does that not follow under the commandment, to not murder. ESP the hymn about Christians marching to war with the cross??? Like WTF?

[pocaracas]

I see... so you can put others to death, or god itself can.... but you can't slay them with premeditation.
That means that you can kill others by accident, only.
And god is automagically exempt from its own rule by a technicality of language, huh?
A technicality, let's not forget, that doesn't carry too well into "future" translations... Sounds dubious for a rule handed out directly from a god that, if we are to believe those "in the know", should know the future.

I guess he's the same god that made arabic be the one and only perfect language to convey its message a few centuries later, huh? The right language is always the on in use where it "speaks" to people, it seems...

[Salacious B. Crumb]

Slit a baby lamb's throat! Aaaaahhh, that smell is so pleasing to me.

Oh, wait! I have a better idea. I'll impregnate a young virgin girl, she'll have my child, and my will for him will be to suffer a few hours and be murdered. That's the best idea I've had yet! How else will I be able to forgive these humans?

Besides that, my infallible creation is almost entirely predatory based. The only way for my critters to survive is to kill each other, what will I think of next? These humans will sure love my morality.

[orangebox21]

And god is automagically exempt from its own rule by a technicality of language, huh?
A technicality, let's not forget, that doesn't carry too well into "future" translations... Sounds dubious for a rule handed out directly from a god that, if we are to believe those "in the know", should know the future.

Jaime killed a man.  Billy murdered a man.  Does that mean Jaime isn't guilty of murder based on a technicality of language?  Or does it mean what it says, that Jaime killed a man and Billy murdered a man because killing and murdering are two different acts?

I guess he's the same god that made arabic be the one and only perfect language to convey its message a few centuries later, huh? The right language is always the on in use where it "speaks" to people, it seems...

The God of the Bible is not the god of the Qur'an. 

[Pyrrho]

And god is automagically exempt from its own rule by a technicality of language, huh?
A technicality, let's not forget, that doesn't carry too well into "future" translations... Sounds dubious for a rule handed out directly from a god that, if we are to believe those "in the know", should know the future.

Jaime killed a man.  Billy murdered a man.  Does that mean Jaime isn't guilty of murder based on a technicality of language?  Or does it mean what it says, that Jaime killed a man and Billy murdered a man because killing and murdering are two different acts?
...

"Killing" is a broader idea than "murdering."  Every murderer is a killer, but, at least according to some, not every killer is a murderer.  "Murder" means something like, 'wrongful killing,' or as a legal concept, 'unlawful killing' that meets certain criteria specified by whatever the law is in the particular place (which means, of course, that a particular act could be murder in one time and place, and not murder in some other time and place).  "Killing," however, does not depend on the specifics of the law or the particular time and place.  "To kill" is just 'to deprive of life, or cause the death of something that is living.'

In your example, Jaime may or may not be a murderer, depending on the specific concept of murder involved, and the specifics of how Jaime killed someone.  Both Jaime and Billy killed someone, and both might be murderers, or it might be that only Billy is a murderer, depending on the precise meaning being used, as well as the specifics of how Jaime killed a man.

To put this another way, all acts of murder are acts of killing, but not all acts of killing are acts of murder (unless all killing is wrong, and one uses the concept of 'wrongful killing' as one's meaning for "murder").

For "murder," compare:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/def...ctCode=all

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictiona...ish/murder

https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=murder

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/murder

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/diction...ish/murder

[pocaracas]

And god is automagically exempt from its own rule by a technicality of language, huh?
A technicality, let's not forget, that doesn't carry too well into "future" translations... Sounds dubious for a rule handed out directly from a god that, if we are to believe those "in the know", should know the future.

Jaime killed a man.  Billy murdered a man.  Does that mean Jaime isn't guilty of murder based on a technicality of language?  Or does it mean what it says, that Jaime killed a man and Billy murdered a man because killing and murdering are two different acts?

Jaime killed a king... he's the kingslayer!

Now seriously.... the commandment "thou shall not murder" requires the extra bit of information as to what "murder" is considered to be. Do remember that we're talking about giving out rules of conduit to a bunch of slaves who had no formal education. "Murder" is not defined.
It is so not defined that many later translations just wrote "kill".
This lack of precision does speak volumes about the man-made, post-hoc, fabrication that this story really is....
anyway...

I guess he's the same god that made arabic be the one and only perfect language to convey its message a few centuries later, huh? The right language is always the on in use where it "speaks" to people, it seems...

The God of the Bible is not the god of the Qur'an. 

BUHAHAHAHA!!!
The god of the Bible is the god of Moses, is it not?!
The god of the Qur'an is the god of Moses, is it not?!

But, somehow.... these are not the same?!

Look at some of the earliest texts mentioning Muhamad:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History...lysaw.html

One of the most interesting accounts of the early seventh century comes from Sebeos who was a bishop of the House of Bagratunis. From this chronicle, there are indications that he lived through many of the events he relates. He maintains that the account of Arab conquests derives from the fugitives who had been eyewitnesses thereof. He concludes with Mu‘awiya's ascendancy in the Arab civil war (656-61 CE), which suggests that he was writing soon after this date. Sebeos is the first non-Muslim author to present us with a theory for the rise of Islam that pays attention to what the Muslims themselves thought they were doing.[31] As for Muhammad, he has the following to say:

"At that time a certain man from along those same sons of Ismael, whose name was Mahmet [i.e., Muḥammad], a merchant, as if by God's command appeared to them as a preacher [and] the path of truth. He taught them to recognize the God of Abraham, especially because he was learnt and informed in the history of Moses. Now because the command was from on high, at a single order they all came together in unity of religion. Abandoning their vain cults, they turned to the living God who had appeared to their father Abraham. So, Mahmet legislated for them: not to eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsely, and not to engage in fornication. "

Enjoy your learning curve.

[Polaris]

I always thought it was "thou shall not murder." Judging by quite a number of verses in the Bible, killing was quite sanctioned in the Bible.

[orangebox21]

Jaime killed a man.  Billy murdered a man.  Does that mean Jaime isn't guilty of murder based on a technicality of language?  Or does it mean what it says, that Jaime killed a man and Billy murdered a man because killing and murdering are two different acts?
...

In your example, Jaime may or may not be a murderer,

If Jaime was a murderer, I would have written, Jaime murdered a man, and not Jaime killed a man.  The word choice makes the differentiation.

To put this another way, all acts of murder are acts of killing, but not all acts of killing are acts of murder (unless all killing is wrong, and one uses the concept of 'wrongful killing' as one's meaning for "murder").

I agree.  This is exactly the point I was making.  And to the OP's original post, God is not asking of us something He is unwilling to do Himself and is therefore not being hypocritical, as is shown by the differing words in Exodus 11:5 and 20:13.

Jaime killed a man.  Billy murdered a man.  Does that mean Jaime isn't guilty of murder based on a technicality of language?  Or does it mean what it says, that Jaime killed a man and Billy murdered a man because killing and murdering are two different acts?

Jaime killed a king... he's the kingslayer!

Now seriously.... the commandment "thou shall not murder" requires the extra bit of information as to what "murder" is considered to be.

Which is defined by the word in the original Hebrew.  The challenge you are finding is with the ambiguity of the word kill due to the English language and not the text.  The Hebrew text clearly uses two different words with two different meanings.

The God of the Bible is not the god of the Qur'an. 

BUHAHAHAHA!!!
The god of the Bible is the god of Moses, is it not?!
The god of the Qur'an is the god of Moses, is it not?!

But, somehow.... these are not the same?!

Look at some of the earliest texts mentioning Muhamad:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History...lysaw.html

One of the most interesting accounts of the early seventh century comes from Sebeos who was a bishop of the House of Bagratunis. From this chronicle, there are indications that he lived through many of the events he relates. He maintains that the account of Arab conquests derives from the fugitives who had been eyewitnesses thereof. He concludes with Mu‘awiya's ascendancy in the Arab civil war (656-61 CE), which suggests that he was writing soon after this date. Sebeos is the first non-Muslim author to present us with a theory for the rise of Islam that pays attention to what the Muslims themselves thought they were doing.[31] As for Muhammad, he has the following to say:

   "At that time a certain man from along those same sons of Ismael, whose name was Mahmet [i.e., Muḥammad], a merchant, as if by God's command appeared to them as a preacher [and] the path of truth. He taught them to recognize the God of Abraham, especially because he was learnt and informed in the history of Moses. Now because the command was from on high, at a single order they all came together in unity of religion. Abandoning their vain cults, they turned to the living God who had appeared to their father Abraham. So, Mahmet legislated for them: not to eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsely, and not to engage in fornication. "

Enjoy your learning curve.

Sebeos must not have read the Bible and the Qur'an.

Firstly, 1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer (1 Timothy 4:1-4).  

God says that people teaching others to not eat carrion are abandoning the faith and following deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons.  This teaching of the Qur'an is demonic.

Secondly, 19"You know the commandments, 'DO NOT MURDER, DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, DO NOT STEAL, DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, Do not defraud, HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER.'" (Mark 10:19)

And yet, the Qur'an teaches:

Qur'an (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.

Qur'an (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves."  

Qur'an (9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..."  The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture.  They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.

Qur'an (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must "hide his faith"  among those who are not believers.

Qur'an (2:225) - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts"  The context of this remark is marriage, which explains why Sharia allows spouses to lie to each other for the greater good.

Qur'an (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers."  The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means 'deceit'.  If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)
Source here

Muslims are permitted to lie: (1) to save their lives, (2) to reconcile a husband and wife, (3) to persuade a woman into a bedroom and (4) to facilitate one on his journey. Muslims are even permitted to disavow Islam and Mohammed if it is not a genuine heart-felt rejection. Muslims will tell you that concealment of a truth is not an abandonment of that truth if it benefits Islam.
Source here
 
Look into the muslim concept of Taqiyya.

[pocaracas]

Jaime killed a king... he's the kingslayer!

Now seriously.... the commandment "thou shall not murder" requires the extra bit of information as to what "murder" is considered to be.

Which is defined by the word in the original Hebrew.  The challenge you are finding is with the ambiguity of the word kill due to the English language and not the text.  The Hebrew text clearly uses two different words with two different meanings.

Why, then, did the first translation into english use the word "kill"?

BUHAHAHAHA!!!
The god of the Bible is the god of Moses, is it not?!
The god of the Qur'an is the god of Moses, is it not?!

But, somehow.... these are not the same?!

Look at some of the earliest texts mentioning Muhamad:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History...lysaw.html







Enjoy your learning curve.

Sebeos must not have read the Bible and the Qur'an.

Firstly, 1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer (1 Timothy 4:1-4).  

God says that people teaching others to not eat carrion are abandoning the faith and following deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons.  This teaching of the Qur'an is demonic.

Secondly, 19"You know the commandments, 'DO NOT MURDER, DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, DO NOT STEAL, DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, Do not defraud, HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER.'" (Mark 10:19)

And yet, the Qur'an teaches:

Qur'an (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.

Qur'an (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves."  

Qur'an (9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..."  The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture.  They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.

Qur'an (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must "hide his faith"  among those who are not believers.

Qur'an (2:225) - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts"  The context of this remark is marriage, which explains why Sharia allows spouses to lie to each other for the greater good.

Qur'an (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers."  The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means 'deceit'.  If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)
Source here

Muslims are permitted to lie: (1) to save their lives, (2) to reconcile a husband and wife, (3) to persuade a woman into a bedroom and (4) to facilitate one on his journey. Muslims are even permitted to disavow Islam and Mohammed if it is not a genuine heart-felt rejection. Muslims will tell you that concealment of a truth is not an abandonment of that truth if it benefits Islam.
Source here
 
Look into the muslim concept of Taqiyya.

Dude.... Sebeos wrote that before there was a qur'an!
I made it clear that I was using "some of the earliest texts mentioning Mohamed"... these are pre-qur'an and are hailed by muslims as evidence that their prophet was an actual real person (you know, unlike what's available for a certain Jesus).

The qur'an came later, when a caliph (Abd Al-Malik) wanted to unify the caliphate by implementing a common currency and... here's the touch of genius... he built a series of schools, known as madrassas, where the qur'an was taught (a book perhaps edited on purpose for these new schools).

Perhaps you need to learn a bit of how islam came into being... you may even find a few parallels to the very well known catholic religion.

Oh, almost forgot, Sebeos was a bishop from the outskirts of the caliphate, so he was NOT a muslim... care to guess what he was?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

So we have Moses, bringing "his people" from Egypt to Mt. Sinai where Jehova gives him the ten commandments...

And one of them is simply "you shall not murder", but... but... what did god do with all the plagues he sent down on Egypt, particularly the one with all the firstborns, if not murdering?

What sort of moral authority does such a being have to tell his "children" not to murder when that's exactly what he did a couple of pages back?!

"Thou shall not kill" is one of the laws; it's not one of the Ten Commandments.  It was never written on the stone tablets.