Killing must always be in some circumstances justified or acceptable (self defense, for example). So the question must be why do religions expand the number of "justifiable" reasons to kill, and why is it so easy for religious people to do this, and why do they do it to such shocking excess (such as killing people for speaking freely or drawing cartoons or being gay or other things that really make no sense to kill people for because they do no one any harm, not even god--who, being god, can't be harmed). Those questions are explored by the sciences of anthropology and sociology. See link for a discussion of many of their findings.
The dictionary defines murder as "the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law". I will, throughout this answer, use this definition as what I am referring to when I use the word "murder", and I will assume that this is the definition in view by the questioner.
When humans deny their Creator, the God of the Bible, there is no longer any objective moral authority, or highest moral law. In such situations, the human himself becomes his own moral authority, defining his own moral laws. At this point, if he desires to kill another human, there can be no moral reason not to, as, in his view, there is no objective moral law that it violates. Laws that he makes for himself are no less authoritative than laws that other created humans make to control him, and thus the very concepts of "law" and "murder" cease to have any clear definition. Murder thus ceases to be murder, for the laws are all in contradiction and thus incoherent. Your law says he ought not to kill you, but his law says that he ought to. Reality becomes ungoverned from his perspective, and whatever he likes, including killing other humans, becomes as legal as anything else.
Nothing good comes of denying the God of the Bible.
But some may suggest that the accusation in this question, that "religion" permits murder, applies to Christians even as much as it does to non-Christians. In other words, (1) "why does Christianity permit murder?" and (2) "why are Christians so eager to justify murders committed by Christians?"
In answer to (1), Christianity does not permit murder, but rather, expressly forbids it (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17; Mark 10:19; 1 John 3:15).
In answer to (2), I don't personally know of any Christians who are eager to justify the murders committed by supposed Christians.
At this point, someone will no doubt suggest that Christianity endorses murder under certain circumstances. In the scriptures, these supposed exceptions tend to fall into certain categories. We will examine each category in turn, keeping in mind the aforementioned definition of "murder" for reference.
THE KILLING OF ANIMALS
I have been told that the first murder in scripture was committed by God Himself. This amazing statement holds Genesis 3:21 in view, wherein God creates clothing of skin for the first man, Adam, and his wife, Eve, after they rebel against Him. Other passages that may be cited would include Genesis 9:3, where God informs humans that they may now eat animals, and Leviticus 9:3 and other passages where God demands animal sacrifices.
Reviewing our definition of murder, though, we see that the killing of animals doesn't fit the definition: the killing of another HUMAN BEING under conditions specifically covered in law. So clearly, these are not examples of Christians or Christianity endorsing murder.
THE DEATH PENALTY
It has been suggested that by executing murderers, we become murderers ourselves. One may hold scripture such as Genesis 9:6 or Exodus 22:18 or Leviticus 20:2 in view when making this accusation against Christianity. While it is true that by executing killers we become killers, executing murderers does not make us murderers. This is because killing and murdering are not equivalent terms. Let's look again at our definition: "the killing of another human being UNDER CONDITIONS SPECIFICALLY COVERED IN LAW". Essentially then, murder is understood to be an illegal killing. Legal killings are definitively not to be seen as murder.
But... illegal according to whom? Note again that if I declare that it is legal for my family to kill our neighbors, under my own authority, yet congress says that it is not legal for my family to kill our neighbors, under their own authority, is it legal or is it not? And who is the one to properly and objectively determine the answer? And what gives the one who answers this question more authority than myself or than congress?
On the flip side, if we are told by a Nazi government that we must assist in the killing of Jews, yet I tell my family that it is illegal under my authority for them to do so, again, what is the "real law" and who is the one to properly and objectively determine the answer? Apart from the God of the Bible, there cannot be said to be any objective moral or legal authority -- it is simply a battle of contradictory personal opinions. The concept of "law", without the God of the Bible, loses all definition. Nothing can objectively be legal or illegal apart from the declaration of the God of the Bible.
Since the death penalty has been (at least in certain circumstances) commanded according to the law of the objective and ontologically authoritative God of creation, it is objectively legal and therefore is not murder. If the death penalty has been commanded by God's law, it is not illegal. If it is not illegal, it is not murder.
WAR
Mass killings of humans, in opposition to established government laws, are standard procedure during war. The Bible, in certain circumstances, demands this behavior, such as in Exodus 17:15-16 or 1 Samuel 15:18. Surely this, the killing of humans in opposition to laws, can properly be construed as "murder", right? Actually, no.
When God commands something, as we saw with the death penalty, it is objectively legal and acceptable. Indeed, if God commands it, it is objectively illegal to NOT do it. The fact that some human government forbids it simply renders their supposed "laws" invalid and irrelevant. If the laws forbidding the killing of these particular humans are invalid and irrelevant, and if the killing of these humans is commanded by the objective lawmaker, then these particular killings are in fact not objectively illegal. If the killings are not illegal, again, they are not murder.
There may indeed be other supposed exceptions in the scriptures that do not fall into these particular categories, but keeping in mind the definition of murder, that it must be (1) a human being who is killed; and (2) an illegal killing; and also keeping in mind that (3) God is the one who, by His order, determines the objective and highest law, it should be an academic exercise to demonstrate that any such exception to the Biblical condemnation of murder has been misconstrued.
Rest assured that disobedience to God of any kind, including disobedience by killing those that He commands us not to kill, is wholly denounced by the Christian scriptures. But our God has offered us forgiveness through the sacrifice of His Son, Jesus (Matthew 26:28). Though we deserve the death penalty for our crimes (Romans 6:23), He suffered it on our behalf (Isaiah 53:5). As a result, we have each been offered eternal life (Romans 6:23). All we must do is accept that offer through trusting in the sacrifice of Jesus on our behalf (Romans 10:9).
Not surprisingly, the atheist answer is clear and concise, while the theist answer is an apology out of nonsense. (Morality comes from subjective valuation, that's what moral and ethical values are - not from might makes right as theology would have it)
The answer is clear and doesn't require sub-sections or pages of text: Religion permits and justifies murder because it is the product of corrupt humans.
One last comment: the most ridiculous excuse to murder someone else can only be found in religion and nowhere else: Believe in my god or die.
—
Phil
Phil,
"Religion permits and justifies murder because it is the product of corrupt humans."
"Morality comes from subjective valuation."
It sounds to me like you are saying morality (specifically the notion that murder is wrong) is the product of corrupt humans. Is it then corrupt to claim that "murder is wrong" in your view? What does corrupt even mean in your view? Corrupt compared to what?
God bless.
—
Timothy McCabe
The primary role of religion is to help us understand and negotiate our place in this world and our relationship with the Divine. If our relationship with the Divine in this world and in ourselves is balanced and healthy there would be no need for moral rules, because we would naturally do what is good and right.
Prohibitions against the killing of another human being are only necessary because too often our relationship with the Divine is less than healthy. The prohibition against murder exists in almost all religions, and in the absence of religion. So in this case I’m going to assume that your referring to exceptions to the “harm none” moral rule found in most religions.
Before we discuss those I think it would be a good idea to explain a couple of things that inform my Neo-Pagan world view, because they may alter the perspective in which the act of killing another human is viewed.
—
Mark Colwell
1. Life can not truly be destroyed; all we can do is remove the physical vehicle in which spirit and soul reside.
2. We are obliged to defend the weak and the innocent, basically any human that cannot defend themselves. This isn’t a rule that is written for us in a book; it’s written in our hearts.
Eliminating a threat to ourselves, our family, our friends or those who cannot defend themselves is sometimes necessary. Killing someone does not destroy them; it simply degrades their ability to cause physical harm to you or those you are obliged to defend when that is the best option.
—
Mark Colwell
I believe the death penalty to be immoral because the person in captivity no longer poses a threat to the innocent that requires such a drastic measure. Someone who is behind bars is no longer a threat; instead they are made weak and unable to defend themselves. Causing any unnecessary harm to them is not moral.
In war you face armed combatants whose job it is to kill you and those who serve with you if you are a soldier. You are obliged to defend yourself and those who serve with you, any action to harm someone who does not pose an immediate threat to you is wrong. War is an evil and terrible thing, it is important that honorable persons who care for the weak as much as for their own safety serve alongside those who place their safety and winning above all else.
—
Mark Colwell
Tim - corrupt as compared to honest, just as darkness is compared to light, and not to an imagined fantasy of some Great Dark Object.
(Not sure why you needed the first quote, btw, since it adds nothing to your deduction: I don't think religion is morality, insofar that people don't actually value pedophilia and holy war)
—
Phil
Phil,
Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I took your initial comments to mean that people are corrupt (religion is the product of corrupt people) and also that people are the authors of morality (morality comes from subjective valuation) thereby concluding that morality comes from corrupt people. But let's grant that I misunderstood you earlier now that you've provided a definition of corrupt and look at your statements in light of that definition.
Using your definition of "corrupt", it seems when you say that "religion permits... murder because it is the product of corrupt humans" you are saying that people who claim that murder is permitted are dishonest, which, it seems, would only be the case if murder is not in fact permitted.
Not permitted by whom?
[continued]
—
Timothy McCabe
[continued]
Again, using your definition of "corrupt, it seems when you say that "religion... justifies murder because it is the product of corrupt humans" you are saying that people who claim that murder is justified are dishonest, which would only be the case if murder is not in fact justified.
Not justified by whom? Or not justified according to what objectively standardized and ontologically authoritative determination of justification?
If people are the authority on morality, as you claim, and people say murder is morally justified, as you also claim, then, according to you, murder is justified.
Without a sovereign God, your argument simply has no ground to stand on.
—
Timothy McCabe
(Yes morality comes from corrupt people, which the second quote is sufficient for. Unless you need something extra to make the point that people are corrupt, which I think is pretty trivial, no?)
There's no "objective standard" to values. That's the whole point of a value: it is something that is subjectively determined.
Therefore, a god is a complete non-sequiter for morality, since you still have to use your powers of subjective evaluation to determine wether this god (or law, or custom, or tradition, or whatever) is good or not.
—
Phil
As for religion, yes, it is definitely the work of corrupt humans, many of whom practice pedophilia and holy slaughter to this day. And the only thing I need to base this on is my subjective evaluation which you can either agree with, or disagree (and therefore support the pedophilia and holy slaughter and the other religious atrocities)
The best standard for morality thus, as I see it, (not an imaginary being, or another mystery on top of a mystery) - the standard is: do not cause unnecessary harm. This standard is based in natural humanity.
Pedophilia is immoral because it causes unnecessary harm. Holy war is immoral because it causes unnecessary harm. There's no need to slaughter or harm people because they are innocent infants or because they disbelieve in your imaginary being.
—
Phil
So correct me if I misunderstood...
Christian View: Something is morally wrong if God says not to do it.
Phil's View: Something is morally wrong if Phil says not to do it.
Did I miss anything?
—
Timothy McCabe
Christian View: Something is morally wrong if the god with which the subject agrees deems it is so
Phil's view: Something is morally wrong if the subject agrees it is so.
—
Phil
Oops, correction:
Christian View: Something is morally wrong if the god with which the subject agrees deems it is so, and that god is the christian god
—
Phil
I'm a little surprised that you both agree to a "corrupt" nature of man, man is man, just as wolves are wolves. It's amazing and wonderful that we can imagine and sometimes realize something better than our natural state... however what we are, is powerful apex predators capable of managing and protecting the health of the planet and/or the ability to destroy it. I choose to embrace a dream where we continue to slowly refine our natural instincts and attain a better state of being (one with less cruelty, less fear and less irresponsible behavior) instead of the story of a past fall and the need for some external savior to regain that which was lost. Our Gods can help us along that path, however they can’t do it for us.
—
Mark Colwell
I am a Christian, and I believe all killing of human beings is wrong, according to the teaching of the New Testament. (See Jesus' teaching in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 5 for a good introduction to the New Testament's perspective on violence.) If a Christian or group of Christians commit murder, as the Crusaders did in the Middle Ages, it is a terrible sin which they must repent of.
—
Peter
Peter, I have two questions - one is, why do you associate such teachings (don't murder) with a gospel or religion, rather than with goodness itself? Wouldn't it make more sense to ascribe the wrongness of killing to goodness, rather to ancient teachings which are susceptible to confusion?
Two - how do you reconcile the teaching in Matthew ch. 5 with, say, the last part of Romans ch. 1 whe where certain people are said to be deserving of death? Specifically, what is the lawful difference here between murder and death for wickedness?
Also - of course, it is in Matthew 5 that it is said the Old Testament is not abolished, and the Old Testament has an incredible amount of prescriptions for lawful murder. What about that? (e.g. Exodus, Leviticus, etc)
Finally - Matthew ch. 5 is so curious to me in particular. Many verses don't make sense. For example, one is in danger of eternal suffering for simply calling someone a name (such as "fool"), do you think that makes any sense?
Thank
—
Phil
Tim's assertions regarding the foundations of morality are not factual, they are simple suppositions. We have no proof that a god exists/existed so there is no denial involved here. He repeats assertions absent of evidence and seems to feel they should be accepted without criticism. A lot of good can come from denying the bible...such as recognition of accuracy and conclusions based on investigation and analysis.
—
Eric
[Richard Carrier] "Why do religions expand the number of "justifiable" reasons to kill"
==>people expand the reason. BTW, people who deny the God of Israel have far "out-killed" those that believe in the God of Israel by a wide margin, Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot, etc..
[Richard Carrier] "why is it so easy for religious people to do this, and why do they do it to such shocking excess"
==>Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot, more than 40 million killed in the last 100 years by atheists. All of the crusades together was less than 100,000.
=====
The atheist really has to just accept the violence in the world as the deterministic outcome of the genetic makeup and the environmental stimuli, there is no "human choice" and there is no objective right and wrong.
The believer in the God of Israel has
A) an objective morality whereby actions can be judged
B) declares that humans have a choice and moral responsiblity
C) recognizes the reality that we live in a fallen world brought about by our own disobedience
—
Chad
Eric, i am not sure how you think anyone writes an article, without the possibility of criticism ?
Comments
The answer is clear and doesn't require sub-sections or pages of text: Religion permits and justifies murder because it is the product of corrupt humans.
One last comment: the most ridiculous excuse to murder someone else can only be found in religion and nowhere else: Believe in my god or die.
"Religion permits and justifies murder because it is the product of corrupt humans."
"Morality comes from subjective valuation."
It sounds to me like you are saying morality (specifically the notion that murder is wrong) is the product of corrupt humans. Is it then corrupt to claim that "murder is wrong" in your view? What does corrupt even mean in your view? Corrupt compared to what?
God bless.
Prohibitions against the killing of another human being are only necessary because too often our relationship with the Divine is less than healthy. The prohibition against murder exists in almost all religions, and in the absence of religion. So in this case I’m going to assume that your referring to exceptions to the “harm none” moral rule found in most religions.
Before we discuss those I think it would be a good idea to explain a couple of things that inform my Neo-Pagan world view, because they may alter the perspective in which the act of killing another human is viewed.
2. We are obliged to defend the weak and the innocent, basically any human that cannot defend themselves. This isn’t a rule that is written for us in a book; it’s written in our hearts.
Eliminating a threat to ourselves, our family, our friends or those who cannot defend themselves is sometimes necessary. Killing someone does not destroy them; it simply degrades their ability to cause physical harm to you or those you are obliged to defend when that is the best option.
In war you face armed combatants whose job it is to kill you and those who serve with you if you are a soldier. You are obliged to defend yourself and those who serve with you, any action to harm someone who does not pose an immediate threat to you is wrong. War is an evil and terrible thing, it is important that honorable persons who care for the weak as much as for their own safety serve alongside those who place their safety and winning above all else.
(Not sure why you needed the first quote, btw, since it adds nothing to your deduction: I don't think religion is morality, insofar that people don't actually value pedophilia and holy war)
Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I took your initial comments to mean that people are corrupt (religion is the product of corrupt people) and also that people are the authors of morality (morality comes from subjective valuation) thereby concluding that morality comes from corrupt people. But let's grant that I misunderstood you earlier now that you've provided a definition of corrupt and look at your statements in light of that definition.
Using your definition of "corrupt", it seems when you say that "religion permits... murder because it is the product of corrupt humans" you are saying that people who claim that murder is permitted are dishonest, which, it seems, would only be the case if murder is not in fact permitted.
Not permitted by whom?
[continued]
Again, using your definition of "corrupt, it seems when you say that "religion... justifies murder because it is the product of corrupt humans" you are saying that people who claim that murder is justified are dishonest, which would only be the case if murder is not in fact justified.
Not justified by whom? Or not justified according to what objectively standardized and ontologically authoritative determination of justification?
If people are the authority on morality, as you claim, and people say murder is morally justified, as you also claim, then, according to you, murder is justified.
Without a sovereign God, your argument simply has no ground to stand on.
There's no "objective standard" to values. That's the whole point of a value: it is something that is subjectively determined.
Therefore, a god is a complete non-sequiter for morality, since you still have to use your powers of subjective evaluation to determine wether this god (or law, or custom, or tradition, or whatever) is good or not.
The best standard for morality thus, as I see it, (not an imaginary being, or another mystery on top of a mystery) - the standard is: do not cause unnecessary harm. This standard is based in natural humanity.
Pedophilia is immoral because it causes unnecessary harm. Holy war is immoral because it causes unnecessary harm. There's no need to slaughter or harm people because they are innocent infants or because they disbelieve in your imaginary being.
Christian View: Something is morally wrong if God says not to do it.
Phil's View: Something is morally wrong if Phil says not to do it.
Did I miss anything?
Phil's view: Something is morally wrong if the subject agrees it is so.
Christian View: Something is morally wrong if the god with which the subject agrees deems it is so, and that god is the christian god
Two - how do you reconcile the teaching in Matthew ch. 5 with, say, the last part of Romans ch. 1 whe where certain people are said to be deserving of death? Specifically, what is the lawful difference here between murder and death for wickedness?
Also - of course, it is in Matthew 5 that it is said the Old Testament is not abolished, and the Old Testament has an incredible amount of prescriptions for lawful murder. What about that? (e.g. Exodus, Leviticus, etc)
Finally - Matthew ch. 5 is so curious to me in particular. Many verses don't make sense. For example, one is in danger of eternal suffering for simply calling someone a name (such as "fool"), do you think that makes any sense?
Thank
==>people expand the reason. BTW, people who deny the God of Israel have far "out-killed" those that believe in the God of Israel by a wide margin, Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot, etc..
[Richard Carrier] "why is it so easy for religious people to do this, and why do they do it to such shocking excess"
==>Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot, more than 40 million killed in the last 100 years by atheists. All of the crusades together was less than 100,000.
=====
The atheist really has to just accept the violence in the world as the deterministic outcome of the genetic makeup and the environmental stimuli, there is no "human choice" and there is no objective right and wrong.
The believer in the God of Israel has
A) an objective morality whereby actions can be judged
B) declares that humans have a choice and moral responsiblity
C) recognizes the reality that we live in a fallen world brought about by our own disobedience