Are any recent wars "righteous"? Was the Korean War? Was the Viet Nam war? Gulf War 1? Gulf War 2? Afganistan? Balkan war? Which one were righteous? How about Yemen? The current US involvement in Somolia? Philipines? Any of them? WHO is being talked about here? Revelation 13:11-14 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spoke as a dragon. 12 And he excercises all the power of the first beast before him, and causes the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. 13 And he does great wonders, so that he makes fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, 14 And deceives them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

Hm. Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, said the LORD.

You think so? Not everyone thinks so. Hm, lets see what one who worked with EGW wrote.

"But the children of Israel did fight throughout all their natural existence, and under God's direction, too," it will be urged. That is very true, but it does not at all prove that it was God's purpose that they should fight. We must not forget that "their minds were blinded" by unbelief, so that they could not perceive the purpose of God for them. They did not grasp the spiritual realities of the kingdom of God, but were content with shadows instead; and the same God who bore with their hardness of heart in the beginning, and strove to teach them by shadows, when they would not have the substance, still remained with them, compassionately considerate of their infirmities. God himself suffered them, because of the hardness of their hearts, to have a plurality of wives, and even laid down rules regulating polygamy, in order to diminish as far as possible the resulting evils, but that does not prove that He designed it for them. We well know that "from the beginning it was not so." So when Jesus forbade His followers to fight in any cause whatever, He introduced nothing new, any more than when He taught that a man should have but one wife, and should cleave to her as long as he lived. He was simply enunciating first principles--preaching a thorough reformation. {1900 EJW, EVCO 385.2}

From this quote - WHO was it that wanted go to war? God? Nope. The children of Israel were blinded by unbelief? WHY do we have to make the same mistake?

EGW made the same statement. So terribly blinded had they become by transgression. The Lord had never commanded them to "go up and fight." It was not His purpose that they should gain the land by warfare, but by strict obedience to His commands. {PP 392.3}

James 4:1-4 From where come wars and fights among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? 2 You lust, and have not: you kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: you fight and war, yet you have not, because you ask not. 3 You ask, and receive not, because you ask amiss, that you may consume it on your lusts. 4 You adulterers and adulteresses, know you not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

2 Corinthians 10:3-5 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: 4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) 5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Maybe we are looking at the cities of refuge wrong?

Now it is true that anyone engaging in premeditated or purposeful killing of another person was guilty of murder and murders were to be put to death.

Yet we need to consider the culture of the times as well. In the culture if someone killed someone, a member of the slain victim would attempt to kill the slayer, but things didn't stop there, for now a member of the first family would attempt to kill the "avenger" for killing their kin, and so it would go back and forth, till one family was pretty much wiped out. There was really no justice system in that method.

The cities of refuge were really quite a novel idea.
it required that a person receives a trial.

God didn't change the cultural system, but he made provision that person could receive a fair trial.
If a person found himself standing accused of murder, he headed for a city of refuge. In the city he received a trial to see if he had killed someone on purpose, or if it had been an accident. If he was judged guilty, he was sent out of the city to die at the hands of the avenger, who was then free of guilt for killing the slayer.

No better instance can be found of the way in which God worked with the methods of the culture and yet changed it in such a way that the accused could have a trial, and the sentence of death be executed only on those who were guilty of intentionally taking someone's life.

War is not the same as executing just judgment.

We see it in the middle east.
Yes, the ISIS were doing some frightful things.
So the Americas are bombing key areas in Syria.

But what does that do?
It destroys civilian lives and homes.
The ISIS soldiers have moved on.
So the war is simply making life for the common folk more difficult, these are the folk who suffered when the ISIS first came into their territory.

The ISIS simply moved to another section

CHRISTIANS AND SELF-DEFENCE

Now we know why there will be no Christians in the army at the time of the last great battle. It will be because they will have learned that "the servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle to all men." 2 Timothy 2:24. Of course such a man has no place in an army organised to fight and kill. {January 23, 1896 EJW, PTUK 51.11}

Christ's followers are not allowed to fight even in defence of Him and His kingdom. John 18:36. Much less, then, can they fight in self-defence. It would be more proper to say that they cannot fight in defence of His kingdom, because it is a kingdom of peace, and to fight with earthly weapons would be to fight against it, instead of in its defence. "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal." If there were not in any person the passions which if cherished naturally lead to murder, there would never be any war on earth. Both come from the same source, so that war is nothing but wholesale murder. {January 23, 1896 EJW, PTUK 51.12}

It is commonly accepted that it is perfectly consistent with Christianity for both individuals and nations to fight in self-defence. Yet the words of Christ are very plain: "I say unto you that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." Matthew 5:39. We make all sorts of excuses, and find all manner of difficulties in the way of obeying this commandment, just as we may with any commandment which we are not willing to obey. The only way to know how a commandment may be obeyed, is to accept it without question. It is by faith, not by unbelief, that we understand. {January 23, 1896 EJW, PTUK 51.13}

It is true that the different nations cannot retain their separate existence without armies and war. But this need not cause the Christian any uneasiness. His daily prayer to God is to be "Thy kingdom come." When that kingdom comes "the Lord shall be King over all the earth; in that day there shall be one Lord, and His name one." Zechariah 14:9. His kingdom is a kingdom of peace. How then can men pray: "Thy kingdom come," and at the same time fight to maintain a condition of things contrary to that kingdom? {January 23, 1896 EJW, PTUK 51.14}

Suppose we give a little attention to this matter of self-defence. A man assaults another, and demands his money. Whether the man thus accosted has little money or much makes no difference; his first impulse is to defend himself, and save what he has. We will suppose that he has ten pounds in his possession. The thief is persistent in his demands, and he resists. The robber is determined, and uses violence, and the man is equally determined not to part with his money. The struggle is sharp, and the robber is killed. The man has acted only in self-defence, and public sentiment acquits him. {January 23, 1896 EJW, PTUK 52.1}

But suppose the robber succeeds in killing his victim, and takes the ten pounds. Then public sentiment condemns him. He has truly committed a wicked deed. He has murdered a man for the paltry sum of ten pounds. Yes; but why is it so much worse for the robber to kill a man for ten pounds than it would be for the man to kill the robber for the same amount? Since the man could have avoided all difficulty by giving up his money, is it not evident that he has killed his antagonist solely for the money? {January 23, 1896 EJW, PTUK 52.2}

Take a case where only life is involved. Suppose a man has a grudge against me, thinking that I stand in the way of the accomplishment of his ends. Or, perhaps he is actuated by pure hatred, and he seeks my life. Now if when he attacks me, I kill him to save my own life, how much better am I than he would have been if he had succeeded in killing me? Oh, I have saved my life! True, but at the loss of his; and what right have I to assume that my life is more valuable than his? It is only because it is mine. And so we see that self-defence, as the word implies, is nothing but selfishness. And this is the sole principle that moves either nations or men to fight. {January 23, 1896 EJW, PTUK 52.3}

"But it is natural to defend oneself. 'Self-preservation is the first law of nature.'" True; but it is spiritual to refrain from all violence, and self-sacrifice is the first and only law of grace. If self were dead, there would be no impulse to self-defence. If we can say, "I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me" (Galatians 2:20), we shall have no occasion to defend ourselves; but it is not I who am attacked, but Christ; and Christ does not ask us to fight in His defence. {January 23, 1896 EJW, PTUK 52.4}

The verse just quoted gives us the solution of the whole question. It is natural to fight to defend ourselves; but the cross of Christ delivers us from ourselves, and gives us the Divine nature. The natural man, the carnal mind, is enmity. But Christ is our peace, and He makes peace through the blood of His cross. Ephesians 2:14-17; Colossians 1:20. {January 23, 1896 EJW, PTUK 52.5}

After nearly nineteen centuries of professed Christianity in the world, the cross of Christ is preached less than anything else. "Christ and Him crucified" is that which the professed Church of Christ stands most in need of to-day. If all professed Christians gloried only in the cross of Christ, not one of them would be found apologising for war of any kind, under any circumstances; for war and fightings come only from "this present evil world" (Galatians 1:4), from which the cross of Christ delivers us. {January 23, 1896 EJW, PTUK 52.6}

Let men of this world glory in this world; but let men of the world to come, whom God has translated into the kingdom of His dear Son, evermore say, "God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, whereby the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world." {January 23, 1896 EJW, PTUK 52.7}

I thought I had got what you were saying.
I thought we had a definition, a distinction.

But then you go and negate all what you said:

All's fair in love and war, eh?


Though that's odd to say since you imply they weren't lying in wait. What if someone knew a thief was coming and laid in wait to kill him?

Regardless, this thread you intended to distinguish between killing and murder. That is, to give the "Biblical" definition. You so far have failed, and/or with what you have given, contradicted it with your personal opinions.

Can you give a distinction between killing and murder (even your personal opinion if you can't find a Biblical definition) that even an eighth grader can be able to understand and determine if someone who did such things was either guilty of killing or murder?

kland,

MOTIVE is crucial. Also JUST CAUSE. If a person kills in hatred, Biblically that is murder. Period. The "lying in wait" may help to indicate that it is hatred on their part. However, soldiers use it as a battle tactic without hatred, simply as a tactical war maneuver. Soldiers in battle obey orders from superiors. They are not killing (usually) in hatred, although sometimes the superiors do try to teach them to hate (which I believe is wrong).

Hate is the opposite of love. If you can define the reason for having killed someone, and then see if love or if hatred was the primary underlying motive, that will best define if it were simply killing or if it were murder. That is how I understand the Bible. The Bible does set forth certain examples. But the examples are there to teach a principle.

If I kill a thief out of love to my family, and a desire to protect them in the night from harm, and not because I hated the thief nor desired any harm to come to him, it is not murder. If I, as a soldier, am given orders to fight, the primary responsibility is upon my superiors--though I must also exercise some independent judgment in the matter (as exemplified, for example, in the soldiers' refusal to obey King Saul when he commanded to kill the innocent Jonathan). Killing in battle is different than killing from a personal vendetta. The love/protection motive is corporate here, not merely personal. One is defending his entire nation.

One entire class of killing is also exempt from the "murder" classification: capital punishment. Capital punishments were commanded by God in love for His people to preserve their purity. Sinners who would greatly harm others or influence them to sin, especially in egregious sins, were commanded to be put to death. The people were frequently told even not to pity the one to be punished. The punishment must be meted out.

Capital crimes included adultery, rape, murder, rebellion against parents, cursing God, as well as certain things that were applied to priests in order to preserve their high office (dignity), e.g. the high priest who rent his robe was to be put to death.

kland, basically I would be cautious about looking for contradictions in the examples. Look instead for the underlying principles. Then it will be easier to see the distinctions that God has made between killing and murder.

The fact is, if God commanded capital punishment (the killing of the offender), and God also commanded "thou shalt not kill" (incorrect translation, as it should read "murder"), you have a tremendous contradiction in the Bible itself--one which might lead any reasonable soul to doubt God. That particular mistranslation in the Bible is, therefore, an egregious one.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

1 John 2:15-17 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 17 And the world passes away, and the lust thereof: but he that does the will of God stays for ever.

Two men own adjoining fields, but there is a dispute as to the boundary line. The land is valuable, and that portion through which the dividing fence runs is the most valuable of all. A claims that there was a mistake in the survey, and that the fence ought to be moved ten yards in order to give him the land that belongs to him. But B insists that he has no more land than belongs to him, but that, on the contrary, a portion of what A claims really belongs to him, at any rate he will not yield an inch.

Each is determined to have his "rights." Besides the lust of the flesh, the pride of life comes in, and each man feels that it would be wholly inconsistent with his dignity to yield to the other. Moreover threats and insulting words have been used, such as "no man of proper spirit could be expected to stand." Each feels himself not only wronged, but abused, and each demands from the other an apology and reparation. But each one feels that his "honour" as well as his property is at stake, and is determined not to yield.

So the feud grows. From hard words the men come to blows. Finally each deliberately resolves to take the other's life. Then the disputed boundary will not only be settled, but the survivor can take as much more of the other's property as he wishes.

Accordingly they arm themselves with knives or guns, and meet and begin stabbing or shooting, until one of them is dead. Then what follows:-Why, the man who kills the other is called a murderer, and is hanged, denounced by all the neighbourhood.

But suppose now that instead of two farms we have two countries; instead of a few roods of land we have some thousands of square miles; and instead of two men involved, we have hundreds of thousands. There is a dispute as to the boundary line. Each nation feels that its rights are threatened; and, besides, undiplomatic language has been used, which must be resented. The "national honor" will not allow any concessions on either side. So armed bodies of men meet and shoot at each other. Instead of one man, thousands are killed. The conquerors take the disputed territory, and as much more as they wish, and the victorious army marches home. How are they regarded? Are they called murderers?-Oh, no; they are greeted with shouts and songs, and are lauded as patriots.

Where is the difference in the two cases?-It is only in the greater number of men killed in the second case. Therefore we must conclude that the sole difference between war and murder is in the extent of the interests and the number of people involved. If only one man is killed, it is murder. If one man kills four or five men, that is an aggravated case of murder. But if thousands fight, and hundreds are killed, that is "glorious war," although precisely the same passions lead to each result. The question is, Does God regard it as less sinful to kill a thousand men than to kill one?

Written in 1896

Murder or not? CLICK HERE

It wasn't what I thought. This is pretty sad. He doesn't bring in a toy gun, but picks one up that the store sells. And then, like anyone who would be buying a toy gun, acts like he's using it (though in his case seems quite muted).

So the question would become, who does Green say was the Murderer?

Not the guy, he didn't kill anyone. Couldn't even say he attempted to kill anyone.

What about the police? Of course, Green's definition of "murder" seems to change by the moment.

What about the 911 caller? Sounds like he had "hate". But didn't actually kill anyone.

What about the store for selling plastic guns?

So you completely have demolished all semblance of your attempt to distinguish between killing and murder and have caused your thread to have become a farce.

Why did you create your fancy table (of which others of us are not allowed to create) if you did not intend any of that? Was that just a distraction hoping by strong emphasis no one would ask hard questions? Or was it just to show off your table capabilities?


And I'm sure you do not intend the full list and if any objections are brought forward, you'll add additional ones at will.


Yep. Completely demolished your attempt and distinguishing. The fact is, you have no distinction other than what you feel is right. You seek to ascertain the motive of others, and then pass it through your own personal opinion. We must ask you... Does the word, "wishy-washy" apply here or what is it I'm thinking of?



Tell me, while MM does not decline he would kill me, would you kill me if you believed God told you to?