TaN: Do we have the right “to kill”. It seems that in this temporal world, in order for the living to continue living, it is not just necessary but essential to kill — but this will all depend on how “kill” in this particular instance is defined. Moreover, does killing refer or concern only the taking of a life? What about those that are organic but not considered alive — like viruses, because viruses are not considered living but a mere grouping of molecules that have the ability to react to changes in external or environmental conditions and even replicate or make copies of themselves (given the proper and ideal surroundings)?
Not all living things need to kill to stay alive. Only autotrophs (i.e., plants) can sustain life from the non-living (like CO2 and H2O and soil minerals and decomposing dead organic matter) — with a few exceptions (like the carnivorous or insectivorous plants as in the Pitcher Plant, Sundew, Bladderwort, Venus Flytrap, and other species yet to be discovered).
Because “killing” is technically a very broad term and its fundamental definition covers any form of taking or depriving of another living thing of its life, killing becomes a natural and amoral act. However, when used by man and put into the context of his having free will and capable of discerning right from wrong, killing takes on a whole new perspective (justifiability) and more than one dimension. Killing acquires different scenarios that impacts and determines whether the act is defensible.
In nature, with animals, killing another is done only on two occasions: (1) for survival (as food for consumption and self-preservation or self-defense) and (2) by accident (no “intention” to kill). But in the case of man, there are additional aspects to consider due to man’s free will which enables him to make deliberate and, at times, morally unjustifiable decisions and deeds.
While in nature, to kill is a natural — ergo, an amoral — act, in man, it becomes a right. And with this right comes responsibilities that must be borne and be held accountable for. One cannot just decide to kill for merely any reason that comes to mind or at our whim.
Moreover, this right to kill is an ancient as man’s existence but has not been brought to the forefront — especially in ethical discussions and academic study. I suspect the reason for it is because there is a common perception that man will abuse or mis-use this right, hence it is more prudent to leave it unacknowledged in the hope that people will not avail of it.
In conclusion, especially for those who believe in the Holy Scriptures, it is specifically mentioned in Ecclesiastes 3:1-3: (1) “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:” then to or in (3) “A TIME TO KILL [capitalization mine], and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;”. Therefore, even the Holy Scriptures recognizes that there are certain instances or situations or conditions wherein killing is (not really permissible but) justifiable.
TaN: Even if Jesus Christ, who is the (only Begotten) Son therefore is likewise God, gave us life and is the only One who can take it back, He never once took a life while He was with us. Instead, He gave life — on repeated occasions, the most famous of all was the case of Lazarus whom He raised from the dead. In fact, He even went to the ultimate by giving up His own Life for our salvation. In this light, who is any person, even a president with a clear mandate of the people, who can justify the taking of another’s life…a life he never gave to the other person.
The problem with people who are stuck with violence begetting (more) violence — as in: An eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth (as from rendering every person blind and toothless) — is that it belongs to the Old Testament which have already been superceded by laws and teachings of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. Moreover, the sad and pitiful thing here is that they do (or will) not understand the Solomonic observation and that argument — i.e., “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth“— and the correct implementation. It is form of compensatory justice that dictates that punishment or retribution of wrongdoings should be commensurate or proportional to the wrongful act (and not exceed it) and not to be taken literally.
Another example of an outdated and expired Old Testament practice or mandate from God but is still persistently and adamantly being implemented is tithing (or the exacting of 10 percent of one’s earnings). It was mandated that a tenth of the earnings be given to the Levites who serve as preachers (and have no other means of livelihood) of the ancient Hebrew tribes but has since been rescinded by Jesus Christ. The replacement practice is that we give to our heart’s delight; there is no specified or quantified amount.
[I suspect that this is because Jesus foresaw that preachers today are no longer faithful evangelizers and spreaders of God’s Gospel but are in (business) for the financial gains and have been blinded by the alluring and corruptive power of mammon, which is very true. In my opinion, preaching the Gospel is an honor and, as forewarned in the Holy Scriptures, should never be commoditized. Earning a living should be apart from preaching. A preacher should have a separate means of livelihood and preaching should be for free — as has been alluded to in the Holy Scriptures in Matthew 10:8: “Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give“. In this sense, God’s Gospel was received by us freely, we must freely give it to others.]
But, again, my tendency to digress…so returning to topic, it was never preached by Jesus nor has He ever taken the life of another, no matter how undeserving they may appear to be. For it is never too late to repent and mend our ways and return to God and even God does not know whether a evil man will persist on being evil to his last day or not, which is why He waits until our death to pronounce His judgment. We can do no less…or more, depending on how you may want to interpret it.]
TaN: I just realized that, today (or at least some time ago), sharing for free for the common good can be risky. I think the globalist — i.e., those who wish to dominate and control the whole world (for their selfish interests alone and not those who wish to spread and establish a global community based on the free exchange and sharing of truth and enlightenment for the benefit of all — have caught on to the effort and has been capitalizing on it by mimicking the sharing scheme but using it to spread more and more dis- and mis-information to sow confusion or what is otherwise known as FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt).
Increasingly, it is becoming more and more difficult to discern what is the truth and what is fakery — MSM or mainstream media is now being used (wittingly or not) to disseminate “fake” news so people will have a more difficult time determining what or which is true and which are not. It is known that people tend to believe what appears in mainstream media and the spiels are so convincing that, if we do not employ critical thinking and and common sense coupled with a good historical background (because global dominators are creating elaborate and deep backstops to make their fake news more credible and believable), we can be easily led to believe in fabricated tales and commercial propaganda.
It is my humble opinion and am positing that this is, if not precisely, a major or significant factor for the replacement of Moses’ Ten Commandments with the summarized two of Jesus Christ: (1) Love God above all and (2) Love others are I (i.e., Jesus Christ) have loved you. It has become necessary to replace the out-moded Ten Commandments because people have evolved to become more cunning in their circumvention and philosophization of moral principles and laws that God has fashioned for man.
As has been foretold in the Holy Scriptures, towards the end of days, what was right will be twisted to be wrong and what was true will be redefined to be false and what was good will become bad and vice versa. And true enough, it is happening all around us with each passing day.
A case in point is that it used to be that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, yet now people are accused and presumed guilty until you prove yourself innocent. Aside from those that can be gleaned from the news media daily, there is the ubiquitous searches we undergo when we enter buildings, go to airports and seaports, and shop in malls and shopping centers and stores. We are presumed to be guilty of carrying concealed weapons and various other dangerous and illegal items until and unless we have been searched and proved ourselves to be otherwise. And this usurpation of our civil and human rights is supported by the argument that: If we have nothing to hide, we should not mind being searched and probed. After all, it is for public safety.
But returning to topic, as I tend to digress, it used to be that people who lie do so blatantly — i.e., lie outrightly. Today, to make lies go farther and more believable, half-truths and “innocent” white lies are cleverly mixed into and woven into falsehoods so as to project an image of truthfulness.
Evil has grown so ubiquitous and rampant that lies pass as truths to the untrained and unthinking majority. People have become complacent in guarding against the creeping evil that permeates and infests society, and social and peer pressure are used to ensure complete conformity to the “new normal”.