Which Religions condone some types of Killings?

[Michael]

Religion and capital punishment

Summary: no one knows dick regardless of beleif - this is the problem with superstitions, everyone just makes it up as they go along.

That said, Buddhism seemed the most anti-killing.

The first of the Five Precepts (Panca-sila) is to abstain from destruction of life. Chapter 10 of the Dhammapada states:

Everyone fears punishment; everyone fears death, just as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. Everyone fears punishment; everyone loves life, as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill.

Xitianity

In the Antithesis of the Law, Jesus says:

You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also…" You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.

Catholicism
Back when people were a little more monkey like - they were gun hoe. now they say it's wrong.

Mormonism
Typical - no firm position.

Hinduism
A basis can be found in Hindu teachings both for permitting and forbidding the death penalty.

big surprise there.

Islam
Islamic scholars state that whilst the Qur'an professes the basic principle that everyone has the right to life, this principle allows for an exception when a court of law demands it.

Judaism
The official teachings of Judaism approve the death penalty in principle but the standard of proof required for application of death penalty is extremely stringent, and in practice, it has been abolished by various Talmudic decisions, making the situations in which a death sentence could be passed effectively impossible and hypothetical. "Forty years before the destruction" of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD, i.e. in 30 AD, the Sanhedrin effectively abolished capital punishment, making it a hypothetical upper limit on the severity of punishment, fitting in finality for God alone to use, not fallible people.[3]

Scientology (kind of funny - I have no idea what the hell they are going on about.... anyone anyone)
If statistics are not brought up to a sufficient level of production, one can be declared a PTS (Potential Trouble Source), a Suppressive Person, and ultimately disconnected[citation needed]. Researcher Jon Atack has expressed concern that, in the wrong hands, Scientology ethics can be wielded arbitrarily and absurdly, such as in the 1960s when British Saint Hill Scientologists declared a local pie shop "Suppressive" for not carrying apple pie in sufficient quantities to their liking

"When people do start reporting a staff member with a high statistic, what you investigate is the person who turned in the report. In an ancient army a particularly brave deed was recognized by an award of the title of Kha-Khan. It was not a rank. The person remained what he was, BUT he was entitled to be forgiven the death penalty ten times in case in the future he did anything wrong. That was a Kha-Khan. That's what producing, high-statistic staff members are - Kha-Khans. They can get away with murder without a blink from Ethics.... And Ethics must recognize a Kha-Khan when it sees one - and tear up the bad report chits on the person with a yawn."


Bahai
Yes they have the death penalty.

 

[S.A.M.]

Didn't the Buddha also say, He who deserves punishment must be punished?

What punishment did he recommend? How does one determine derserving punishment?


edit:

Here is what I found:

One, Sinha, the general of the army, went to the Buddha and said, ‘ I am a soldier, O Blessed One. I am appointed by the King to enforce his laws and to wage his wars. The Buddha teaches infinite love, kindness and compassion for all sufferers: Does the Buddha permit the punishment of the criminal? And also, does the Buddha declare that it is wrong to go to war for the protection of our homes, our wives, our children and our property? Does the Buddha teach the doctrine of complete self-surrender? Should I suffer the evildoer to do what he pleases and yield submissively to him who threatens to take by violence what is my own? Does the Buddha maintain that all strife including warfare waged for a righteous cause should be forbidden?’

The Buddha replied, ‘He who deserves punishment must be punished. And he who is worthy of favor must be favored. Do not do injury to any living being but be just, filled with love and kindness.’ These injunctions are not contradictory because the person who is punished for his crimes will suffer his injury not through the ill-will of the judge but though the evil act itself. His own acts have brought upon him the injury that the executors of the law inflict. When a magistrate punished, he must not harbour hatred in his heart. When a murderer is put to death, he should realize that his punishment is the result of his own act. With his understanding, he will no longer lament his fate but can console his mind. And the Blessed One continued,’ The Buddha teaches that all warfare in which man tries to slay his brothers is lamentable. But he does not teach that those who are involved in war to maintain peace and order, after having exhausted all means to avoid conflict, are blameworthy.

Struggle must exist, for all life is a struggle of some kind. But make certain that you do not struggle in the interest of self against truth and justice. He who struggles out of self-interest to make himself great or powerful or rich or famous, will have no reward. But he who struggles for peace and truth will have great reward; even his defeat will be deemed a victory.

http://buddhistmilitarysangha.blogspot.com/2007/09/can-buddhist-join-army.html

So the Buddha did believe in capital punishment. And jihad (struggle for truth and justice).

edit2:

Also

Great is a successful general, Sinha, but he who conquers self is the greater victor.

Which sort of echoes what Mohammed said:

Muhammad, after a battle, said, "We have returned from the lesser jihad (al-jihad al-asghar) to the greater jihad (al-jihad al-akbar)." When asked, "What is the greater jihad?," he replied, "It is the struggle against oneself."16

 

[lightgigantic]

Religion and capital punishment

Summary: no one knows dick regardless of beleif - this is the problem with superstitions, everyone just makes it up as they go along.

or alternatively the basis for determining capital punishment/killing on the basis of religion is identical to any legal system - namely shrouded in issues of time, place and circumstance.

generally what you find in scripture, much like any law book you care to mention, are principles.

Nutting out the details (or application of principles) requires wisdom applied to circumstance - which admittedly is something currently in small reserves - this is what is commonly called a justice system.

For instance a solider that kills many enemies is rewarded by the country.
The same solider that kills his next door neighbor is persecuted by the country.
Why?
Because the details are different.

Hinduism
A basis can be found in Hindu teachings both for permitting and forbidding the death penalty.

big surprise there.

In the beginning of Bhagavad-gita arjuna was ready to fight.
At the end of Bhagavad-gita Arjuna was ready to fight.

I guess that means he accomplished nothing in the interim

 

[Michael]

Hey you guys missed The Real Last Prophet Ron Hubbard:"The way out - is the way through"

Geee accordingly, Buddha, Bhagavad-gita and Mohammad must have had very high-statistic Kha-Khans .... Pfff Haaaahahahaaa too funny!


It seems to me that Buddha is saying something different than Mohammad.
Firstly do not kill or cause to kill.
Secondly, obviously people do kill and accordingly people are killed. Why is that? This has something to do with something what that person has done.

I totally disagree - but that's his point anyway.

As for Mohammad he seems to suggest two things.
It not a good thing to kill so try not to do it.
But sadly, killing is a fact of life here in the armpit of the world and so if you're going to do it then you better do it for the right reasons which are blah blah blah..


This is the thing.
People will kill one another. Everyone knows this. No religion is going to stop people from killing one another, never has never will.

So, with this in mind, it seems that the wisest person would make-up their religious bullshit to say something along the lines of Thow Shalt Not Kill. Knowing full well that people are going to anyway. But, also knowing that this should at least give those future generations of people, who are willing to stand up and say, hey this killing shit is wrong, the means to do so.

If you proscribe rules so vague as to be Quran'ic-psycho-babble that no two Muslims can agree on what is meant, well, guess what - people will interpret those rules of when it is OK to kill - to kill any God Damn time they feel like killing. Just this morning I listedned to an interview of a top Imam in Iran talk about why it's Ok to hang homo's. Boiled to the basics his argument came down to two things
1) it's what the invisible silent Allah (that no one has ever spoken too since "The" Prophet heard a voice in his head - 1500 years ago) wants done with them.
2) there are laws that govern killing and killing homo's is in line with those laws and you Westerners should respect that.

He made this point: All Muslims agree homosexuals are wrong. All.

At this point I thought, I wish SAM were there to tell this dick-head otherwise BUT then again, maybe you'd find yourself swinging next to the homosexuals and so perhaps not.

I am sure that from you're comfy chair and warm PC that Mohammad's way seems perfectly perfect (as does The Prophet Ronny's to a Scientologist) BUT I am 110% sure that if you were seconds from swinging from the gallows you'd have the following epiphany: I wish to God that Mohammad would have said all killing is wrong - never ever kill. because you'd suddenly realize that giving people any reason at all to kill is more than reason enough. The only way to block that is to make it clear - do not kill.

Michael

 

[S.A.M.]

It seems to me that Buddha is saying something different than Mohammad.
Firstly do not kill or cause to kill.
Secondly, obviously people do kill and accordingly people are killed. Why is that? This has something to do with something what that person has done.

I totally disagree - but that's his point anyway.

Thats not how I read it.

I read it that a person who murders suffers as a result by being put to death. If he accepts his punishment, he will no longer suffer

When a murderer is put to death, he should realize that his punishment is the result of his own act. With his understanding, he will no longer lament his fate but can console his mind.

 

[Michael]

NOTE: I didn't realize it but Ron Hubbard was also the Buddha so I suppose Scientology is simply an continuation and Perfection of Buddhism (according to Ronny Boy). I don't know - should we make a distinction between the two?

 

[S.A.M.]

There are many Buddhas. Why is this a surprise?

Buddhists do not consider Siddhartha Gautama to have been the only Buddha. The Pali Canon refers to many previous ones (see List of the 28 Buddhas), while the Mahayana tradition additionally has many Buddhas of celestial, rather than historical, origin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha_(general)

 

[Michael]

Thats not how I read it.

I read it that a person who murders suffers as a result by being put to death. If he accepts his punishment, he will no longer suffer

That's fair enough and you are probably right, but I was asking about the justification of killing another person. When is it OK to kill another person?

 

[S.A.M.]

That's fair enough and you are probably right, but I was asking about the justification of killing another person. When is it OK to kill another person?

Depends on whether you're the victim or not, I would say. I'm pretty sure if you were being beaten to death, you'd not consider the moral implications of self defence. Or if you had the choice between shooting a killer who was holding a kid hostage or allowing him to kill the kid (especially if it was your kid), you'd not wonder what Buddha really said.

Any religion that overlooks this is not addressing human nature, IMO.

 

[Michael]

Depends on whether you're the victim or not, I would say. I'm pretty sure if you were being beaten to death, you'd not consider the moral implications of self defence. Or if you had the choice between shooting a killer who was holding a kid hostage or allowing him to kill the kid (especially if it was your kid), you'd not wonder what Buddha really said.

Any religion that overlooks this is not addressing human nature, IMO.

I see and that's why Islam appears to me to be a shallow philosophy. Kind of like the OT bible - actually it is the philosophy of the OT Bible. I suppose it's a good philosophy for nomadic camel herdsmen. One can only expect so much. Buddha (if he was real and not a composite) had the fortune of living in the area with the worlds oldest and probably one of the most sophisticated beleif systems. Building on something like this is of course like me adding to 2000 years of science - a lot easier huh?

The fact is regardless of religion a person being beaten will defend himself including murdering someone. A person defending the child will kill the attacker. BUT, that needn't be put in the religion. The Religion MUST SAY KILLING IS WRONG. If you don't get it that's OK.

NT Xitianity can say killing is wrong, then, say someone kills the child's attacker. That person has committed a sin. Now that go and ask forgiveness. See the point yet? It's a lot better than proscribing rules (little own ones that are as clear as mud and no two people agree on) because giving people any reason at all to kill is more than reason enough.

Let me make that point one last time:
giving people any reason at all to kill is more than reason enough

Making any sense yet?
Michael

 

[Michael]

YOU are the one that's always going on about the "Real World" SAM. Well, here's the Real World.

giving people any reason at all to kill is more than reason enough

 

[S.A.M.]

YOU are the one that's always going on about the "Real World" SAM. Well, here's the Real World.

giving people any reason at all to kill is more than reason enough

Only for those with the intellect above a dog. The rest of us can muddle through.

 

[Michael]

So, the Iranian Mullah (one of the great leaders in Iran) he has the intellect of a Dog? Is that what you are saying? You know, because he's perfectly happy hanging homosexuals till they are dead. Well, he does offer them the option to have their cock and balls surgically removed - as that is the "Islamic" way. (f*ck! ouch!) Yes 1500 years of studying Qur'anic cryptography has brought about the stunning revelation that surgical removal of penis for 10% of the male population is the way of Mohammad PBUH. (I wonder what women do? Have a penis attacked? How? Whose? Oh, yeah, their women - they just get hung)

It's impossible for you think that about this because the possibility your beleif could be wrong can not exist for you. But, as I sad, I am sure that if you were on the gallos next to the 10 or 15 homo's unwilling to have their penises hacked off you'd think twice.

Luck your not an Iranian homosexual,

Michael

giving people any reason at all to kill is more than reason enough

 

[S.A.M.]

So, the Iranian Mullah (one of the great leaders in Iran) he has the intellect of a Dog? Is that what you are saying? You know, because he's perfectly happy hanging homosexuals till they are dead. Well, he does offer them the option to have their cock and balls surgically removed - as that is the Islamic way. (f*ck! ouch!)

It's impossible for you think that about this because the possibility your beleif could be wrong can not exist for you. But, as I sad, I am sure that if you were on the gallos next to the 10 or 15 homo's unwilling to have their penises hacked off you'd think twice.

Luck your not an Iranian homosexual,

Michael

giving people any reason at all to kill is more than reason enough

More nonsense of course. When was the last time someone was hanged for being a homosexual?

 

[sowhatifit'sdark]

Never in Christianity. We are to leave such actions to the worldly authorities. But Christians should never be involved in the execution process.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

It seems like one can kill if God tells you to. It was implicit that Abraham should have followed through if not for the last second reprieve.

 

[(Q)]

More nonsense of course. When was the last time someone was hanged for being a homosexual?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Asgari_and_Ayaz_Marhoni

 

[S.A.M.]

Is honor killing sanctioned by the Koran? Why is it practiced?

It is illegal under the Quran, but is (like FGM) a trait of tribalism that refuses to go away. Substitute it with domestic violence and you'll see what I mean.

Islamic religious authorities prohibit extra-legal punishments such as honor killings, since they consider the practice to be a cultural issue.[38] They believe that since certain pre-Islamic cultures have influence over a number of Muslims, murderers of females use Islam to justify honor killing, but claim that there is no support for the act in the religion itself.

 

[(Q)]

It is illegal under the Quran, but is (like FGM) a trait of tribalism that refuses to go away. Substitute it with domestic violence and you'll see what I mean.

From the link:

murderers of females use Islam to justify honor killing, but claim that there is no support for the act in the religion itself.

Then, let's look at the first part of that, what exactly are they claiming to use within Islam to justify honor killings, and how is it so easily refuted?

 

[S.A.M.]

Then, let's look at the first part of that, what exactly are they claiming to use within Islam to justify honor killings, and how is it so easily refuted?

The act of killing is recognised only for the law and only for murderers (though if the victims relatives forgive then the murderer may be let off) or those who would spread fitna in the lands.

Perhaps you could explain how this extends to honor killing. Islamic scholars have no problem in refuting it.

 

[(Q)]

The act of killing is recognised only for the law and only for murderers (though if the victims relatives forgive then the murderer may be let off) or those who would spread fitna in the lands.

So, killing IS justified by the religion, the killing of alleged murderers?

Perhaps you could explain how this extends to honor killing. Islamic scholars have no problem in refuting it.

I have zero confidence in anyone who calls themselves "scholars" when it comes to religion. Unless, the term "scholar" means he who interprets scriptures to suit the agenda.