Getting Away With Murder
Doctrine Buffet: Choose Your Entrée
Christians, at their very core, are cherry-picking hypocrites who set the rules and loopholes of their doctrine through convenient and self-interest-based interpretation of the old and new Testaments.
They decide which rules and maxims are valid [read: convenient] and decide on a case by case basis when they apply and when they don’t. They invent their own imaginary footnotes to bible mandates and manufacture the most mind-numbingly stupid and disingenuous rationalizations to maintain their faith and their intellect when bible lore and common sense collide.
I could spend the next 27 years, 4 months, 17 days, and 9 hours enumerating all of the bullshit excuses for ignoring, sidestepping, and/or redefining bible law, but Survivor starts in 20 minutes and I just don’t have the time.
Don’t Fucking Kill!
So let’s just focus on the bedrock mandate of our alleged god-given behavioral code from the preferred KJV interpretation of delusion: THOU SHALT NOT KILL. (That’s Commandment 6, Exodus 20-13 in case you flunked Sunday school.) Four short simple words. It’s crystal clear, concise, and absolute.
Thou shall not kill. Period. No footnotes. No qualifications. No exceptions. No provisos. No disclaimers. No equivocations.
Just don’t kill, okie dokie?
Without going through the litany of things we kill (including but not limited to people, animals, insects, plants, viruses, bacteria, diseases, hopes and dreams), it is abundantly clear that people “kill” every single day. And sometimes they’re killing doctors who perform abortions and perverts who rape and murder innocent little kids.
Now if you’re a Christian who opposes abortion, capital punishment, war, and any other use of deadly force whether it’s at the hands of law enforcement (to stop a crime) or at your own hands in self-defense or the defense of another, then stop reading now. You’re done. None of this will apply to you. If you believe that ALL life is sacred and that the taking of life in ANY situation is reserved strictly for god, then I can’t touch you. We’re done here. You win. Go have a some milk and cookies.
But because you’re a Christian you are necessarily a hypocrite, and because you’re a hypocrite you are definitely not against all of the aforementioned. You are forced to paint lines to rationalize your duality. So continue on.
Kill vs. Murder
The laws of man draw a painfully clear and detailed legal distinction between kill and murder, but the bible does not – not as defined by THE FUCKING PILLAR OF ETERNAL NO-NO’S: THE 10 COMMANDMENTS. (Just read ‘em because you’ve got nowhere to go with this.) Why is there no distinction? Because modern man is far smarter, more logical and reasonable than the bronze age douche canoe con men who made up all the crap in the bible.
This is where panicky knee-jerky Christians start scrambling for any esoteric or vague bible verse they can twist into a distinction – and there are many. It’s not important for purposes of this rant to list the numerous examples of allegedly “justified” killing in the bible (OT and NT), but they generally fall into one of three very narrow categories:
This is where you’re forced to make a painful choice.
If you believe (as many Christians do) that killing is never justified, then the debate is now over. The difference between murder and kill is irrelevant. The point is now moot. Again, enjoy your milk and cookies. But of course no one believes you. You don’t even believe you. And you’d still have to explain why the bible would then even need to draw such a distinction. But enough of your appalling intellectual dishonesty.
However, if you sincerely believe that these three narrow categories do define justified killing, then prepare to start killing disobedient children (starting with your own), adulterers, and a host of biblically kill-worthy others. (Chapter and verse furnished upon request.)
And I spit a hearty, well-deserved “go blow it out your ass” if you think that rationalizations about old and new covenants will serve you well as an intellectual out. If you think that you can successfully cherry pick your way out of this quandary to justify killing in only those situations that get you hard…um, nope. Not gonna happen.
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” - Matthew 5:17
Fuck you and your supposed new covenant. Romans 1:24-31 makes it crystal clear that death still comes to murderers, thieves, and faggots – yet oddly rapists get a hall pass. Oh, and slavery and child abuse are also fuckin’ fine and dandy.
The shit remains the same dude.
But irrespective of whatever flaccid and ineffectual masturbatory argument you cough up, at the end of the day I will slap you silly back to number 6 of the big 10 unqualified rules. It’s a clearly unqualified thou shalt not kill. Game fucking over. Just learn to accept the fact that the many authors of the bible just didn’t have their shit together when they wrote this colossal piece of fictional shit.
What the Fuck Ever
But it really doesn’t matter. Murder or kill, the act itself is fundamentally the same: it is the willful taking of human life. The rest is a matter of intent, circumstance, and the degree to which it is considered justified. Take note that the word “manslaughter” has not been mentioned here because it does not necessarily imply intent, such is the case with vehicular manslaughter caused by impairment or other recklessness. No intent means that we’re talking about a very unfortunate accidental death – even with negligence at its core.
Both killing and murder necessarily require intent to one degree or another. We can all agree on this. The problem is, the all-knowing god who penned his eternal laws in stone (for his flawed, fallible creations to debate the interpretation of for millennia) made no mention of this – thus drawing no distinction between the two. Again, they are willful acts whereby human life is taken. Embrace this fact.
Now this is where your average bible-punching moron begins to knee-jerk. They’re quick point out that [as written in the Torah] the Hebrew word רצח [râtsach] means “murder.” And it does. So what? The same word is also used in Numbers 35:30 to refer to a legally justified form of capital punishment:
“Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die.”
Tell you what. I’ll be fairer with you than you are with me and let your assfuck of a problem slide. But either way or both, this is nothing more than a whole lot of mental masturbation to justify taking a human life – that which is reserved for god.
Given all this room for ambiguity and error, don’t you think our perfect creator could have been a little clearer when he laid down the law? This would have been especially helpful in light of all those other bitchin’ bible stories and laws (e.g. what we may or may not eat) that seem to conflict with the crystal clear rule that commands us to not kill. I mean, would it have been that big a deal to scratch a few disclaimers into that stone? Maybe “Thou shall not kill unless…” would have made a bit more sense. Even flawed human beings have constructed their laws to clearly and finitely articulate not just the difference between killing and murdering, but also the degrees of murder. Chew on it for a moment. We imperfect fallible humans managed to work it out, yet the all-knowing eternal god had no problem letting four very vague words set the standard that sends the unsaved to hell for eternity.
Nope. Not buying it.
With the clear exception of accidental death, EVERY taking of life, human or other, is a willful act. They are ALL premeditated to one degree or another. The rest is a matter of time and effort put forth. Premeditation does not define boundaries of time. Two years, ten months, four days, eight hours, or a split second. It’s all the same. If you willfully take a life, regardless of motive or intent, you have done so with some measure of premeditation. That is murder. And it necessarily violates “Thou shalt not kill.” Period.
Intellectually dishonest fuckwads cling to the “self-defense” argument like that somehow it strips away intent. No, it doesn’t. Not even a little. In my opinion, self-defense is a wholly justified excuse to kill, but kick and scream all you want, it is still a willful, premeditated act – even if that premeditation takes but a second. Remember, god gave us free will, and a split-second heat-of-the-moment response doesn’t change that. Regardless, arguing self-defense wouldn’t get you very far because it accounts for a triflingly small number of life-taking incidents to begin with.
Warring combatants on all sides are no more on the defense than they are on the offense. On the field of battle it’s kill or be killed. Everyone is on the offense and defense. And know that whether the good Christian soldier may avoid hell through salvation is not relevant. My only interest is your position of killing vs. murdering at the hands of this individual. His eternal fate has nothing to do with what you believe.
But putting self-defense and defense of another aside for the gross aberrations they are, all of the other endless, mindless, bible lore that speak of “killing” (albeit through war or punishment or anything else) doesn’t get you out of the deepest of indefensible holes:
NONE OF THEM ARE REFLECTED IN THE 10 GOD DAMN COMMANDMENTS.
Fuck you, thou shalt not kill.
The wiggle room you rationalize from the highly subjective and personally-biased interpretations of other bible lore (to qualify commandment 6) is the product of your hypocrisy and the need for theological convenience. This is cherry-picking of the highest order.
War: What Is It Good For?
Unless you’ve been living in a cave, your average bible-punching Christian is a red-white-and-blue flag-waving war-loving patriot. They love their Jesus, they love their guns, and they love their country. And they want to FUCKING KILL anyone or anything that even so much as farts on Old Glory. Well, I’ve got news for you. Grab your dick and jerk off while you scream the word “kill.” But every time any faction of the military, law enforcement, or the judicial system takes a life, they are committing an act of murder. It is done with freewill, intent, and some measure of predication.
But I’m going to make it easy for you. I’ll generously throw out the word “kill” and agree with you. Fine. It’s murder. You can’t murder. Happy now?
First, know that I am not anti-war. I am all for war when it is deemed necessary. I have absolutely no problem using deadly force to secure our borders, protect our citizens, defend our way of life as well as that of our allies who ask for assistance. Kill the fuckers. Kill ‘em good. And have fun doing it. I also believe in justified self-defense. I’d kill your fucking pasly-ridden grandmother while she’s baking chocolate chip cookies for the church bake sale if I had even a speck of just cause to believe she intended to take my life. And I’d even extend that just cause to include defense of another. Yes, I’d kill even to save your sorry Christian ass. I say this all to preemptively shut you down before you accuse me of being some tree-hugging anti-war bleeding heart liberal. Couldn’t be further from the truth. You and I are likely the same in this respect. I’m even pro-gun ownership. The difference is that I don’t vomit forth disingenuous logic to draw a meaningful distinction between killing and murdering. This is what Christians do – and they do so to sidestep the accusation of duplicity.
The very nature of war is premeditated. What part of this doesn’t make sense to you? A state, a uniform, and an order from an commanding officer doesn’t magically turn murder into killing. Kick and scream and obfuscate to your heart’s content. At the end of the day it is one man killing another with premeditated intent and malice to one degree or another. That the victim is or may be a stranger is irrelevant. The taking of life is a deeply personal act even if you’re pushing a launch button from a thousand miles away.
War? Says Who?
Disingenuous idiots love to argue that lives taken by a warring state somehow constitutes killing, not murdering. Um, wrong.
First, who gets to decide exactly what a “state” is? Is it the uniform? The title of the combatant’s rank? The authority of their commander? Was Idi Amin killing or murdering? Saddam Hussein? Kadaffi? Hitler? These were all leaders of a warring state. Tell me, jackass. Were their orders considered killings or murders?
Also, is an imaginary line drawn between anyone with weapon (i.e. a soldier) and one without a weapon (i.e. one of those sympathizers who [wait for it] “supports the troops”) that defines whether their death is deemed to be a killing or a murder? How about a line between a sympathizer and an innocent bystander?
So let’s take a close look at a couple of warring scenarios and test them to see if they are killing or murdering.
Scenario A: Some guy in a uniform with a fully automatic weapon takes the lives of combatants in opposition. He is acting willfully and with intent under the direction of a leader.
Scenario B: Some guy in a uniform with a fully automatic weapon takes the lives of combatants in opposition. He is acting willfully and with intent under the direction of a leader.
No, there’s no typo above. Both scenarios are intended to be identical.
In scenario A, the combatant is a good god-fearing Christian, and his uniform bears that beautiful red, white, and blue American flag – the one that puts a tear in your eye. He is a true patriot, loyal to his unit, who has sacrificed for his country. He is acting willfully and with intent under the direction of a leader to defend his domain and his way of life.
If you’re a Christian trying to defend a meaningful difference between killing and murder as it affects your place in eternity (i.e. a violation of “Thou shalt not kill”), you will conveniently argue that the guy in both scenarios is killing, not murdering.
But here’s the thing. In scenario B, the combatant is a punk-ass thug gang member, and his uniform is a do-rag bearing his gang colors. He is a true soldier, loyal to his gang, who has sacrificed for his turf. He is acting willfully and with intent under the direction of a leader. War in both scenarios is perfectly political and ideological in nature.
If you’re a Christian trying to defend a meaningful difference between killing and murder as it affects your place in eternity, you’re now fucked. And so begins your petulant kicking and screaming and ineffectual attempts to draw a distinction. Fuck you, there is none. As far as the bible is concerned, both are committing murder. They are sinning against god. They’re breaking a commandment.
Now before you accused me of justifying both, I don’t. In my bible-less world, “A” is justified (i.e. unfortunate necessary killing as a byproduct of living in an imperfect world) and “B” isn’t (i.e. unfortunate unnecessary killing as a byproduct of living in an imperfect world). But you and I are not operating from the same worldview. You’re a hypocritical Christian, Jew, Muslim, or whateverthefuck you want to call yourself – and I’m a moral relativist. Does this make me better than you? No. But it does make me more honest. You’re a duplicitous coward who’s scrambling to reconcile his idiotic beliefs.
Cowards in a Bunker
Since you’re now in a hole looking for an out because you can’t draw any meaningful distinction between waring nations and waring gangs AS IT PERTAINS TO THE TAKING OF HUMAN LIFE, let’s remove all street thugs (as well as any element of immediate self defense) from the equation.
Scenario C: The combatant is a U.S. Army Ranger who accidentally takes the lives of innocent civilians by friendly fire. He is acting willfully and with intent under the direction of a leader.
Scenario D: The combatant is a Jihadist and his weapon is a fully-fuel passenger plane filled with innocent civilians and he’s about to fly it into a tall building filled with innocent civilians. He is acting willfully and with intent under the direction of a leader.
A Jihadist is every bit a warring State faction as an U.S. Army Ranger (or Nazi Panzer division soldier for that matter). Tell me, you dishonest coward, are these men of war in “C ” or “D” killing or murdering?
Scenario E: Some guy within the underground safety of a military complex is pressing a button that will launch a weapon of mass destruction that will take countless lives of combatants in opposition as well as the unfortunate collateral damage of innocent civilians. He is acting willfully and with intent under the direction of a leader.
What say you? Killing or murdering? And could you possibly conjure up even the most diluted self-defense motive for those taking lives from the safety of a remote military bunker?
Pay close attention. You can lather yourself up in whatever tortured logic and cognitive dissonance that makes you sleep well at night, but you’re got nowhere to go with this. Just admit that you’re a hypocritical douchecanoe who makes up the rules as he goes along. You want to have you theological cake and eat it too.
We could spend an inordinate amount of time conjuring up scenarios to push the argument one way or another, but your terminal problem is with the bible itself. It’s where your argument is crushed by its own weight.
If the all-knowing perfect god actually wrote the bible, commandment 6 would not have been so vague. The mere fact that we’re even having this debate is proof that a perfect god could not have authored these laws.
Even a fallible human idiot could and would have penned this commandment (as well as all of the others) in a crystal clear manner so as to avoid any discussion or debate – let alone ambiguity. One need not look any further than the laws of man to see this truth. The bible is alleged word of god offered to all mankind for all eternity. It should (and must) apply to all cultures ancient to modern and all in between with ZERO need for interpretation or debate caused by unqualified vagueness in text, prior gaps in human understanding of the world around us, advancements in science and technology, or anything else expected or unexpected. This is fucking god we’re talking about. He knows all – so no valid excuses or rationalizations remain.
Either god is an incompetent moron, or the bible is the poorly-planned flawed fictional work of ignorant fallible beings from a very primitive culture.
A Final Word on Christian Hypocrisy
Putting aside all the semantics and wordplay, many Christians seem to think commandment 6 applies to an unviable fetus, but should it develop to a viable baby then it’s perfectly okay to send them off to war to kill brown people who threaten our way of life in this great Christian nation. And if one of those children should meet their maker because some sub-human raping, murdering scumbag couldn’t control his sick sexual impulses with a child, Christians think it’s just fine and dandy (and perhaps even righteous and fun!) to strap that sick twist into a chair and fry his ass real good.