thou shalt not kill

[knaveman]

This is something I was thinking about the other day and thought I would bring it up for discussion here since we have such a lively and intelligent group.

 

In Buddhism one of the precepts is that we should refrain from harming living things. http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/precepts.html

 

In Christianity one of the commandments is thou shalt not kill.

 

Now, in Buddhism this precept is commonly taken to the extreme of vegetarianism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_vegetarianism In Christianity the commandment is commonly only meant to mean thou shalt not kill humans.

 

Why are these very similar rules interpreted so differently?

[disgracian]

In Christianity, only humans have souls. Everything else was put here by god for our use. Furthermore, many Christians interpret that commandment as "Thou shalt not murder", meaning that "lawful killing" (such as self defense) is okay.

 

Buddhistm extends the net of compassion a bit further. Anything that can suffer should not be made to do so.

[Geishawhelk]

The Five precepts, furthermore, are interactive. That is to say, all five are cohesive and mutually support one another.

 

The first precept commends that we do no harm....This means not only killing, but hurting in any way whatsoever, be it physically or emotively.

And any creature, includes ourselves. So that it highlights the harm we can do to all, inclusively, through breaking all the other precepts too.

 

The harm we can do through stealing or taking that which is not freely given. the harm we can do through immoral or improper sexual misconduct (which basically means any kind of sexual misconduct that puts others at an unwilling disadvantage).

The harm we can do through lying, false, divisive speech or even idle gossip and careless banter, and the harm we can do through imbibing, ingesting and inhaling intoxicating substances.

 

Stealing someone else's well-being and harming them morally.

Stealing someone's dignity and degrading them through sexual actions.

Stealing someone's honour and character, and misappropriating time which could have been spent talking constructively.

Stealing health, well-being and mental clarity and abusing it....

 

All the precepts can be mutually used one with the others to give us a moral code, which if followed and adhered to, give us a foundation to our behaviour, which will render us virtuous, loving, considerate and blameless.

(Ps: In case it has escaped anyone's notice, I have not managed this yet!)

 

Of course, the other factor guiding Buddhists, is the Eightfold Path, which I discussed at length in one of the very first threads I ever created here, when I joined LS.

 

This is the fundamental basic premise of any Buddhists' walk towards Nirvana, and is taken in conjunction with, and superimposed onto the 5 precepts.

 

Thank you for reading.

[knaveman]

Well, I understand the Buddhist side fairly well. I have some opinions on that stuff we can discuss. I guess what I really am looking for is why Christians don't take the commandment Thou Shalt Not Kill to the extent of vegetarianism. Just looking for opinions or thoughts.

 

Is it like disgracian says? Does the commandment only extend to human life? Now, I'm not trying to discredit or belittle anyone's faith. This is just a question that came to me recently. I was raised Christian but this question never came up until I started following Buddhism. I am amazed at the similarities between the two faiths and some of the little differences like this.

[wuggle]

Yes, I think Disgracian got it right. In cristian religions only humans have a sould and go to heaven, in the bible it says that 'God gave man dominion over all animals', we are allowed to kill them and eat them, they are soul-less. I think this is the reason.

[Taramere]

It always seems to me that Buddhism is more of a philosophy designed to keep people in a good state of balance, psychologically. Something that guides rather than preaches. That not only permits the individual a lot of leeway to figure things out for himself, but encourages it. Christianity at its fundamentalist level seems more involved with exerting controls over society. Simpler: "Don't do X if you don't want to go to hell." Appeals to the inner child who needs routine and clear cut rules; who finds grey areas upsetting and disconcerting rather than fascinating.

 

I think Christianity often alienates those who like to explore the grey areas, and to challenge popular notions of right and wrong. That may be more likely when it's preached by people who aren't very well equipped for debate but who want to participate in it nonetheless. I've encountered some very smart people who happen to be Christians, but their faith seems to be a fairly private thing that they derive personal strength from, rather than something they'll frequently refer to in an attempt to win arguments. They'd probably be just as happy being Buddhists.

[You'reasian]

This is something I was thinking about the other day and thought I would bring it up for discussion here since we have such a lively and intelligent group.

 

In Buddhism one of the precepts is that we should refrain from harming living things. http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/precepts.html

 

In Christianity one of the commandments is thou shalt not kill.

 

Now, in Buddhism this precept is commonly taken to the extreme of vegetarianism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_vegetarianism In Christianity the commandment is commonly only meant to mean thou shalt not kill humans.

 

Why are these very similar rules interpreted so differently?

 

I'm guessing that your premise is that "all the world's religions are basically the same."

 

There maybe overlaps in the practices of certain religions, but the source and reasoning are as different as night and day, as is believing in God versus believing in Buddha.

 

Christians have often interpreted "thou shall not kill" as "thou shall not murder" which means that they will not kill as an illegal act. It is more justifiable as an act of self-defense or in response to a legal order to protect the public or to defend the Constitution and its citizens.

[taiko]

I think someone already mentioned the correct translation, ask any Hebrew speaker is murder not kill. Kill was chosen out of poetic license. It made the Bible sing better.

 

The same God who issued the no murder order also ordered people to go to war and kill.

[knaveman]

I'm guessing that your premise is that "all the world's religions are basically the same."

 

There maybe overlaps in the practices of certain religions, but the source and reasoning are as different as night and day, as is believing in God versus believing in Buddha.

 

Christians have often interpreted "thou shall not kill" as "thou shall not murder" which means that they will not kill as an illegal act. It is more justifiable as an act of self-defense or in response to a legal order to protect the public or to defend the Constitution and its citizens.

 

I do believe that all the worlds religions are basically the same. They are all different paths to the same end. Jesus and Buddha had very similar teachings as far as the love and compassion aspect. There really is no belief in Buddha either, he was only a man.

 

I just find it odd that Buddhists preach flexibility in the precepts but they follow it so strictly to the point of not even eating animals. Christian preach strict adherence to the commandments but practice flexibility. I'm not saying one is right and the other wrong, just an oddity I found.

[Geishawhelk]

Buddhists don't teach flexibility in the precepts.

The precepts are quite clear on what they communicate.

 

What they do teach is that ultimately, the final choice is yours, but you must accept the consequences if the choice you make is an unskilful one.

 

Christianity teaches that no matter how good you are, or how you keep the commandments, nobody comes to the father save through jesus Christ your saviour.

So they have deified Christ.

There are huge differences between Buddhism and Christianity.

 

I do believe that all the worlds religions are basically the same. They are all different paths to the same end. Jesus and Buddha had very similar teachings as far as the love and compassion aspect. There really is no belief in Buddha either, he was only a man.

 

The only reason that Jesus had similar teachings to those of the Buddha, is that the Buddha preceded him by about 500 years. It's therefore possible - though by no means a given certain - that in the "wilderness years" (between his 12th and 30th year) the man Jesus did a bit of homework of his own, and diversified a little.....

Nobody knows for sure, but his ideas certainly sprang from somewhere.

 

Fundamentally The Buddha has always been a man. No Buddhist has ever disputed or argued this, particularly as it was so heavily emphasised by the Buddha himself. So no issue there.

 

Jesus' identity and persona remains more controversial.

 

But we're not here to discuss that specifically.

 

I'm just picking up on a couple of your points.