How did God command the killing of children and woman when the commandments command us not to kill. I understand that God has right to kill who He pleases but why did he command the Israelites (humans) to kill others when thou shalt not kill

John Paul II, *Evangelium Vitæ* §58 (25 March 1995): >The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder Is this the first magisterial document to call abortion murder?

Doctrine and Covenants 42:18 appears to teach that anyone who kills cannot ever be forgiven. Does "killing" refer only to murder or to any killing, be it in self defense or as part of a way? > And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come. D&C 42:18 Does the LDS Church hold to this position today? If so, how is God's forgiveness of David reconciled with that as well as the people mentioned in the book of Alma? > Nathan said to David, “You are the man... You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites... David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.” And Nathan said to David, “**The LORD also has put away your sin**; you shall not die. 2 Samuel 12 (portions) ESV > > And I also thank my God, yea, my great God, that he hath granted unto us that we might repent of these things, and also that **he hath forgiven us of those our many sins and murders which we have committed**, and taken away the guilt from our hearts, through the merits of his Son. Alma 24:10

**Arius' death was it miraculous or was he poisoned?** Arius died in 336, at Constantinople of some gory intestinal disorder. Some believe that his death corresponded to the prayers of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Others believe that he may have been poisoned. Have any historians or medical professionals ever explained what type of poison could have produced the death of Arius in such a gruesome manner? [Hemorrhagic death of Arius](https://historyoftheearlychurch.wordpress.com/2021/06/07/75-the-freak-hemorrhage/) *Who believed that his death was a miraculous event and why?* *Those who believe he was murdered, what kind of poison could produce the physical manner in which he died?*

As a Catholic, I know that I am accountable to a higher law than human/positive law. The natural moral law is the guiding force behind the formation of my conscience and if human laws are not in accord with the current law, I am obligated to deny/change/protest/ignore them. As such, is it right, for me, to consider the moral crime of abortion to be equal in all instances to the moral crime of murder? Is abortion exactly the same as murder, under the natural moral law and in the eyes of the Catholic Church?

We read in Ex 21: 12-14 (NRSVCE): > Whoever strikes a person mortally shall be put to death. If it was not premeditated, but came about by an act of God, then I will appoint for you a place to which the killer may flee. But if someone willfully attacks and kills another by treachery, you shall take the killer from my altar for execution. Now, 2 Samuel 11 narrates how King David got Uriah the Hittite killed in war in a deceitful manner so as to marry his would-be-widow Bathsheba. Of course, David repents at the intervention of prophet Nathan , and is punished by God with the death of his fist child born of Bathsheba ( 2 Sam 12). But the rule of death-for-death in Ex 21, which spared not even the priests, does not appear to have been implemented in the case of David. My question therefore is: **Why was King David spared of the death-for-death rule of Exodus 21?** Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

I'm listening to [a podcast from Relevant Radio](https://open.spotify.com/episode/5tm0zcjbxgKMe2U1PJtK2s?si=705c13747d0041cd) talking about how many people in the USA think it's OK to assassinate politicians. Wondering what that Natural Law (as interpreted by the Catholic Church) would say about that. Chesterton quipped once that it was distressing to think of how few politicians are hanged these days, but I think he may have said that in jest. Today people seem to take that seriously. Is there any area where assassination is justified? In a war perhaps?

**Question:** Is it sinful to physically attack a doctor who performs abortions and break his fingers so that he can not perform an abortion? If yes, why? If no, why? Does it depend on the circumstances? **Arguments against:** 1. It would seem that one should not attack a doctor because he is not doing something unlawful. 2. It would seem that one should not attack a doctor because one does not have the authority to exert violence. However, these arguments seem not to be good. To explain why I will give an analogy. Imagine a situation where some guy wants to dismember a 3-year-old child. You see him going toward the child, and you know for certain what he plans to do. You are able to stop him via violence (and no-one except that guy will be harmed in the process). However, your stopping him will be illegal. It still seems that you should stop the guy. This analogy seems to explain why neither authority nor what is (il)legal matter, and therefore it shows why arguments against are not good arguments. Also, it is often said that: "Necessity does not know the law." And that "Unjust laws are not really laws." 3. If it were not sinful to attack a doctor who performs abortions someone would already be doing it. But we did not see such a case. **Arguments for:** 1. Using the same analogy as above, it seems not only that it is not sinful to attack a doctor, but that we have a duty to attack a doctor, just as we would have a duty to stop someone (if we are able to) who wants to dismember a 3-year-old child. Maybe the arguments above depend on whether we see a doctor who directly goes to the hospital to perform an abortion, but not to a doctor who does not directly go to perform an abortion. I am interested in responses from a Catholic viewpoint (preferably a natural law response).

I am trying to learn when did things start to go wrong in Christianity and when did it start to change from a peaceful, loving religious group into a movement that engaged in war and physical repression, including executions, in the Middle Ages. Therefore I was wondering who was the first person killed by a Christian, two Christians or a group of Christians due to religious disagreements.

Genesis 4:8 > Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let us go out in the field.”* When they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him. \* [4:8] Let us go out in the field: to avoid detection. The verse presumes a sizeable population which Genesis does not otherwise explain. My question is *how* did Cain kill Abel? I was wondering if there is a commonly accepted method of murder, or if a religion, such as Catholicism, has a tradition about how he was killed. I have read that he used a rock. I think the more believable guess is a spear. (Based off of the meaning of the name Cain.)

Reading the Wikipedia article on [Thomas Aquinas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas) , I stumbled on something rather peculiar. Apparently he fell ill and died at the age of 49 on his way to the [Second Council of Lyon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_Lyon) , where he had been summoned by the pope to participate in an effort to reunite the Western and Eastern churches. Maybe I'm a bit jaded, but it seemed fishy to me that a preeminent scholar "just so happened" to die on his way to such an important event. I was thus pleased to note that the great [Dante](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dante_Alighieri) had similar misgivings: he wrote in the [*Divine Comedy*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Comedy) that: > Charles came to Italy, and for amends / A victim made of Conradin, and then / Thrust Thomas back to heaven, for amends. ([*Purgatorio*, 20.67–69](http://www.divinecomedy.org/divine_comedy.php3?display?Enface?Purgatorio?20???151?1???0??1?1)) "Charles" here is apparently [Charles I of Naples](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_Naples) . Wikipedia cites a historian who disputes Dante's speculations, but I'm not giving up so easily. What is the evidence, if any, that Aquinas was assassinated?

Related to this other question about whether murder is unforgivable according to the LDS Church. One of the answers to the question says that: > Murder is a very serious sin, and while it can't be forgiven it can be > pardoned. However the link in the word "pardoned" leads to a "page not found" message. This answer, however, does quote the following from D&C study guide in chapter 42: > The second most serious sin is to commit murder—that is, to willfully > shed innocent blood. Concerning this sin, the Lord has said: ‘Thou > shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this > world, nor in the world to come.’ (D&C 42:18.) **Thus this is an > unforgivable sin, which means that Jesus Christ cannot pay for (or > ‘atone for’ or ‘forgive’) the penalty demanded by the broken law. This > sin is a pardonable sin, however; that is, the sinner can eventually > make full payment himself, and be received into a state of pardon.** (Emphasis added.) So, murder is described as a sin that Jesus cannot atone for and yet, the individual himself can receive a pardon by making some form of a payment. --- My questions are: **1. What kind of "payment" can a murderer make to cover for murder?** **2. What are the differences, if any, between being thus pardoned and being forgiven by Jesus' atonement?**

> Lamech said to his wives,
 “Adah and Zillah, listen to me;
  wives of Lamech, hear my words.
 I have killed a man for wounding me,
  a young man for injuring me.
 If Cain is avenged seven times,
  then Lamech seventy-seven times.”
(Genesis 4:23-24, NIV) What is the significance of Lamech's boast? What role does it play in the Genesis narrative?

> [1 Corinthians 6:9–10](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+corinthians+6%3A9-10&version=KJV) (KJV)
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. I realize that the word unrighteous (NIV – "wrongdoers") would include murderers implicitly, but it seems like it would have been an easy and obvious thing to have included murderers in the list. And what about liars? Why are liars not included?

The Bible pretty clearly says not to murder ([Exodus 20:13](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20:13&version=NIV)) . But if we examine [Numbers 25](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2025&version=NIV) or [1Kings 18:40](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings%2018:40&version=NIV) , we see God (or more accurately, his prophets) telling us to kill people. Indeed, entire groups of people were murdered because of their mistaken beliefs. So, is it alright to murder if God or one of his prophets tells you to? I would think that this concept against murdering would be against all Christian doctrine. However, how does the mainstream Protestant groups (Baptist, Episcopalian, Methodist, Lutheran, etc.) reconcile these two concepts?

Can you serve in a military service and not violate the will of God?

God says thou shall not kill as one of the Ten Commandments but he actually instructs his chosen people to kill numerous times throughout the Old Testament. Then there is tons of killing, persecution, and even torture performed under the authority of the Catholic Church under the New Testament. Specifically I would like to sight the story of Saul when he is instructed to kill everyone of the Amalekites men, women, and children. Saul failed to do so and he was actually punished for it and would eventually lose his annionted kingship. So in short my question is: Why does God condone or order so much killing when it is against the Commandments?

I want to know that where did Cain Son of Adam and Eve get his wife? As there was nobody except Adam and Eve after he killed Abel.