I'll raise you five cents DJ
Can I ask, cause & effect do you think there is a 'real' 'universal' difference?
Is anyone who is killed any less dead than someone who was murdered?
Is anyone's family of someone who was killed, going to grieve and mourn them any less than someone who was murdered?
Is the blood on our hands of someone who was killed, less or more blood than someone who was murdered?
Can you see the ludicrousness of it yet?
The reason the Commandment in the bible does not say "Thou shalt not murder" and does say "Thou shalt not kill" is because 'kill' is universal - the cause of the effect of someone dying by the hand of another and the blood and the natural consequence affects us all.
Murder on the other hand is not 'universally' accepted - not understood in the same way by all. It allows for interpretation in the laws of humankind, justified by cultural beliefs and making 'right' and 'wrong' of individual circumstances.
In a very instant recognition one can look at the 'fighting' in Gaza. The Israelis believe they are 'only killing' those who are threatening their perceived 'right' way of life, therefore it is 'just'. The Palestinians believe their citizens are being murdered therefore it is 'unjust'. The Palestinians believe they are 'only killing' those who are threatening their perceived 'right' way of life therefore their killing is 'just', and the Israelis believe their citizens are being murdered which is 'unjust'.
Until they both stop and realise that they are both killing - there will be no consensus as to the madness and the natural unfolding consequences of their individual cultural beliefs, and so it will continue along fortified lines of belief creating barriers to reconciliation, regardless of the evidence, or their separate beliefs in God leading them into and empowering them in 'righteousness'.
Thou shalt not kill, is universal. In the sense that if one does kill then one creates the natural unfolding consequences of that.
Killing to me is something you have to do, murder isn't.
Killing is something you 'assume' you 'have to do' based on your perspective - within your awareness, capacity and willingness to defend that perspective.
Example, someone comes into my home to murder me and my family, in the process I kill them. Was it murder or was it killing, because I had no choice, but to be murdered myself.
If they're dead, it's killing. If you get tried for it as murder the 'defences' will depend on your societal and cultural paradigms and 'distinctions' in 'right or wrong' (and whether or not you can afford a good lawyer
There will be 'assumptions' about the awareness, capacity and willingness of the 'intruder' to stay within the confines of 'accepted societal behaviour' - now dead and unable to speak for them self as to their 'intention' and the unfolding circumstances, as to their innocence, or guilt against you, your family and the status quo of the society in which you are indoctrinated.
The 'result' is the same regardless of the findings.
You will live with the taking of the life of another.
They will be dead.
However you justify that will be within your own awareness, capacity and willingness or not to do so.
I'm quite happy to accept that 'in reality' 30% of those put to death by the hands of their own nation, their own govts, their own courts abiding by their own laws in one country claiming to be the 'land of the 'free' and of 'justice for all', are later found to actually have been 'innocent' of the crimes for which they were punished by death in that country. What you sow, so shall you reap. If you put your self up as judge and executioner of another without actually understanding their 'experience' you cannot do otherwise than get it wrong sometimes.
Too bad ---- were they - these 'innocents' - then 'murdered' or 'killed'?
Did they 'have to be' killed? Or was there a choice somewhere, anywhere along the line that could have been chosen differently?
I'm not sure which it is interpreted as in that culture.