Jesus Himself condemned the stoning of the woman caught in adultery. To me, that speaks volumes. Which is why I no longer believe in CP.
The way I'm wired, I just have to analyze things logically. Sometimes that involves using a contrived but parallel analogy. Here goes my thoughts on this.
Let's say God commanded "Though shalt not eat blueberries."
Some folk then decide, "Well, he didn't say anything about strawberries, so it must be OK to eat them. God didn't outline all the things we should do. He outlined some things we must do, but didn't micro-manage every single behavior. Besides, God saw some folks eating strawberries, and never condemned it. He even commanded some people to eat strawberries at times! Strawberries are good!"
But there's another point of view that says, "Strawbwerries are berries, so they must be just as sinful as blueberries! We shalt not eat them either!! Berries are bat, and strawberries are sinful!!"
To further their argument years later, Jesus was presented with some strawberries, and he turned them down. The anti-strawberry faction sees that as clear proof that strawberries are just as forbidden as blueberries.
To me, the logic of the argument boils dont to this:
Don't do activity A(murder).
Activity B(righteous killing)is permissible.
Jesus chose not to do B.
Therefore B is prohibited.
Was Jesus inaction on activity B really a prohibition? Could there be another reason for his action/inaction?
Make another analogy without all the extenuating circumstances:
Parents tell kids they can go to summer camp.
The parents themselves don't go to camp.
Kids conclude that summer camp is prohibited, based on the parent's example.
I believe it applies to killing humans--not animals.
It's how OT sacrifices were made.
Jesus Himself condemned the stoning of the woman caught in adultery. To me, that speaks volumes. Which is why I no longer believe in CP.
My 1st .02c Let's see where this goes.
His father instituded the Death penalty in the OT..and Jesus DID talk during the stoning episode, but it wasn't against CP, for he said nothing about the crucifixtion of the two criminals, he never spoke against CP, or going against the laws of the land. the stoning episode,was an attempt to mock or embarass Jesus... not an attempt @ doing the law., why? 'cuz the law said to take BOTH outside the city, and to stone THEM..( not just her). It was a mockery that Jesus happily jumped all over!!
I thought a some length about this before. Is our God not the one who gave David victory in battle? Does the Bible not say that David was a "Man after God's own heart"? Yet by his command and hand there were likely 100,000+ men who were killed. (Not including the census deal, which I don't think applies here) At the same time this "Man after God's own heart" wouldn't kill Saul when he had the chance.
Do I think CP should exist? Yes. For reasons already mentioned. Do I think we go about it the right way? Well, no.
And what about the teachings about if you look at a woman with lust you've already committed adultery, and that if you hate your brother you've already committed murder? That throws a whole 'nother bucket on the fire and, personally, starts to bring things full circle in showing that we truely are dead without Christ and that really have no life until we come under His blood.
__________________
Anything I say is my opinion, just that...and only that.
"...and what does the Lord require of you, but to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God?
Well, I looked the word up in Strong's, and here's what I found:
Quote:
Ratsach, Strong's 07523
1) to murder, slay, kill a) (Qal) to murder, slay 1) premeditated 2) accidental 3) as avenger 4) slayer (intentional) (participle) b) (Niphal) to be slain c) (Piel) 1) to murder, assassinate 2) murderer, assassin (participle)(subst) d) (Pual) to be killed
I never believed that this comandment applied to animals. I was making the point(in another thread)that if you don't specify what the word "kill" means, then it might as well as apply to animals. So we look to the word 'kill" or ratsach.
It is a term that seems to cover various types of killing, and as Alex mentioned, there is no specific word for murder. I tend to believe him based on his background.
So in the Comandment, what does it mean? As others mentioned, it applies to people. How do we know that? By referring to other parts of scripture.
But does it mean any killing, or murder? Again, we look to other parts of scripture, and clearly see that it is murder, as God instructs to kill as punishment for various deeds, condones killing in War, etc.
So, the only argument left in my mind is: did Christ change that comandment by sparing the prostitute?
Looking at other translations, we see some using "kill," the literal translation, and others use "murder," the meaning in the Comandment.
(Of twelve versions I checked, seven used "murder.")
Thou shalt not kill, or murder?
Let's see where this goes. 
