TheBishop
Senior Member
My personal position is that I believe defending your family / home / person is justified, and force necessary for a succesful defense is what should be used. If a man with a gun breaks in, it may take a gun to stop him.
I am against capital punishment, in all cases.
I am "anti-war" unless such a war is necessary to defend ourselves and our interests (such as defending allies).
As far as "Thou shalt not kill" I believe, just based on the whole work, that this is referring to murder on an individual level. The people who it was commanded to follow were also commanded to kill in battle. Moses killed an Egyptian who was abusing an Israelite before he led the Jews out of Egypt. So, it seems that it is not a blanket command to cover all circumstances.
Thats just my opinion, though.
Good post and if you don't mind I would like to expand a little more. I do have some questions and I hope you aren't as terrified of them as some seem to be.
First, your against capitol punishment, I find that interesting. Why? I am not, I beleive those worthy of such a punishment have no civil value, and only a civil cost, therefore are better eliminated.
The national interests thing bothers me a little. If you think about what constitutes national interest , you might find it is a broadly used term. It becomes the whim of those in power. Is oil a national interest? Is it ok to kill for oil? It sure is vital to our national economy.
It comes to a point were you ask yourself this question: Would you rather sacrifice your WAY of life, or human life?
Alligiances take on another form. You are now killing for others, for their way of life, their idology, and their money.
Do you think we were justified enough to help in Lybia? Syria?