Thou Shall Not Kill......Unless

rjcruiser

Senior Member
That may be your opinion, but you have to acknowledge that when a criticism of Christianity / god is brought up and the OT is used, it is generally disregarded.

Heck, the whole thread about "what makes you a christian" is filled with jesus jesus jesus, and the OT is never mentioned

I guess my definition of Christianity and yours differ then.

How would we know we needed a savior if we didn't have the OT?

Amazing...that the Ethiopian Eunich was saved in Acts without the NT...amazing that the OT saints mentioned in Hebrews 11 were saved without the NT.

Just because one doesn't mention the OT doesn't mean they regard it as worthless. That is a big stretch.
 

Four

Senior Member
I guess my definition of Christianity and yours differ then.

How would we know we needed a savior if we didn't have the OT?

Amazing...that the Ethiopian Eunich was saved in Acts without the NT...amazing that the OT saints mentioned in Hebrews 11 were saved without the NT.

Just because one doesn't mention the OT doesn't mean they regard it as worthless. That is a big stretch.

I'm just saying any time a negative OT quote is brought up, its swept aside as "oh those were rules for the Jews" or "oh that was from a different time" or "those rules were only in the context of the OT, since Jesus came it's changed"

I don't see what makes the 10c more difficult to do this with than any other OT stuff.
 

rjcruiser

Senior Member
I'm just saying any time a negative OT quote is brought up, its swept aside as "oh those were rules for the Jews" or "oh that was from a different time" or "those rules were only in the context of the OT, since Jesus came it's changed"

I don't see what makes the 10c more difficult to do this with than any other OT stuff.

In some cases, the rules were just for the Jews.

Again, you have to look at context in order to understand the writings. This is the problem that most non-christians have. They pull one line or one verse out and rest their unbelief on that one statement.
 

Four

Senior Member
In order to not derail the conversation, i'm going to stop with the whole "why not ignore the 10c like you do the rest of the OT" topic.
 

Ronnie T

Ol' Retired Mod
i think the more you dodge the atheist questions proves their points... telling a deist this stuff about not wanting to share internet space ,well you want to rid me from this earth too...this is the basis of your religion:pop:

I said: "Your smug comments and caricatures that exaggerate your negative attitudes towards God make us not want to share internet space with you."

My greatest want is to be able to talk and share God with those who are wanting to know as much of Him as I've come to know. But I cannot, should not, verbally fistfight with anyone who disrespects God and all that God is.
That's a battle I don't care to win...... You do it!
 

TheBishop

Senior Member
Not true. The OT is still very valid today.

This is and could be a thread in and of itself...but I don't want to digress...nor do I have the time.



What 3 "golden rules" am I ignoring in my initial response?

I would disagree to a point that war is not really self defense. Some is and some isn't. It really depends on the war.

History will show you though, that there were and are many Christians that were conscientious objectors. It isn't really a term used anymore today as the draft is no more, but I know of Christians in other countries that have been killed and imprisoned because they wouldn't fight in unjust wars.

Do unto others, turn the other cheek, and thous shall not kill. Its ok if disagree with this Im not really interested of personal justification.


What I am interested is the warfare aspect. I would agree that some wars are national defense in nature, but most are not. Really looking back to the war of 1812 was the only war were our actual nation was in peril, by an outside force.

The civil war was about ideology and economics, a war that pitted american christian vs american christian. Vietnam was nothing more than an ideological war, Iraq 1 econmics, Iraq 2 and afganistan ideology, and WWI@II alligiances. How does one justify killing in those circumstances? Is killing for money and your way of life acceptable?
 

centerpin fan

Senior Member
For those of you keeping score at home, here is the "question count" so far:


So to a christian my question would be why violate 3 biblical codes, one of which would place you in judgement, for the preservation of your earthly mortal life, risking your non-earthly eternal life?

What is national defense? Is it the presevation of our economic interest? The preservation of our borders? The preservation of our national Identity?

Which nations are justified? Communist? Capitalist? Socialist?

Can we really justify killing by just saying national defense?

Can killing be justified or only rationalized?

So what is a justified killing? Government sanctioned? Church Sanctioned?

If its says "Thou Shall Not Kill" how we can justify war, especially the ones of late, and the taking of someones life?

So soldiers would be volunteering to place themselves outside gods grace?

Your answer covered the first part what about a case for war?

Most of our fights have been about economics , or preserving our way of life. So how do we reconcile the taking of life in those circumstances?

How does one justify killing in those circumstances? Is killing for money and your way of life acceptable?
 

rjcruiser

Senior Member
Do unto others, turn the other cheek, and thous shall not kill. Its ok if disagree with this Im not really interested of personal justification.

Did my original response throw those out the window?

TheBishop said:
Is killing for money and your way of life acceptable?

No, I don't think so.
 

TTom

Senior Member
Not exactly known as a stanch defender of the Christian Faith to put it mildly. However my study tells me that "Thou Shalt not commit murder" is the closer translation.

As for "justification" of killing in war etc I'll bring forth the words of the Great Bard

"Ay, or more than we should seek after; for we know
enough, if we know we are the kings subjects: if
his cause be wrong, our obedience to the king wipes
the crime of it out of us."

Bates, Henry V, Act IV, Scene 1.

If the war is not justified, the sin of it is not on the soldiers who fight, but on the King. This does not justify wrong doings perpetrated in conjunction but not under orders, nor does it justify specific acts that are war crimes.

Although i am a libertarian I am not at the isolationist level. The idea that WWII would not have come to our shores I find to be feather headed. Do we wait until forces land on our shores before we start to defend ourselves?
 

TheBishop

Senior Member
For those of you keeping score at home, here is centerpin meaningful response count:

0
 

TheBishop

Senior Member
Do we wait until forces land on our shores before we start to defend ourselves?

I don't believe so, but I do think its necessary to qualify the threat, and then respond accordingly. If the threat is imminent, preemption is necessary. I do not beleive in using our soldiers to try to instill freedom, which cannot be accomplished.
 

TheBishop

Senior Member
I'd be happy to give a meaningful response if I had the slightest hope that it would not be met with yet another question.

You must not be very confident in your ability to answer completely. If you took the time to review other posts you would find that, only the ones that warranted such an question got one. Some there was no need. If I knew how to elicit an opinion without asking a question, then I could avoid those pesky little things.
 

TheBishop

Senior Member
Then why continuously post in a thread with no intention of joining the discussion? Oops.....I'm sorry, theres one of those dastardly questions, that you are so afriad of. Is there another way to find an aswer? Man did it again...Do us a favor and stop. Apparently your well thought out, succint, answers are too thought provoking for me. They do nothing but compel me to seek more wisdom from your obvious infinite supply.
 

bullethead

Of the hard cast variety
For those of you keeping score at home, here is the "question count" so far:

What is the point of a forum without questions and answers?

What is the count on posts that are disruptive, disrespectful and have nothing to do with the Original Topic? Do unto others and all that......
 

Michael F. Gray

Senior Member
If you really were seeking answers I'd take the time to make certain you had them in detail. I perceive it's argument you seek. I opt out.
 

TheBishop

Senior Member
If you really were seeking answers I'd take the time to make certain you had them in detail. I perceive it's argument you seek. I opt out.

Why even post? You know you didn't have to right?
 
Top