Thou Shall Not Kill......Unless

TheBishop

Senior Member
Thread starter #61
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?
 

TheBishop

Senior Member
Thread starter #62
If the war is not justified, is the end result government santioned murder?
 

Asath

Senior Member
#63
I suppose that even if the war IS justified the end result is government sanctioned murder. Sometimes the other guys just plain need killin’, so the lawful authorities temporarily suspend that part of the societal ‘morality’ in the name of what they deem to be collective goals. You won’t be prosecuted and sent to jail if you kill the folks they tell you to kill – only if you kill folks they don’t want you to kill.

And in this regard the pious types end up in a conundrum – if they TRULY Believe that all of morality originates in the Biblical dictates, and they TRULY Believe in those dictates, then the mere order of another Man to go and kill other men would be morally abhorrent – there would be NO Believers in the Armed Forces. Their superior, heaven-prescribed morality would forbid it.

But as anyone who has ever been in any branch of Service knows, the Services are heavily Christian.
 

JB0704

Senior Member
#64
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.
No problem here, good topic....

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.
I know it comes across as weak, but I have several reasons:
1. I am a fiscal conservative. Every study available shows that executing a prisoner costs the state a lot more than imprisoning them.
2. A "life without parole" sentence, to me, accomplishes the goal of removing the offender from society. Plus, the risk of executing an innocent is removed.
3. Prison scares me more than death.
4. Religious reasons. Nobody is being protected by an execution. It is an act of vengence. I do not sanction such actions in my name.


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 is tricky ground, but here goes:
National interest is broadly used, and thus, abused. My opinion is that the world is civilized through strength of the various powers. Power is often accomplished through alliances. This being the case, international stability can only be accomplished when friends help each other against aggression. WWII is a primary example of this. It is in the interest of our continual existence to have alliances with other countries. These countries sovereignty was threatened. Through these threats, our sovereignty was threatened, then it was directly attacked. Intervening on the behalf of Europe was in the interest of our survival as a nation....we may not have been able to stand in a world without allies.


It comes to a point were you ask yourself this question: Would you rather sacrifice your WAY of life, or human life??
It's a choice I do not want to make. A "way of life" is not worth a human's life. But life itself is worth defending. If we are attacked by a foreign power wishing to subject us or die, then our "way of life" is worth defending when the alternative is death.

Alligiances take on another form. You are now killing for others, for their way of life, their idology, and their money.
We only defend them when our national sovereignty is at stake and threatened. Do we exist in current form because of the alliance? In the case of Brittain, I say yes. Israel's existence also falls under this category.

Do you think we were justified enough to help in Lybia? Syria?
No. We were not justified in invading Iraq either. We were justified in invading Afghanistan. I also believe our intervention in the first gulf war was justified to the extent that aggression against one's neighbors is discouraged, and through that act, civilization becomes more stable. It's easier to thrive when you are not worried about being invaded.

It's a balance, I think.
 

mtnwoman

Senior Member
#65
Christians here have an easy way out of this (i would think)

Can't you just abandon the 10 commandments? It's old testament stuff, and most OT stuff Christians ignore / say isn't valid anymore.

Why is it easy to ignore not eating shellfish, or stoning disobedient children, but not the 10c?
The '10 commandments' are different than the old covenant laws....ie can't eat pork, stone adulterers,etc.
 

mtnwoman

Senior Member
#66
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:
What if they dodge our questions.....does the same go for them, or does it still just work one way?
 

mtnwoman

Senior Member
#67
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
Because there were no Christians in the OT.....Christianity is about Jesus, Jesus, Jesus.
 

mtnwoman

Senior Member
#68
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.
That's why you have a 0

Because any answer you give is going to be counted as naught. We try for the lurkers, we don't try for the quizzlers.
 

mtnwoman

Senior Member
#69
If the war is not justified, is the end result government santioned murder?
I'm sure many soldiers deem it as murder, especially in wars like vietnam....you must've served in such a war at some time?

edited to add...I mean in hindsight, they've deemed it as murder, not during the war.
 
Last edited:

TheBishop

Senior Member
Thread starter #70
I'm sure many soldiers deem it as murder, especially in wars like vietnam....you must've served in such a war at some time?
No, as much as I dreamed, soldiering was not in the cards for me.
 
Top