• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Thou shall not kill

Can you kill in the name of GOD?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 4 25.0%
  • No.

    Votes: 8 50.0%
  • Under extreme circumstances - Yes; Generally - No.

    Votes: 4 25.0%

  • Total voters
    16

Billo_Really

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2005
Messages
18,930
Reaction score
1,040
Location
HBCA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I'm starting this thread to argue the points that:
  • Jihad is a myth
  • You cannot kill in the name of GOD
  • You do not have GOD's blessing when you choose to take a life
  • Bullshit Christians are just as evil as Islamic Fascists
  • Many people mis-interpret the Bible for selfish reason's
So my basic premise is...

YOU CANNOT BE FOR WAR AND FOR GOD!

IT IS EITHER ONE OR THE OTHER!

NOT BOTH AT THE SAME TIME!
...and if you think God approves of war and he killing of his children, by all means, go for it homie!

State your case...
 

Just one thing to point out;
The actual translation is closer to murder than kill.

However, like English, Hebrew, the language in which most of the Old Testament was written, uses different words for intentional vs. unintentional killing. The verse translated "Thou shalt not kill" in the KJV translation, is translated "You shall not murder" in modern translations - because these translations represents the real meaning of the Hebrew text. The Bible in Basic English translates the phrase, "Do not put anyone to death without cause." The Hebrew word used here is ratsach, which nearly always refers to intentional killing without cause (unless indicated otherwise by context). Hebrew law recognized accidental killing as not punishable. In fact, specific cities were designated as "cities of refuge," so that an unintentional killer could flee to escape retribution. The Hebrew word for "kill" in this instance is not ratsach, but nakah, which can refer to either premeditated or unintentional killing, depending upon context. Other Hebrew words also can refer to killing. The punishment for murder was the death sentence. However, to be convicted, there needed to be at least two eyewitnesses.
 
You stated your case very well. It is also a valid one and I do see your point. Albeit, I do not agree with your conclusion.

How do you then rationalize HIS message:
"vengence is MINE sayeth the Lord".

Which is pretty clear to me, it is only with HIS hand, that a life can be taken.
 

That does not mean that HE Himself ahs to exact the vengence but has to authorize it. There are several places in the Bible where he tell Israel to completely wipe its enemies off the earth.
 
Ecclesiastes
Chapter 3

1 There is an appointed time for everything, and a time for every affair under the heavens.
2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to uproot the plant.
3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to tear down, and a time to build.
4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance.
5 A time to scatter stones, and a time to gather them; a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embraces.
6 A time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away.
7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to be silent, and a time to speak.
8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.



Catechism of the Catholic Church
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.



Christians believe that "Blessed are the peacemakers.." but there may be a "time for war." God doesn't want his followers to be warmongers or doormats. Believers are called to Justice--not only for themselves, but also for their enemies. "Love your enemies, bless them that persecute you." But..."do not be afraid."

Ephesians
Chapter 6

10 Finally, draw your strength from the Lord and from his mighty power.
11 Put on the armor of God so that you may be able to stand firm against the tactics of the devil.
12 For our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens.
13 Therefore, put on the armor of God, that you may be able to resist on the evil day and, having done everything, to hold your ground.
14 So stand fast with your loins girded in truth, clothed with righteousness as a breastplate,
15 and your feet shod in readiness for the gospel of peace.
16 In all circumstances, hold faith as a shield, to quench all (the) flaming arrows of the evil one.
17 And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
 
Originally posted by AYFR
That does not mean that HE Himself ahs to exact the vengence but has to authorize it. There are several places in the Bible where he tell Israel to completely wipe its enemies off the earth.
I can't specifically comment on those "places" unless you give me one as an example. But my whole point is that far too many people try to extract out things from the Bible that are nothing more than mis-interpretations of the message HE is trying to deliver.

Vengence is HIS, and only HIS. Not ours.

Come Judgement Day HE is not going to ask for a little help.
 

One problem with all of this.

So you can't say Jihad is a myth and it's wrong for Islamic Fascists to kill in the name of god because the Christian or Jewish holy books say you can't kill. Islam doesn't follow Christian or Jewish laws, which the Old and New Testament is.
 
I think all religions are talking about the same GUY. And HE will not bless a holy war, regime change war, war of aggression, war on terror, etc.

That's not what HE's about.
 
I think all religions are talking about the same GUY. And HE will not bless a holy war, regime change war, war of aggression, war on terror, etc.

That's not what HE's about.
He doesn't have to bless war itself. But thankfully he blesses those who are fighting and in harms way. He blesses those who are at war for the greater good.
 
Originally posted by CurrentAffairs:
He doesn't have to bless war itself. But thankfully he blesses those who are fighting and in harms way. He blesses those who are at war for the greater good.
I'm sorry, but if you choose war, you do not choose GOD!
 
I'm sorry, but if you choose war, you do not choose GOD!
1 Samuel 15: 1-3
1Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.

2Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.

3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***.


).
What does the Bible say about war?
 
I think all religions are talking about the same GUY. And HE will not bless a holy war, regime change war, war of aggression, war on terror, etc.

That's not what HE's about.

According to the New testament that is not what HE's about. In other religions and more specifically in the Old Testament he is all about war.
 
Originally posted by Gibberish:
According to the New testament that is not what HE's about. In other religions and more specifically in the Old Testament he is all about war.
You are lying to yourself if you think that. GOD is not about war. That entire Bible has one, and only one message, and it is only one word.........LOVE! That's the entire message of the Bible. And that's what he's about.

BTW, do you know what the opposite of love is?

It's not "hate!"
 
Originally posted by AYFR
The Hebrew word literally means “the intentional, premeditated killing of another person with malice.”
According to this definition, HE would not approve of the Iraq war.

You can write the equivelant of War and Peace and it still won't change the fact that he is against war. The one thing GOD cannot do, is contradict himself. If you choose to take a life, you don't have HIS blessing. If he was into war, then why wasn't Jesus more like Walker, Texas Ranger? Why was his last breath that of "forgiveness". Why does HE say love thy enemy? Thou shall not kill. Vengence is mine.

I believe in karma. I know two people in my family that did some very bad things that resulted in someone dying. And their both dead now because of cancer related injuries that came to light after their dispicable acts. I believe that was a message from GOD saying to them, "You ought not have done that. Time to pay your union dues".

Only HE can take a life.
 
Like I said it before it is not Thou Shalt not Kill it is Thou Shalt not Murder.
Also if he is against war then why did he send the Israelites to fight other people?
It says :
Ecclesiastes 3
A Time for Everything
1 For everything there is a season,
a time for every activity under heaven.
2 A time to be born and a time to die.
A time to plant and a time to harvest.
3 A time to kill and a time to heal.
A time to tear down and a time to build up.
4 A time to cry and a time to laugh.
A time to grieve and a time to dance.
5 A time to scatter stones and a time to gather stones.
A time to embrace and a time to turn away.
6 A time to search and a time to quit searching.
A time to keep and a time to throw away.
7 A time to tear and a time to mend.
A time to be quiet and a time to speak.
8 A time to love and a time to hate.
A time for war and a time for peace.
 
You do realize that the Bible was written by man? And it is their interpretation of HIS teachings we are reading. With that being said, there is a difference between HIM deciding to war and man deciding to war. I'm talking way back in ancient history. Because HE said after HE brought all the rains and drowned all the bad folk, that HE would never do that again. I'll take HIM at HIS word. And ever since then, he's been against war.

I don't think HE even cared for it before the rains.

Bottom line is HE does not condone the wilful taking of a life.
 
This says it better than I ever could...
 
You seem to forget that in Revelation there are two big wars. And one is Armageddon which is required for Christ's Second coming. if he was so against war wouldn't he have let his son come back peacefully?
Also saying that the Bible was written by man is a weak excuse. You use the Bible to prove what you are saying but when I do it it's wrong. That's kind of hypocritical don't ya think.
Either the whole bible was written by man and is all wrong of it is inspired by God and is right. I choose the latter.
 
I was trying to explain the context of those passages and how they relate to the premise of this thread. But I do understand your point about hypocrisy. And it is a valid point. Albeit, one I don't agree with.
 

I'm not saying "he" is. I don't think "he" is about war at all. War is based off of ignorance and arrogance, which is not a godly quality. According to the bible he is about war, and according to Christianity the bible is the word of god. If you don't believe the bible is the word of God then you are more of a spiritual person then a religious one, in which you can freely create your own belief system. By doing this I am unable to debate with you on this topic simply because I do not know what you do and do not believe in.

The only problem I have with your statements is that you are trying to pass your personal opinion of God as blatant fact. Even though I agree about the war thing I will disagree with your statements on it because they are your specific opinions.

Hate is not the opposite of Love as they share many of the same qualities. I would say being completely ignorant would be the opposite of love, showing no sign of interest at all.
 
You're absolutely right and that is exactly what I'm doing.

For the record, I was raised a Catholic, did time as an alter boy, was Confirmed, have attended approximately 400-500 masses in my life and have survived Parochial school. I think the Bible is a lesson in logic and morality. The principles makes sense. The Ten Commandments make sense. That is the way one should treat people. I like the analogy of the two rooms Jesus takes this guy too. One full of people sitting around a pot of food and they were in total misery. For they had forks that were long enough to reach the pot, but they were too long to turn around and reach their mouth once they got the food. Then they go into the next room, a pot of food in the center, same forks, a group of people just having the time of their lives. Laughing, joking, stuffed to the gills with food.

What's the difference between the two rooms? Why have the same situation in both rooms and have two completely opposite results?
 
What's the difference between the two rooms? Why have the same situation in both rooms and have two completely opposite results?

Obviously the people in the second room learned to feed each other instead of only trying to feed themselves. The ones in the first were so preoccupied with their own self view that they fail to see if they work with the others around them everyone would get fed.
 
Now if we could just do that in Darfur.
 
Billo, I have a hard time discerning if you are really curious to this answer, or if it is just a subversive way to be critical of the war in Iraq, and the Bush Admin. You raise a good question, but you throw in Darfur, and the War in Iraq as arguing points for your side.......
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…