McBell
Unbound
Ah, so the commandment should really read: "thou shalt not kill unless I tell you to"...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
He is Risen - The Evidence
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
1. The existence of the supernatural in reality.
He's commanding people to not kill . He also did command to kill . Both times he commanded it . In context
I think its pretty straightforward. He commanded Abraham to offer up his son .
McBell
Unbound
So, is that a "yes"?
There's nothing right about a person randomly killing a Person. But God commanded killing in the OT to execute his Judgment on wicked people .
No, that's not correct.
Thou shalt not kill is part of the Decalogue. It's supposed to be words to live by, the top drawer of the rules.
Whereas the slaughter of populations for its own sake, apart from being a moral abomination, is also a breach of that commandment.
I have no affection for people (or their gods) who think the slaughter of populations is a good thing.
What's your own view on that?
Yes if you don't believe God exists and believe they killed ,because they imagined / Thought / said God told them to do it . I see your point .
Are not people killed for killing . Hanging , electric Chair , lethal injection ect ?
But as for the bible ,I believe its wrong to take life but not wrong for God who created life to take life and or command others to act his Judgment in a specific Context.
I don't believe Abraham was going against Gods commands to offer up Issac . God commanded him to do it .If Abraham had offered up issac on the alter without the Command of God to do so ,then he would be wrong of course to have done so . Ordinarly eating fruit off trees was ok ,but then there was this specific tree where God commanded Adam not to eat from .
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Or one is hallucinating. Why couldn't Paul have been simply seeing things?
Have you ever looked at his "Road to Damascus" story? Are you aware of the truck sized hole in it?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Okay, on a more serious note:
"Thou shalt not kill" is sometimes said to be an inexact translation. Thou shalt not murder is said to be more accurate, but less poetic. Here is just one of many articles that point out that the original Hebrew word is best translated as "murder":
“Thou shalt not kill” vs. “Thou shalt not murder”
My own view has nothing to do with this particular point.
Let me draw your attention to your own text:
Deuteronomy 7:1-2 “When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations ... then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy." (This is repeated 20:16)
How does it come about that I know these things and you don't? Don't you read what your own text says?
So you think massacre of innocent populations is fine if God says so?
And no doubt when [he] orders invasive wars, mass rapes, other massacres, murderous religious intolerance, human sacrifices, rules for slavery, women as property, well, that's all cool with you because God said so.
I think all those things are unambiguously morally objectionable. Have you no moral sense of your own?
But, the battle having been fought and won, is not the killing of surviving men women and children on the defeated side, in collective case a massacre, in each case a murder?
That would be 'sins ' I think the bible covers that . Judgement day , ect . God Judged Adams sin and look what happened then . Then God Judged in the time of Noah Literally only 8 people survived that..Then there's the Judgement to come . What happened with Israel was with Israel .
Yes, sins indeed, even though God ordered all of them (according to the bible).
No, 'Adam's sin' is no sin at all ─ and as I endlessly point out to you, nowhere in the Garden story is 'sin' ─ let alone 'original sin' ─ let alone 'the fall of man' ─ EVER mentioned. They're all later inventions, tales that the Christians have embraced and tried to retrofit.
Last edited:
Wrong again. According to you bible, they did recognized him, hence the claim that Jesus was resurrected.
Now let's look at some bible verses where people recognized Jesus.
John 20
16 Jesus said to her, “Mary.”
She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher”).
17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
18 Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them that he had said these things to her.
19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
There you have it. According to the bible, they did recognize Jesus. Or are you trying to say that Jesus wasn't God, their Lord. Basically, your argument would mean that there are no evidence to support that Jesus was resurrected since the one that they were referring to was not Jesus.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
They are going to special plead that since God okayed it, it is not. Me? I agree with you on that one. Once you have defeated an enemy killing anyone else, male children or nonvirgin females, is murder.
And of course taking those females that were virgin into custody was kidnapping, rapes, and often child rape.