God Commands You . . .

[sao123]

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

In the beginning, the OT was largely a Holy War. There was a lot of bloodshed and a lot of killing. All of this was done to prepare the way for Christ to come. It wasn't like God's finishing move. God didn't just say, "Well nothing else worked and they aren't responding, time to send in ME" - it was all to prepare the way for the Lord so that all of this might end. That we, as children of God, might be covered by his grace.

-Kevin

So thou shall not kill means nothing if it's a holy war in the name of god right?

murder != kill.

thou shall not kill is not in the bible. it says thou shall not murder.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel
Religion is way too much work. Sodomite gets laid, smokes a cigarette and sleeps like a baby. Religious people OTOH have to come up with justifications/counterpoints/clarifications for their ultra-contradictory ancient relics that they believe to be the untarnished, unquestionable, super-authentic mega-truth. Only every third person that reads the book comes up with their own unique interpretation of it. And of course, it's universally known that the 'Word of God' went through multiple edits and revisions following poor reviews with test audiences and copyright violations but what the hell do us heathens know.

I should really just respond to religion threads with 'lol religion'.

Religion requires no work, and many religious people I have met are some of the happiest , most content people you could ever meet. If you meet a person who has a true belief in religion you will know it right away vs the people that are just fanatics. The people that want to control other people are the ones that have to work.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

In the beginning, the OT was largely a Holy War. There was a lot of bloodshed and a lot of killing. All of this was done to prepare the way for Christ to come. It wasn't like God's finishing move. God didn't just say, "Well nothing else worked and they aren't responding, time to send in ME" - it was all to prepare the way for the Lord so that all of this might end. That we, as children of God, might be covered by his grace.

-Kevin

So thou shall not kill means nothing if it's a holy war in the name of god right?

That is an example of simplifying an argument to an extreme.

I don't recall the verse (I believe it to be in Romans and will check later); however, there are instances in which killing is permitted. When discussing these instances, keep in mind that we are called to "love each other as ourselves".

This is not limited to a holy war. Defending our God given rights would be a perfect example of this (ie: World War I and II). We are not attacking someone or provoking someone for personal gain - we are defending our rights, morals, and defending those who are unable to defend themselves (in WWII, the Jews).

-Kevin

You can't compare WWI or WWII cus those were never called Holy Wars and were not fought in the name of any god. If you really want to get technical about it, Hitler thought he and his Aryan race were chosen by god to rule the world. Was he wrong just cus he was a "bad" guy?

You completely and entirely cherry picked my post.

As for why he was wrong - he was wrong because, even though he claimed to be doing this for God - he ignored ALL the other commandments. There is no least of these commandment - they are all equal. If a person is about to commit some sort of an act because they think it is holy or just, that person must question whether it follows all of Jesus teachings - not just 1 or 2.

Additionally, Christ came to save us. We are all covered by grace as a result. No where in the Bible are we called to persecute or destroy others in God's name - Jesus came and fulfilled the OT scriptures thus negating a need for that. We are called to renounce evil - evil being defined as something against Jesus's teachings.

First off I never claimed that WWI or II were Holy Wars. I said the holy war in the OT was permissible as they were acting on God's call for a variety of reasons (If you want to discuss the reasons, as there are many, we should take it to PM though). I also said that holy war is not the only example of a death/killing that is permissible.

Furthermore, as sao said - the manuscripts are translated "Do not murder". Murder is VERY different than kill.

-Kevin

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

In the beginning, the OT was largely a Holy War. There was a lot of bloodshed and a lot of killing. All of this was done to prepare the way for Christ to come. It wasn't like God's finishing move. God didn't just say, "Well nothing else worked and they aren't responding, time to send in ME" - it was all to prepare the way for the Lord so that all of this might end. That we, as children of God, might be covered by his grace.

-Kevin

So thou shall not kill means nothing if it's a holy war in the name of god right?

murder != kill.

thou shall not kill is not in the bible. it says thou shall not murder.

What's the Hebrew word for "kill"? What's the Hebrew word for "murder"?

What about the same questions for Greek?

In short, you're making a distinction that doesn't exist.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

As for why he was wrong - he was wrong because, even though he claimed to be doing this for God - he ignored ALL the other commandments. There is no least of these commandment - they are all equal.

Then why does Jesus describe a "greatest commandment"?

Furthermore, as sao said - the manuscripts are translated "Do not murder". Murder is VERY different than kill.

Not in the original Hebrew and Greek.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: sandorski
The "Creation" story is clearly a story meant to give an explanation to many things. From where we came from, to why giving Birth hurts(seems pretty obvious to us), and/or why there are things that interfere with our endeavours(Weeds for eg).

Yeah, I don't think pastors are verbose enough on the bible being allegorical or 40% of the country wouldn't think the earth/man is less than 10k yrs old.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: zerocool84

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

In the beginning, the OT was largely a Holy War. There was a lot of bloodshed and a lot of killing. All of this was done to prepare the way for Christ to come. It wasn't like God's finishing move. God didn't just say, "Well nothing else worked and they aren't responding, time to send in ME" - it was all to prepare the way for the Lord so that all of this might end. That we, as children of God, might be covered by his grace.

-Kevin

So thou shall not kill means nothing if it's a holy war in the name of god right?

murder != kill.

thou shall not kill is not in the bible. it says thou shall not murder.

What's the Hebrew word for "kill"? What's the Hebrew word for "murder"?

What about the same questions for Greek?

In short, you're making a distinction that doesn't exist.

the distinction does exist.
Exodus 20:13 is ??? rä·tsakh' it is not ??? nä·kä' nor is it ??? hä·rag'...
Text

Text

Text



The word ?ratsakh? applies only to illegal killing (e.g. murder) ? and is never used for capital punishment or for killing in war. Hence the KJV translation as ?thou shalt not kill? is a very broad definition.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
That is an example of simplifying an argument to an extreme.

I don't recall the verse (I believe it to be in Romans and will check later); however, there are instances in which killing is permitted. When discussing these instances, keep in mind that we are called to "love each other as ourselves".

This is not limited to a holy war. Defending our God given rights would be a perfect example of this (ie: World War I and II). We are not attacking someone or provoking someone for personal gain - we are defending our rights, morals, and defending those who are unable to defend themselves (in WWII, the Jews).

-Kevin

Heh, God-given rights? Is that why we had to spell them out in our legal system?
And these "rights" sure seem to be oppressed VERY easily in much of the world.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Religion requires no work, and many religious people I have met are some of the happiest , most content people you could ever meet. If you meet a person who has a true belief in religion you will know it right away vs the people that are just fanatics. The people that want to control other people are the ones that have to work.

A guy who believes that giant chickens watch over him in his sleep may also be incredibly content. The walls in his room are also probably padded, which helps too.

Originally posted by: sao123
the distinction does exist.
Exodus 20:13 is ??? rä·tsakh' it is not ??? nä·kä' nor is it ??? hä·rag'...
Text

Text

Text



The word ?ratsakh? applies only to illegal killing (e.g. murder) ? and is never used for capital punishment or for killing in war. Hence the KJV translation as ?thou shalt not kill? is a very broad definition.

So who gets to make the distinction as to what "illegal" killing is?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: sao123

the distinction does exist.
Exodus 20:13 is ??? rä·tsakh' it is not ??? nä·kä' nor is it ??? hä·rag'...
Text

Text

Text



The word ?ratsakh? applies only to illegal killing (e.g. murder) ? and is never used for capital punishment or for killing in war. Hence the KJV translation as ?thou shalt not kill? is a very broad definition.

That is totally unsupported by the texts, and even the references you linked. Did you even bother to read them?

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
That is an example of simplifying an argument to an extreme.

I don't recall the verse (I believe it to be in Romans and will check later); however, there are instances in which killing is permitted. When discussing these instances, keep in mind that we are called to "love each other as ourselves".

This is not limited to a holy war. Defending our God given rights would be a perfect example of this (ie: World War I and II). We are not attacking someone or provoking someone for personal gain - we are defending our rights, morals, and defending those who are unable to defend themselves (in WWII, the Jews).

-Kevin

Heh, God-given rights? Is that why we had to spell them out in our legal system?
And these "rights" sure seem to be oppressed VERY easily in much of the world.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Religion requires no work, and many religious people I have met are some of the happiest , most content people you could ever meet. If you meet a person who has a true belief in religion you will know it right away vs the people that are just fanatics. The people that want to control other people are the ones that have to work.

A guy who believes that giant chickens watch over him in his sleep may also be incredibly content. The walls in his room are also probably padded, which helps too.

Originally posted by: sao123
the distinction does exist.
Exodus 20:13 is ??? rä·tsakh' it is not ??? nä·kä' nor is it ??? hä·rag'...
Text

Text

Text



The word ?ratsakh? applies only to illegal killing (e.g. murder) ? and is never used for capital punishment or for killing in war. Hence the KJV translation as ?thou shalt not kill? is a very broad definition.

So who gets to make the distinction as to what "illegal" killing is?

the word illegal is mine...

the actual definition is as follows.
1) to murder, slay, kill
a) (Qal) to murder, slay
1) premeditated
2) accidental
3) as avenger
4) slayer (intentional) (participle)
b) (Niphal) to be slain
c) (Piel)
1) to murder, assassinate
2) murderer, assassin (participle)(subst)
d) (Pual) to be killed


there are several forms of hebrew words for kill, each with its own definition of what it includes. compare to:


1) to strike, smite, hit, beat, slay, kill
a) (Niphal) to be stricken or smitten
b) (Pual) to be stricken or smitten
c) (Hiphil)
1) to smite, strike, beat, scourge, clap, applaud, give a thrust
2) to smite, kill, slay (man or beast)
3) to smite, attack, attack and destroy, conquer, subjugate, ravage
4) to smite, chastise, send judgment upon, punish, destroy
d) (Hophal) to be smitten
1) to receive a blow
2) to be wounded
3) to be beaten
4) to be (fatally) smitten, be killed, be slain
5) to be attacked and captured
6) to be smitten (with disease)
7) to be blighted (of plants)

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Cerpin Taxt

Originally posted by: sao123

the distinction does exist.
Exodus 20:13 is ??? rä·tsakh' it is not ??? nä·kä' nor is it ??? hä·rag'...
Text

Text

Text



The word ?ratsakh? applies only to illegal killing (e.g. murder) ? and is never used for capital punishment or for killing in war. Hence the KJV translation as ?thou shalt not kill? is a very broad definition.

That is totally unsupported by the texts, and even the references you linked. Did you even bother to read them?

it is completely supported by the texts.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Then why does Jesus describe a "greatest commandment"?

If we love one another as Christ as loved us, then we should be fulfilling all the other commandments in turn. Thus it is the greatest in the sense that "love" is embodied in every commandment.

-Kevin

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Then why does Jesus describe a "greatest commandment"?

If we love one another as Christ as loved us, then we should be fulfilling all the other commandments in turn. Thus it is the greatest in the sense that "love" is embodied in every commandment.

-Kevin

Except according to Christ, the greatest commandment isn't to love each other, it's to love God.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Then why does Jesus describe a "greatest commandment"?

If we love one another as Christ as loved us, then we should be fulfilling all the other commandments in turn. Thus it is the greatest in the sense that "love" is embodied in every commandment.

-Kevin

Except according to Christ, the greatest commandment isn't to love each other, it's to love God.

If you love God and follow his commandments then all of this falls into place. I don't understand why you are arguing my syntax/semantics.

-Kevin

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

Then why does Jesus describe a "greatest commandment"?

If we love one another as Christ as loved us, then we should be fulfilling all the other commandments in turn. Thus it is the greatest in the sense that "love" is embodied in every commandment.

-Kevin

Except according to Christ, the greatest commandment isn't to love each other, it's to love God.

If you love God and follow his commandments then all of this falls into place. I don't understand why you are arguing my syntax/semantics.

-Kevin

It's telling that you find a stab at the very crux of the issue a mere semantic quibble. Jesus makes it very clear: you're responsible to God first, your fellow man second.

28And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
29And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
30And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

You may equate the two. Perhaps obedience and love toward God and love toward your fellow man are the same thing. But what if he changes his mind? He's done it before.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
So who gets to make the distinction as to what "illegal" killing is?

An old man wearing a funny hat.

 

[Gamingphreek]

You may equate the two. Perhaps obedience and love toward God and love toward your fellow man are the same thing. But what if he changes his mind? He's done it before.

Assuming you are referring to God, when has he "changed his 'mind'"?

It's telling that you find a stab at the very crux of the issue a mere semantic quibble. Jesus makes it very clear: you're responsible to God first, your fellow man second.

God is Love. It is intertwined with loving your neighbor. If you are not loving Christ, then you are not loving your neighbor - you can't have 1 without the other.

-Kevin

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: JS80
This guy is interpreting the Bible like how Nancy Pelosi interprets the Constitution.

One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." (NIV, Mark 12:28-31).

He's probably a left wing atheist troll trying to make Christianity look bad.
/tin foil hat

#1. No one other than Christians can make Christianity look bad. This is a perfect example of that.

#2. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, Nancy Pelosi is in the part that CHANGES it. The closest Christian body resembling TSCOUS is the Pope, and I doubt that any evangelical Protestant is going to subscribe to anything he has to say under the rubric of representing "God". According to "Christians" they cannot change "The Word".
Your comparison fails.
As does that Serpant of Evil in the guise of The Lamb.

No one who decries the acts of The Taliban in the East can remain silent as these Western religious extremists echo the Taliban's intolerance of secular society here in The West.

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: FeuerFrei
[
I find it interesting that they cut off the quote about how to stop sodomy. Methinks homo-lovers are putting words in his mouth, like they usually do. Stop the fear-mongering and applaud the guy for taking a stand against wickedness.

Funny how people that hate ascribe hatred to the motivations of others. Gets to the point where anyone expressing disapproval or exposing a threat is considered 'hating.' How messed up is that?

There is no idealogical difference between you and The Taliban. You are both each sides of the same HATE coin.
The only wickedness is your hate of others.

 

[Gamingphreek]

AlienCraft -I would urge you (with regards to your "#1") not to judge a faith by the group of people following. As I have said before, humans are imperfect - you can't judge a perfect faith by the actions of imperfect people.

Christians (though many don't) acknowledge that they are imperfect and that they screw up every day, but they promise they will continue to try and remain perfect in God's eyes.

As for #2, I don't want to talk about politics in this thread. Christians cannot change the Word - there is no wiggle room there. The Pope is a different matter entirely though.

There is no idealogical difference between you and The Taliban. You are both each sides of the same HATE coin.
The only wickedness is your hate of others.

And this does not embody Christ's love as you so eloquently pointed out . As I said earlier, we are called to love our neighbors -- clearly this "Pastor" is severely misguided and has twisted God's Word to fit his personal agenda. Again, I hope you don't use this, or people like this, to form your opinion of Christianity.

-Kevin

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
And this does not embody Christ's love as you so eloquently pointed out . As I said earlier, we are called to love our neighbors -- clearly this "Pastor" is severely misguided and has twisted God's Word to fit his personal agenda. Again, I hope you don't use this, or people like this, to form your opinion of Christianity.

-Kevin

I really don't see how you expect someones opinion of a religion not to be influenced by the followers of that religion.

 

[DangerAardvark]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

You may equate the two. Perhaps obedience and love toward God and love toward your fellow man are the same thing. But what if he changes his mind? He's done it before.

Assuming you are referring to God, when has he "changed his 'mind'"?

It's telling that you find a stab at the very crux of the issue a mere semantic quibble. Jesus makes it very clear: you're responsible to God first, your fellow man second.

God is Love. It is intertwined with loving your neighbor. If you are not loving Christ, then you are not loving your neighbor - you can't have 1 without the other.

-Kevin

What an astoundingly silly question. You seriously can't think of a single action or command in the Bible, by God, that was later contradicted or abrogated in some way? Remind me not to eat shellfish around you.

 

[zerocool84]

If God is so great then why does he kill people before they're even given a choice to do anything? Why does he still kill people that have followed him in every single way? Why do people think God only saves? He obviously surely kills as well. I don't understand people that will thank god for saving them from cancer when he's the one who gave it to them.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek

You may equate the two. Perhaps obedience and love toward God and love toward your fellow man are the same thing. But what if he changes his mind? He's done it before.

Assuming you are referring to God, when has he "changed his 'mind'"?

It's telling that you find a stab at the very crux of the issue a mere semantic quibble. Jesus makes it very clear: you're responsible to God first, your fellow man second.

God is Love. It is intertwined with loving your neighbor. If you are not loving Christ, then you are not loving your neighbor - you can't have 1 without the other.

-Kevin

What an astoundingly silly question. You seriously can't think of a single action or command in the Bible, by God, that was later contradicted or abrogated in some way? Remind me not to eat shellfish around you.

That wasn't changed - it was a covenant that was fulfilled by Christ when we died.

I really don't see how you expect someones opinion of a religion not to be influenced by the followers of that religion.

Suppose a political leader was just accused of the most heinous crime imaginable, does that mean that political party and everyone who supports it condone that act?

If God is so great then why does he kill people before they're even given a choice to do anything? Why does he still kill people that have followed him in every single way? Why do people think God only saves? He obviously surely kills as well. I don't understand people that will thank god for saving them from cancer when he's the one who gave it to them.

God doesn't kill/smite people. God doesn't "give" people cancer. You need to look past the sorrow and look at what good has come from it. The sorrow and destruction are caused by the devil, Christ works miracles through that.

September 11 is a perfect example. The devil brought horror and tragedy upon the US. What came out of it; however, was incredible/miraculous acts of courage, bravery, and compassion. What came out of it was a nation unified (at least for a short period of time) in such a way that staggers the imagination.

The same goes for the April 16 tragedy at my school, Virginia Tech. The devil literally wreaked havoc on this campus. I was comforting friends whose grief seemed endless. I was responding loved ones and friends I hadn't spoken to in ages to tell them I was ok.

The devil thought he could tear this campus apart with that. Once again, what he got was compassion, love, and unity afterwards.

-Kevin

 

[TridenT]

Gotta love some good ol' gospel. Mm-hmm.