[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

What the passage really means is don't kill anyone unless your master tells you to.

Self defence is also an accepted reason to kill and in English law that meant free men had a right to defend themselves in their persons and in their homes even against royal officers...a point of law that still stands in the USA. Under rabbinic or Mosaic law Jews had a right to defend themselves from the avarices of their rulers and even King David was held to account for his misdeeds.

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

What the passage really means is don't kill anyone unless your master tells you to.

Self defence is also an accepted reason to kill and in English law that meant free men had a right to defend themselves in their persons and in their homes even against royal officers...a point of law that still stands in the USA. Under rabbinic or Mosaic law Jews had a right to defend themselves from the avarices of their rulers and even King David was held to account for his misdeeds.

Think the Amish interpret the bible to say killing is acceptable? to me you are simply trying to justify your actions and beliefs using the bible rather then trying to live your life by it. No different then the other religions you rail against in my opinion.

[BartSimpson]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Think the Amish interpret the bible to say killing is acceptable? to me you are simply trying to justify your actions and beliefs using the bible rather then trying to live your life by it. No different then the other religions you rail against in my opinion.

Considering the venom and bile you typically pour on Christians and Bible I'd appreciate it if you would not use Christians or the Bible to justify your arguments when you find it convenient.

[DerbyX]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Think the Amish interpret the bible to say killing is acceptable? to me you are simply trying to justify your actions and beliefs using the bible rather then trying to live your life by it. No different then the other religions you rail against in my opinion.

Considering the venom and bile you typically pour on Christians and Bible I'd appreciate it if you would not use Christians or the Bible to justify your arguments when you find it convenient.

First off your hypocrisy on religion is astounding. Don't ever presume to tell me what I can and cannot say about your religion when you spew genocidal beliefs about another. Don't do it again, period.

Second, my point was entirely that your belief is nothing more then an interpretation and that the Amish, christians of whom I have respect for, would say otherwise.

Third, I have no reason to ever have anything good to say about the bible. If you've ever actually read it you would see that its as rotten a document as the koran or torah. Its simply filled with all kinds of hate and atrocities and all of it it justified .

Forth, those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Don't want your religion or actions judged? Then STFU about others.

'nuff said.

[2Cdo]

DerbyX DerbyX:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Think the Amish interpret the bible to say killing is acceptable? to me you are simply trying to justify your actions and beliefs using the bible rather then trying to live your life by it. No different then the other religions you rail against in my opinion.

Considering the venom and bile you typically pour on Christians and Bible I'd appreciate it if you would not use Christians or the Bible to justify your arguments when you find it convenient.

First off your hypocrisy on religion is astounding. Don't ever presume to tell me what I can and cannot say about your religion when you spew genocidal beliefs about another. Don't do it again, period.

Second, my point was entirely that your belief is nothing more then an interpretation and that the Amish, christians of whom I have respect for, would say otherwise.

Third, I have no reason to ever have anything good to say about the bible. If you've ever actually read it you would see that its as rotten a document as the koran or torah. Its simply filled with all kinds of hate and atrocities and all of it it justified .

Forth, those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Don't want your religion or actions judged? Then STFU about others.

'nuff said.

Your post reads like an autobiography.

[BartSimpson]

DerbyX DerbyX:

First off your hypocrisy on religion is astounding. Don't ever presume to tell me what I can and cannot say about your religion when you spew genocidal beliefs about another. Don't do it again, period.

Make me.

[DerbyX]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Your post reads like an autobiography.

You let me know when I post anything as violent as some of the shit you guys post about muslims.

I don't advocate nuking their countries or killing them because of their religion.

Pity you can't say the same.

[HyperionTheEvil]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DerbyX DerbyX:

Think the Amish interpret the bible to say killing is acceptable? to me you are simply trying to justify your actions and beliefs using the bible rather then trying to live your life by it. No different then the other religions you rail against in my opinion.

Considering the venom and bile you typically pour on Christians and Bible I'd appreciate it if you would not use Christians or the Bible to justify your arguments when you find it convenient.

Considering the bible amongst others is worthless as a historical and ethical document he's completely justified in challenging it's writings.

[HyperionTheEvil]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

What the passage really means is don't kill anyone unless your master tells you to.

Self defence is also an accepted reason to kill and in English law that meant free men had a right to defend themselves in their persons and in their homes even against royal officers...a point of law that still stands in the USA. Under rabbinic or Mosaic law Jews had a right to defend themselves from the avarices of their rulers and even King David was held to account for his misdeeds.

The question the becomes who can interpret what from any religious text. currently people can extrapolate anything they want for religious justification. Christians do it, Muslims do it, Scientologists do it.

That's the problem with religious texts

In essence people can and do say "I can do this because (insert fictional deity here) told me i can"

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Self defence is also an accepted reason to kill and in English law that meant free men had a right to defend themselves in their persons and in their homes even against royal officers...a point of law that still stands in the USA. Under rabbinic or Mosaic law Jews had a right to defend themselves from the avarices of their rulers and even King David was held to account for his misdeeds.

Exactly--self-defence is allowed by law. Murder is a legal, not a religious, term. So by saying "Thou shalt not murder" it is saying "Thou shalt not kill without authority from the state."

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Self defence is also an accepted reason to kill and in English law that meant free men had a right to defend themselves in their persons and in their homes even against royal officers...a point of law that still stands in the USA. Under rabbinic or Mosaic law Jews had a right to defend themselves from the avarices of their rulers and even King David was held to account for his misdeeds.

Exactly--self-defence is allowed by law. Murder is a legal, not a religious, term. So by saying "Thou shalt not murder" it is saying "Thou shalt not kill without authority from the state."

Murder is still murder even in the absence of a state authority. And self-defense, even in jurisdictions where the state denies people their basic right to exist, is not murder no matter how much f*cktards with government titles wish it to be. Oh, and murder by the state is still murder.

As my old tagline on FreeRepublic used to say, "The Holocaust was perfectly legal."

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Murder is still murder even in the absence of a state authority. And self-defense, even in jurisdictions where the state denies people their basic right to exist, is not murder no matter how much f*cktards with government titles wish it to be. Oh, and murder by the state is still murder.

As my old tagline on FreeRepublic used to say, "The Holocaust was perfectly legal."

If not the state (i.e. the law), who then decides when it is right to kill, and when it is wrong? Does the individual decide? By that measure, the Son of Sam didn't break any commandments--he believed completely that what he was doing was right. Does God decide? If so, then I guess we have to wait until we die to find out if the killing we've done is "murder" or not.

Of course, I understand that as a Christian you ascribe to a theory of absolute morality that exists independent of the human experience. I, on the other hand, believe that morals are relative. (I also don't believe that there is any basic right to exist, or that there are any rights at all, outside of the rights granted by the state.)

From my point of view, had the Germans won the war, the Holocaust would still be perfectly legal. It was made illegal not by the activity itself, but by the fact that they lost the war. The losers of a war are always war criminals; the winners never.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Of course, I understand that as a Christian you ascribe to a theory of absolute morality that exists independent of the human experience. I, on the other hand, believe that morals are relative.

Morals that are 'relative' lead to laws and ethics that are similarly 'relative' and anything is justifiable when you simply redefine morality to allow whatever you wish to allow.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

(I also don't believe that there is any basic right to exist, or that there are any rights at all, outside of the rights granted by the state.)

And right there is the fundamental reason why Canadians tend to have a hard time understanding Americans. You think your rights are a grant from your benevolent rulers while we see rights as something that are inherently ours and we delegate certain of those rights to our government. The remainder of those rights are reserved for the people or to the states.

The difference being that in our understanding the state has no authority to take away that which has not been delegated to it. In your understanding the state has every authority to take away rights which originated with the state and that have been granted to you for the time being.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

From my point of view, had the Germans won the war, the Holocaust would still be perfectly legal.

Of course.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

It was made illegal not by the activity itself, but by the fact that they lost the war. The losers of a war are always war criminals; the winners never.

Actually, the Holocaust was never deemed illegal. While individuals were found guilty of war crimes the great crime of the Holocaust was never actually found to be a crime.

[uwish]

I think God and religion is man's invention and Jesus was really just a good motivational speaker.

I take the Christopher Hitchens point of view on most things "god" and "religion" related.

[Gunnair]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Murder is still murder even in the absence of a state authority. And self-defense, even in jurisdictions where the state denies people their basic right to exist, is not murder no matter how much f*cktards with government titles wish it to be. Oh, and murder by the state is still murder.

As my old tagline on FreeRepublic used to say, "The Holocaust was perfectly legal."

There's the rub, really. Murder vice killing - that is where we see theological obfuscation at its best. A semantics debate on how best to justify and condemn the taking of a life made in the image of God. Because really, that's what it comes down to - taking a human life, something deemed a wondrous gift from the creator. Something that causes so much ire if it's a fetus, but not so much if it's say, the target of a predator missile, which certainly seems to defy that whole, "hate the sin but love the sinner" concept.

That's what disturbs me most about the big two - that ability to wobble back in forth in the moral and ethical ideology, wandering between the conflicting messages of love and religious tyranny in the Bible in order to cherry pick what is right and wrong. Most bibles say "Thou shalt not kill" - yet of course, many will quickly say,

"Here's what it really means..."

yet, that's not what it says. I can't find any King James bible that says, "Thou shalt not kill.. except for the following situations...."

Is that because they don't want the common many making those distinctions? Is it only the state that can determine when killing is justifiable and if that were the case (as it seems to be) how does the state rationalize it's relationship with God in order to do this?