# Thou Shall Not Kill......Unless



## TheBishop (Apr 16, 2012)

All this talk about Hitler, and traits of a christian has really got me thinking.  In Mr. Bullets thread "What makes you a christian"  I formed a chain of questioning that was weakly answered at best, and totally ignored by most of the hard core "christians" that visit this sub-forum.  Its ok, they were tough questions that have no real biblical answer, and thus, as some put it, to be avoided by those of faith.  In this thread I will expand on those questions.  They are extremely important becuase they deal with one of the most revered commandments, the 6th "Thou Shall Not Kill."

The reasoning of their importance is to attempt to qualify when this commandment may be ignored.  We know every _type_ of person is guily, wether it be athiest, christian, or jew.  Death has been dealt by all types, and the "evilness" of killing has always been determined by the victor, who is always the author of history. We owe it to ourselves to seek more than that.  As a country at war, sending men and women to kill and be killed it is exremely important that our reasoning be sound doing so. Or else we are as guilty as those who sat back and watched as millions of jew were incinerated. 

So let us begin.

My first act in the prosses was to look at the actual commandment in the bible.  There I found the answer I was actually expecting.  It says plainly though shall not kill. Period. It does not list exceptions, that I could find, if someone more versed in way of the book could do so, please oblige. 

Being a person that places no faith in the book, I would feel that self defense be acceptable.  But to a christian I don't think it could be so easy a distinction.  There are two other "biblical codes" that self defense  would violate aswell as the 6c.  Turn the other cheek, and do unto others.  In matthew it says something along the line of violating the 6c places you in danger of being judged.

So to a christian my question would be why violate 3 biblical codes, one of which would place you in judgement, for the preservation of your earthly mortal life, risking your non-earthly eternal life?

I'll let you guys of the book answer that one. 

Centerpin was kind enough as to offer me another excuse for taking a life.  National Defense.  Which not only still violates what was told above but, in itself, is a broad term.  What is national defense?  Is it the presevation of our economic interest? The preservation of our borders? The preservation of our national Identity? Which nations are justified? Communist? Capitalist? Socialist? The bible makes no distinction.  Can we really justify killing by just saying national defense? I don't think its quite that easy.  

Can killing be justified or only rationalized? 

In my opinion self defense can be the only justification to kill on the individual level.  As a liberatatian isolationist I can only use the defense of _our_ actual liberty and freedom, as a cuase for war.  Which in our history of conflict has alway been the excuse but not the actual reasoning.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 16, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I formed a chain of questioning that was ...



... not meant to seek answers but merely to question for the sake of questioning.  There is no answer that we can provide that you will not respond to with another question.  This is just one example:



TheBishop said:


> So to a christian my question would be why violate 3 biblical codes, one of which would place you in judgement, for the preservation of your earthly mortal life, risking your non-earthly eternal life?
> 
> What is national defense?  Is it the presevation of our economic interest? The preservation of our borders? The preservation of our national Identity? Which nations are justified? Communist? Capitalist? Socialist? The bible makes no distinction.  Can we really justify killing by just saying national defense? I don't think its quite that easy.
> 
> Can killing be justified or only rationalized?



Our responses to these questions coupled with your further questions would generate enough written material to equal a Stephen King novel or a couple dozen Asath posts.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> ... not meant to seek answers but merely to question for the sake of questioning.  There is no answer that we can provide that you will not respond to with another question.  This is just one example:
> 
> 
> 
> Our responses to these questions coupled with your further questions would generate enough written material to equal a Stephen King novel or a couple dozen Asath posts.



Or a reply not meant to answer the question but merely to post for sake of posting.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 16, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> ... not meant to seek answers but merely to question for the sake of questioning.  There is no answer that we can provide that you will not respond to with another question.  This is just one example:
> 
> Not at all.  My questions are to find the _right_ answers.  If the answer leads to another question then it is not a complete answer or the right answer. The right/complete answer exstinguishes the possibility of another question.
> 
> ...



Sounds like fun lets go for it.


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 16, 2012)

I think you need to focus two things.  Focus on who the 10 C's were written to as well as focus on the remaining writings of Moses that expand on the 10 c's.

But...I'm more with CF on this one.  You don't ask to get answers....but rather to further your own thoughts on the subject at hand.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 16, 2012)

The commandment actually refers to premeditated, unjustified killing - murder.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 16, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> The commandment actually refers to premeditated, unjustified killing - murder.



So what is a justified killing? Government sanctioned? Church Sanctioned?


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 16, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> I think you need to focus two things.  Focus on who the 10 C's were written to as well as focus on the remaining writings of Moses that expand on the 10 c's.
> 
> But...I'm more with CF on this one.  You don't ask to get answers....but rather to further your own thoughts on the subject at hand.



See bullethead post # 3.


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 16, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> See bullethead post # 3.



More proof of post #2 and post #5.

There's an answer in my op...you just don't want to have to search to find.  Your lack of desire shows your true motives.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 16, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> More proof of post #2 and post #5.
> 
> There's an answer in my op...you just don't want to have to search to find.  Your lack of desire shows your true motives.



Your deflection speaks volumes.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> I think you need to focus two things.  Focus on who the 10 C's were written to as well as focus on the remaining writings of Moses that expand on the 10 c's.



Outdated laws for ancient people?

Why follow the good book at all then?


----------



## bamaboy (Apr 16, 2012)

*can't argue with stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 16, 2012)

You write this....



TheBishop said:


> I formed a chain of questioning that was weakly answered at best, and totally ignored by most of the hard core "christians" that visit this sub-forum.



Then when someone reply's you write this....



TheBishop said:


> See bullethead post # 3
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Then as a follow up, you continue to dig yourself more into a hole.  



TheBishop said:


> Your deflection speaks volumes.



Really....what answer do you want?  Seems like the answer I gave wasn't good enough because it required more research by you.




bullethead said:


> Outdated laws for ancient people?
> 
> Why follow the good book at all then?



The 10 Cs were written for the Jews....to keep them separate from those that lived around them...along with a few other reasons....but that is the basics.

Christ told the Pharisees what the most important command was....He then followed it up with a close second.  Do those 2 and you'll be fine.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 16, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> Really....what answer do you want?



I want AN answer.  So far all I have gotten is deflection, and for me to go find my own answer.  I want to hear other peoples thoughts. If its says "Thou Shall Not Kill" how we can justify war, especially the ones of late, and the taking of someones life?  

I don't want to hear what Moses said, I want to hear what you THINK!


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 16, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I want AN answer.



I don't disagree with your answer.


TheBishop said:


> In my opinion self defense can be the only justification to kill on the individual level.  As a liberatatian isolationist I can only use the defense of _our_ actual liberty and freedom, as a cuase for war.  Which in our history of conflict has alway been the excuse but not the actual reasoning.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 16, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> I don't disagree with your answer.



It makes the case for our current and recent worldly conflicts very difficult.


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 16, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> The 10 Cs were written for the Jews....to keep them separate from those that lived around them...along with a few other reasons....but that is the basics.
> 
> Christ told the Pharisees what the most important command was....He then followed it up with a close second.  Do those 2 and you'll be fine.



The above is the only proper answer.
The 10 commandments were not intended for anyone living today.  They were written and used in a different period of time for a particular people.

And why would I want to discuss  specific, controversial scripture with a person or group of people who I already know wouldn't accept any single answer I gave them.

If I'm gonna waste time I'll just go take a nap.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 16, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> The above is the only proper answer.
> The 10 commandments were not intended for anyone living today.  They were written and used in a different period of time for a particular people.
> 
> And why would I want to discuss  specific, controversial scripture with a person or group of people who I already know wouldn't accept any single answer I gave them.
> ...



Who in the heck is talking about scripture?  If it is necessary to use, fine use it, but please explain its context.This enire thread is about one commandment. One.    Do you not have any opinion, becuase that is all I'm looking for.

Why even post if this is the only comment you care to make?


----------



## allenww (Apr 16, 2012)

For you and for me, "Thou shalt not kill" means "Thou shalt not kill".

For those appointed to keep order and provide a modicum of safety, it means the care of those who break that commandment, and who therefore have voluntarily placed themselves outside His grace.  There are several books of the Old Testament which indicate what was done to those who place themselves outside
God's directions. 

wa


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 16, 2012)

allenww said:


> For you and for me, "Thou shalt not kill" means "Thou shalt not kill".
> 
> For those appointed to keep order and provide a modicum of safety, it means the care of those who break that commandment, and who therefore have voluntarily placed themselves outside His grace.  There are several books of the Old Testament which indicate what was done to those who place themselves outside
> God's directions.
> ...



So soldiers would be volunteering to place themselves outside gods grace?


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 16, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> So soldiers would be volunteering to place themselves outside gods grace?



I think he worded it in a way that makes it confusing. Any way I read it though, I find it wrong.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 16, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> I think he worded it in a way that makes it confusing. Any way I read it though, I find it wrong.



I found it somewhat confusing myself.


----------



## hummdaddy (Apr 16, 2012)

this is interesting , but nobody wants to play....i think you have them on the ropes for a knock out punch


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 16, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I want AN answer.  So far all I have gotten is deflection, and for me to go find my own answer.  I want to hear other peoples thoughts. If its says "Thou Shall Not Kill" how we can justify war, especially the ones of late, and the taking of someones life?
> 
> I don't want to hear what Moses said, I want to hear what you THINK!



Okay....but as far as the 10 Cs go, I think I answered it already above. 

As many have written in other threads before, you can pull a bunch of verses out of the Bible to make them say whatever you want.  But in the end, context is King.  Know the author, know the audience, know the setting...it makes it much easier to understand.

But...to the original question...the original post...



TheBishop said:


> Can killing be justified or only rationalized?



Justified in the case of self defense and in the case of punishment for certain crimes.

Your stance, btw, would fit in well with the Mennonites.



hummdaddy said:


> this is interesting , but nobody wants to play....i think you have them on the ropes for a knock out punch


----------



## Asath (Apr 16, 2012)

Wait a second – 

Can we rewind?

In Post #4, TheBishop highlighted a previous response by centerpin in red.  Are these centerpin’s words, in red type,  or were they inserted into the post by TheBishop?

(I’m just asking, since it is very confusing and impossible to respond to – once again, this is why I agree that the ‘Quote’ function is not reliable and needs to be either tightened up or abandoned.  Many others have made the same point – if the function allows the options of editing or inserting into the ‘quote,’ then it is not a quote at all, but merely a convenience for the lazy, and a distraction to the other posters, who cannot reliably know just who said what.)

So, that said:

“Focus on who the 10 C's were written to as well as focus on the remaining writings of Moses that expand on the 10 c's.”

“There's an answer in my op...you just don't want to have to search to find.”

So the insistence is that if only one searches hard enough to find something that doesn’t exist, they will then agree?  Nice try, but if you want to assert that there was a person named Moses, and that such a person ever wrote anything at all, you’ll have to prove that by using at least one reliable source other than the OT itself, and that simply can’t be done.  Further, you are deliberately and rather ham-handedly trying to deflect the point to only your own, ignoring it, essentially, instead of confronting it.  

The point is simple – ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill.’   Period.  There is no embroidery around the point, as written in the GOOD BOOK.  Problem is, the same Book had already described the killing of quite a few folks, and most had been killed by the same fella who said not to do that.  Then it goes on to give, in both the OT AND the NT, plenty more killing and plenty of reasons why one MUST.  That too is Commanded.

So FOCUS, less on yourself than on the Book in question.  Search, and YOU will find.

“The 10 Cs were written for the Jews....to keep them separate from those that lived around them...along with a few other reasons....but that is the basics.  Christ told the Pharisees what the most important command was....He then followed it up with a close second. Do those 2 and you'll be fine.”

WOW!  Anyone else want that one?  If not, I’ll understand . . . 

Then THIS!: “The 10 commandments were not intended for anyone living today. They were written and used in a different period of time for a particular people.”

Well then, THAT was easy!  Presumably someone, in some Church someplace, has a NEW set of Commandments that ARE intended for those of us living TODAY.  Wait – Don’t tell me!  Do they start with something like – ‘Thou Shalt Give Thy Money To The Pretenders’?

Then more!  “Justified in the case of  . . . “

Really?  Where the heck in the simple Command was wiggle room for ‘justifications’ left open?  CONTEXT?  Be serious.  Are you actually putting forward the contention that one of the most central bits of ‘moral’ teaching in the Christian Holy Bible was only meant to apply to the ancient Jewish people?

Think harder.  Read the stinking BOOK!  Not long after that feel good part about how thou shalt not kill, Ecclesiastes proposed that there was a ‘time to kill.’  Who did that apply to?

C’mon.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 16, 2012)

The part in red was my response to the first point.


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 16, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> I want AN answer.  So far all I have gotten is deflection, and for me to go find my own answer.  I want to hear other peoples thoughts. If its says "Thou Shall Not Kill" how we can justify war, especially the ones of late, and the taking of someones life?
> 
> I don't want to hear what Moses said, I want to hear what you THINK!



I wouldn't kill anyone, or any animal....would you? And I want AN answer!!


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 16, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> I wouldn't kill anyone, or any animal....would you? And I want AN answer!!



I don't have a problem with the taking of life when necessary.


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 16, 2012)

hummdaddy said:


> this is interesting , but nobody wants to play....i think you have them on the ropes for a knock out punch



Much of the dialogue from the atheist side of the isle make me often wonder if Bill Maher has become a member.
That's why many of us won't get into a lengthy discussion any more than we do.

Your smug comments and caricatures that exaggerate your negative attitudes towards God make us not want to share internet space with you.

I know, I know, you got a comeback now, don't you. We're this, or that, and we're worse than you........ 
It's just not interesting.


----------



## hummdaddy (Apr 17, 2012)

Ronnie T said:


> Much of the dialogue from the atheist side of the isle make me often wonder if Bill Maher has become a member.
> That's why many of us won't get into a lengthy discussion any more than we do.
> 
> Your smug comments and caricatures that exaggerate your negative attitudes towards God make us not want to share internet space with you.
> ...



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


----------



## hobbs27 (Apr 17, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> saying national defense? I don't think its quite that easy.
> 
> Can killing be justified or only rationalized?
> 
> .



If you truly knew God you would know that it cannot be justified or rationalized but it can by the grace of God be forgiven.
Thats all I got to say about that.


----------



## hummdaddy (Apr 17, 2012)

hobbs27 said:


> If you truly knew God you would know that it cannot be justified or rationalized but it can by the grace of God be forgiven.
> Thats all I got to say about that.



so u know him huh ?


----------



## fish hawk (Apr 17, 2012)

hummdaddy said:


> 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



lol!!!


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 17, 2012)

Bishop...just wondering if you saw my reply in post #24.

Not trying to stump you or prove a point, just want to make sure you saw me answering your question.


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 17, 2012)

Asath said:


> Wait a second –
> 
> Can we rewind?
> 
> ...






Hmm...must've been a long winter up your way.


----------



## Four (Apr 17, 2012)

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?


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 17, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> Bishop...just wondering if you saw my reply in post #24.
> 
> Not trying to stump you or prove a point, just want to make sure you saw me answering your question.




I got it. Your willing to risk eternal punishment, ignoring 3 "golden rules" to preserve your worldly life.  Its ok I would do it too. But then again, I don't believe in sin. 

Your answer covered the first part what about a case for war? War is not really self defense, nor are most of the conflicts in which we engage, national defense.  Most of our fights have been about economics , or preserving our way of life.  So how do we reconcile the taking of life in those circumstances?


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 17, 2012)

Four said:


> 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.



Not true.  The OT is still very valid today.

This is and could be a thread in and of itself...but I don't want to digress...nor do I have the time.



TheBishop said:


> I got it. Your willing to risk eternal -darn-ation, ignoring 3 "golden rules" to preserve your worldly life.  Its ok I would do it too. But then again, I don't believe in sin.
> 
> Your answer covered the first part what about a case for war? War is not really self defense, nor are most of the conflicts in which we engage, national defense.  Most of our fights have been about economics , or preserving our way of life.  So how do we reconcile the taking of life in those circumstances?



What 3 "golden rules" am I ignoring in my initial response?

I would disagree to a point that war is not really self defense.  Some is and some isn't.  It really depends on the war.

History will show you though, that there were and are many Christians that were conscientious objectors.  It isn't really a term used anymore today as the draft is no more, but I know of Christians in other countries that have been killed and imprisoned because they wouldn't fight in unjust wars.


----------



## Four (Apr 17, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> Not true.  The OT is still very valid today.
> 
> This is and could be a thread in and of itself...but I don't want to digress...nor do I have the time.



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


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 17, 2012)

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.


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 17, 2012)

Four said:


> 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



I guess my definition of Christianity and yours differ then.

How would we know we needed a savior if we didn't have the OT?

Amazing...that the Ethiopian Eunich was saved in Acts without the NT...amazing that the OT saints mentioned in Hebrews 11 were saved without the NT.

Just because one doesn't mention the OT doesn't mean they regard it as worthless.  That is a big stretch.


----------



## Four (Apr 17, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> I guess my definition of Christianity and yours differ then.
> 
> How would we know we needed a savior if we didn't have the OT?
> 
> ...



I'm just saying any time a negative OT quote is brought up, its swept aside as "oh those were rules for the Jews" or "oh that was from a different time" or "those rules were only in the context of the OT, since Jesus came it's changed"

I don't see what makes the 10c more difficult to do this with than any other OT stuff.


----------



## JB0704 (Apr 17, 2012)

Four said:


> Heck, the whole thread about "what makes you a christian" is filled with jesus jesus jesus, and the OT is never mentioned



Because Christianity is primarily based on the NT.


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 17, 2012)

Four said:


> I'm just saying any time a negative OT quote is brought up, its swept aside as "oh those were rules for the Jews" or "oh that was from a different time" or "those rules were only in the context of the OT, since Jesus came it's changed"
> 
> I don't see what makes the 10c more difficult to do this with than any other OT stuff.



In some cases, the rules were just for the Jews.  

Again, you have to look at context in order to understand the writings.  This is the problem that most non-christians have.  They pull one line or one verse out and rest their unbelief on that one statement.


----------



## Four (Apr 17, 2012)

In order to not derail the conversation, i'm going to stop with the whole "why not ignore the 10c like you do the rest of the OT" topic.


----------



## Ronnie T (Apr 17, 2012)

hummdaddy said:


> 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



I said:  "Your smug comments and caricatures that exaggerate your negative attitudes towards God make us not want to share internet space with you."

My greatest want is to be able to talk and share God with those who are wanting to know as much of Him as I've come to know.  But I cannot, should not, verbally fistfight with anyone who disrespects God and all that God is.
That's a battle I don't care to win......  You do it!


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 17, 2012)

rjcruiser said:


> Not true.  The OT is still very valid today.
> 
> This is and could be a thread in and of itself...but I don't want to digress...nor do I have the time.
> 
> ...



Do unto others, turn the other cheek, and thous shall not kill.  Its ok if disagree with this Im not really interested of personal justification.


What I am interested is the warfare aspect.  I would agree that some wars are national defense in nature, but most are not.   Really looking back to the war of 1812 was the only war were our actual nation was in peril, by an outside force.  

The civil war was about ideology and economics, a war that pitted american christian vs american christian. Vietnam was nothing more than an ideological war, Iraq 1 econmics, Iraq 2 and afganistan ideology, and WWI@II alligiances.  How does one justify killing in those circumstances?  Is killing for money and your way of life acceptable?


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 17, 2012)

For those of you keeping score at home, here is the "question count" so far:




TheBishop said:


> So to a christian my question would be why violate 3 biblical codes, one of which would place you in judgement, for the preservation of your earthly mortal life, risking your non-earthly eternal life?
> 
> What is national defense? Is it the presevation of our economic interest? The preservation of our borders? The preservation of our national Identity?
> 
> ...


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 17, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> Do unto others, turn the other cheek, and thous shall not kill.  Its ok if disagree with this Im not really interested of personal justification.



Did my original response throw those out the window?



			
				TheBishop said:
			
		

> Is killing for money and your way of life acceptable?



No, I don't think so.


----------



## rjcruiser (Apr 17, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> For those of you keeping score at home, here is the "question count" so far:


----------



## TTom (Apr 17, 2012)

Not exactly known as a stanch defender of the Christian Faith to put it mildly. However my study tells me that "Thou Shalt not commit murder" is the closer translation.

As for "justification" of killing in war etc I'll bring forth the words of the Great Bard

"Ay, or more than we should seek after; for we know
enough, if we know we are the kings subjects: if
his cause be wrong, our obedience to the king wipes
the crime of it out of us."

Bates, Henry V, Act IV, Scene 1.

If the war is not justified, the sin of it is not on the soldiers who fight, but on the King. This does not justify wrong doings perpetrated in conjunction but not under orders, nor does it justify specific acts that are war crimes.

Although i am a libertarian I am not at the isolationist level. The idea that WWII would not have come to our shores I find to be feather headed. Do we wait until forces land on our shores before we start to defend ourselves?


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 17, 2012)

For those of you keeping score at home, here is centerpin meaningful response count:

0


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 17, 2012)

TTom said:


> Do we wait until forces land on our shores before we start to defend ourselves?



I don't believe so, but I do think its necessary to qualify the threat, and then respond accordingly. If the threat is imminent, preemption is necessary.  I do not beleive in using our soldiers to try to instill freedom, which cannot be accomplished.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 17, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> For those of you keeping score at home, here is centerpin meaningful response count:
> 
> 0



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.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 17, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> 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.



You must not be very confident in your ability to answer completely.  If you took the time to review other posts you would find that, only the ones that warranted such an question got one. Some there was no need. If I knew how to elicit an opinion without asking a question, then I could avoid those pesky little things.


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 17, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> You must not be very confident in your ability to answer completely.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 17, 2012)

Then why continuously post in a thread with no intention of joining the discussion? Oops.....I'm sorry, theres one of those dastardly questions, that you are so afriad of.  Is there another way to find an aswer? Man did it again...Do us a favor and stop.  Apparently your well thought out, succint, answers are too thought provoking for me. They do nothing but compel me to seek more wisdom from your obvious infinite supply.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 17, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> For those of you keeping score at home, here is the "question count" so far:



What is the point of a forum without questions and answers?

What is the count on posts that are disruptive, disrespectful and have nothing to do with the Original Topic? Do unto others and all that......


----------



## Michael F. Gray (Apr 17, 2012)

If you really were seeking answers I'd take the time to make certain you had them in detail. I perceive it's argument you seek. I opt out.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 17, 2012)

Michael F. Gray said:


> If you really were seeking answers I'd take the time to make certain you had them in detail. I perceive it's argument you seek. I opt out.



Why even post? You know you didn't have to right?


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 17, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> 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).
> ...



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 (Apr 17, 2012)

If the war is not justified, is the end result government santioned murder?


----------



## Asath (Apr 17, 2012)

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 (Apr 17, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> 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....



TheBishop said:


> 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.




TheBishop said:


> 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. 




TheBishop said:


> 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. 



TheBishop said:


> 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.



TheBishop said:


> 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 (Apr 18, 2012)

Four said:


> 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 (Apr 18, 2012)

hummdaddy said:


> 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



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


----------



## mtnwoman (Apr 18, 2012)

Four said:


> 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 (Apr 18, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> 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 (Apr 18, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> 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.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 18, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> 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.


----------

