It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is it OK to murder in the name of God?

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Seapeople says:

"I disagree, there is no seperation of murder and killing used in regards to anything except battle. If you are not in an actual battle for "the lord", then their is no distinction between murder and killing."

No. Valhall is correct in this instance. Up until the late 17th century, the English language had a very clear differentiation between "kill" and "slay" (they also used the word "murder", but was spelled "murther" and meant more of assassination, but I digress...).

The word "kill" in English at the time the KJV was written meant murder as we think of it today. It did not mean "kill in battle", "kill in self-defense or defense of honor", or "kill by order of the state", i.e., execution for a crime.

All of the aforementioned exceptions used the word "slay".

Had the authors of the KJV meant that you should not take anyone's life, they would have probably written something like "Thou shalt not kill, neither shalt thou slay."

Remember, the English language has gone through some dramatic shifts in meaning; the shift from Early Modern English (the language of Shakespeare, Marlowe, and the KJV) to present-day English, while not as drastic as the linguistic shifts in the 13th and 14th centuries, were nonetheless significant, as the ongoing confusion about the word "kill" in the Bible attests.




posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Seapeople says:

"I disagree, there is no seperation of murder and killing used in regards to anything except battle. If you are not in an actual battle for "the lord", then their is no distinction between murder and killing."

No. Valhall is correct in this instance. Up until the late 17th century, the English language had a very clear differentiation between "kill" and "slay" (they also used the word "murder", but was spelled "murther" and meant more of assassination, but I digress...).

The word "kill" in English at the time the KJV was written meant murder as we think of it today. It did not mean "kill in battle", "kill in self-defense or defense of honor", or "kill by order of the state", i.e., execution for a crime.

All of the aforementioned exceptions used the word "slay".

Had the authors of the KJV meant that you should not take anyone's life, they would have probably written something like "Thou shalt not kill, neither shalt thou slay."

Remember, the English language has gone through some dramatic shifts in meaning; the shift from Early Modern English (the language of Shakespeare, Marlowe, and the KJV) to present-day English, while not as drastic as the linguistic shifts in the 13th and 14th centuries, were nonetheless significant, as the ongoing confusion about the word "kill" in the Bible attests.


Very well said both you and Val. A little research does an inquiring mind well. God is consistent now and forever. Satan is confussion. Example what is "is".........



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 08:16 AM
link   
God may be consistant, but the bible is not.

Now, since you have done the research, please show me in the bibles original untranslated text, the different uses and examples of words like slay, kill ect. Since you did the research and all. Tell me, how they correlate across a book written in several different languages which we fully do not understand. Please, show us all your supperior intellect.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
God may be consistant, but the bible is not.

Now, since you have done the research, please show me in the bibles original untranslated text, the different uses and examples of words like slay, kill ect. Since you did the research and all. Tell me, how they correlate across a book written in several different languages which we fully do not understand. Please, show us all your supperior intellect.


Here is a start for ya.......

www.biblegateway.com...

www.answersingenesis.org...

www.apologeticsindex.org...

Sorry you seem so intimdated by little ole me.........


[edit on 25-1-2005 by DrHoracid]



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
So when a man is trying to kill your child, and you kill him in your defenseless childs behalf. That is wrong? You are the ignorant. You are the one who won't learn if you lived 1000 times.


That's not what I'm talking about and you know it.
Killing someone because of his/yours beliefs is wrong and that is the topic of this thread.
However, you have the point there, you can't blaim anyone for saving his/childs life, after all thats what I too would do.

[edit on 25/1/05 by MiTo]



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 08:29 AM
link   
I looked something up, just to jumble the waters. Following are several different translations of Genesis 22:10. The changes go from one version of the bible to another, and also versions retranslated after time.

Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to kill his son.

And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.

And stretching out his hand, Abraham took the knife to put his son to death.

And Abraham stretched out his hand, and took the knife to slaughter his son.

And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.

And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.

And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.

And Abraham putteth forth his hand, and taketh the knife -- to slaughter his son.

Explain to me, oh intimidating large one, why there is so much discrepancy here, and in many other places in the bible.

[edit on 1/25/2005 by Seapeople]



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by MiTo

Originally posted by Seapeople
So when a man is trying to kill your child, and you kill him in your defenseless childs behalf. That is wrong? You are the ignorant. You are the one who won't learn if you lived 1000 times.


That's not what I'm talking about and you know it.
Killing someone because of his/yours beliefs is wrong and that is the topic of this thread.
However, you have the point there, you can't blaim anyone for saving his/childs life, after all thats what I too would do.

[edit on 25/1/05 by MiTo]



There is something like self defence though.
And still, you can disable him without taking his life. There are more ways to stop someone from doing something then there are to kill someone. And as we all know, there are a damn lot of ways to take someone's life.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 08:33 AM
link   
There is not always a way to stop someone without taking their life. I can think of several scenerios where this would not be possible.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
I looked something up, just to jumble the waters. Following are several different translations of Genesis 22:10. The changes go from one version of the bible to another, and also versions retranslated after time.

Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to kill his son.

And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.

And stretching out his hand, Abraham took the knife to put his son to death.

And Abraham stretched out his hand, and took the knife to slaughter his son.

And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.

And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.

And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.

And Abraham putteth forth his hand, and taketh the knife -- to slaughter his son.

Explain to me, oh intimidating large one, why there is so much discrepancy here, and in many other places in the bible.

[edit on 1/25/2005 by Seapeople]


Well, if you don't mind itty-bitty me slipping in, I'm not sure you're making the point as well as you might think you are. The case of Abraham and Isaac is, in fact, a "slaying" or "slaughtering"



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 08:38 AM
link   



Exodus 21: 22-25

2 men are fighting and a woman who is pregnant is at the scene, and as a result of their fighting, she gets hurt in the process and her baby dies. If this happens God says that we should kill those guilty....life for life. This applies today to Abortionists for they murder millions every year and so their death would be very much justified by the Lord Jesus.



I will start by saying that I do not condone abortion. But Murder is Murder. The verse you Took out of context is always taken out of context by those who agree that murding clinic dotors and nurses and women going there is justified. The verse goes this way:

Exodus 21:22
If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
Exodus 21:23
And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
Exodus 21:24
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Exodus 21:25
Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

Now you see. "and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, THEN thou shalt give life for life."

The first thing that is to be done is to take it to the courts and allow judges to determine the fate of those that killed the child. Now in America that has already been decided, In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court (One of our highest Judicial Court), recognized abortion as a right under the United States Constitution, in Roe v. Wade.

So the walking up to and shooting of doctors who perform abortions is NOT validated in the bible since the First response of allowing judges to determine has already been decided not to punish those persons, and since no mischief except in the hearts of the shooters or bombers follows they are in fact going againt the word of the Lord The Bible.

Phae



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 09:21 AM
link   
OK DrHoracid you say the OT murders of children were justified so how about this.

Should Christians continue killing the Unbelievers like it says or does that part of the Bible no longer count?



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Hello my friends!

Is it OK to murder in the name of God. I will tell you that all I know about the Koran is the propaganda I've read and heard via American media and here on ATS. Due to this skewed knowledge, I'm staying away from Islam; any assessment I might make would be extremely lacking in knowledge to support any ascertain. Instead, I'll stick with what I know, Christianity and Judaism.

There are many examples of God requiring the Israelis to kill in His name. Abraham was required to sacrifice his son…Almost (as Seapeople pointed out so many times using slightly different language (P.S. Talk about a faithful son!)). When the Israelis were wandering the desert, they were told to go into the land of Canaan and slaughter EVERYONE, man, woman, or child. The purpose was to protect their culture from other, more base (in the eyes of God) cultures by removing said base culture. There were many battles in which they were to kill everybody in a city/town and make it their own. False prophets were to be stoned to death in the name of God. Murders, adulterers, thieves, etc. met with extremely harsh fates in the name of God, as well.

Then something happened a few years ago. The world was turned upside down when God became flesh. Jesus Christ started a new covenant with God’s people, and this time around, no one was excluded. God wasn’t just for Jews anymore, anyone could come to the Father through the Son. No longer are followers of God to separate themselves from other cultures completely. Now, we have been called to be in the culture, but not of the culture. To kill someone is to say, with finality, there is no hope for them. The Jews, when they came into the land of Canaan, would have completely succumbed to their culture. There were too few Jews, too many Canaanites, and the Canaanites had an established culture whereas the Jews were slaves of another culture before living and wandering in the desert for 40 years.

God no longer calls us to kill in his name since anyone can now be touched by Christ. The harshest command (outside of Revelations) given to the followers of Christ was to, if someone turns you away from sharing the Truth with them, wipe the dust off of your feet and move on. We are called to give up on those individuals, but God does not give up on them. If He did give up on people, I would have been killed by a follower of God very, very many times through my life. Yet here I am, a Bible thumping Jesus freak.

So in conclusion, yes, God has called in the past for murder in his name. Yet, now, since Christ came to this earth, that changed. We are not to kill in his name, we are to turn the other cheek. Jesus said that if you harbor anger in your heart, that is the same as murdering someone. So how could we possibly kill in God’s name without any burning, smoldering anger to drive the knife/gun/hands?



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 09:34 AM
link   
That is correct, but you are missing the point I am making. One word was used in the original text. The original was written one time....then copied.


This one word has had us arrive at many words. Slay, Kill, Slaughter. The truth is, that translations are almost always filled with personal opinion and preferences. It expecially comes into play when we do not fully understand the languages in question. Which we do not. All we have is generalizations provided in context. This is where and why I brought up battle.

You cannot expect accuracy in the level that you described to me.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
OK DrHoracid you say the OT murders of children were justified so how about this.

Should Christians continue killing the Unbelievers like it says or does that part of the Bible no longer count?


Amuk,

I'm sorry, but to apply the specific instructions of a specific situation in the OT is ALWAYS wrong. ALWAYS. There were 10 commandments that were given as the rules to live by. They got repeated in three commandments by Christ in the New Testament. They are the only "commandments" from the Old Testament that should be taken as applying to how we live our lives.

All the rest of the laws stated in the Old Testament were specific instructions to the Israelites from God. He wasn't talking to us, He was talking to them and it was because and toward a very specific situation.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople
That is correct, but you are missing the point I am making. One word was used in the original text. The original was written one time....then copied.


This one word has had us arrive at many words. Slay, Kill, Slaughter. The truth is, that translations are almost always filled with personal opinion and preferences. It expecially comes into play when we do not fully understand the languages in question. Which we do not. All we have is generalizations provided in context. This is where and why I brought up battle.

You cannot expect accuracy in the level that you described to me.


Well, there's actually an easy explanation for this. As an example, we're going to have a brief lesson on Greek. In the Bible today, translated into English, Jesus says at one point that to hold anger in your heart is the same as murdering. There are two (at least) greek words used for anger which are both translated into english as anger. There is "thumos", which is anger which is similar to throwing a lighter on a pile of dry leaves. It flashes up and dies away about as quickly. The other word, the one Christ used, was "orge". This is a smoldering anger, one you cultivate and hold dear in your heart. This is the anger that drives people to revenge and the like. Both words are translated in the Bible as anger. The new living translation goes into more detail as to the meaning of the words, but generally the people translating (and they always translate from the original texts. To do otherwise would be like playing telephone, the end result would be so different that that which started that it would be totally false. ) use their own vocabulary to find a word that matches as closely as possible that which is in the original language.

Anyone who is fluent in at least two languages is aware of these translation problems. There are words that just can't be translated well into another language. I call you a pigdog, and you look at me like I'm nuts. I call you a schweinhund, and you know what it means, you'll probably get a little ogre anger going and go after me. Same exact phrase, totally different meanings.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seapeople


However, it is christians and non christians both who are always quick to defend themselves using bible verses.



Non Christians try to use bible quote because too may Christians don't think there is any thing but....plus we try to show where, at least myself, that they are going against what the bible says...as in those that hate gays and use the bible to justify, even though your to have tolerance and love your enemy....and gays aren't even your enemy, just different than you....anyway, I'm, leaving this thread for good because I can't tolerate that I see people here actually saying they world kill people all in the name of an unseen, 2000 year old god, and an old book of writings that has been mistranslated, taken from , added to and torn apart by man, it's sad that most Christians don't study the history and search for the original scripture really had to say because I feel mankind is missing a lot that is pertinent.......I only go into to it to start with because someone I respect u2ued me ask for my opinion



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
All the rest of the laws stated in the Old Testament were specific instructions to the Israelites from God. He wasn't talking to us, He was talking to them and it was because and toward a very specific situation.


Several were instructions to kill unbelievers in General not just in specific cases, the links I gave were just the start I can produce dozens more. I think it is even mentioned in the NT but so far I havent found it so I could be wrong (first time for everything
)



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
They got repeated in three commandments by Christ in the New Testament. They are the only "commandments" from the Old Testament that should be taken as applying to how we live our lives.


Actually, through the 4 Gospels Jesus mentions 9 of the 10 commandments as having to be kept. The only exception was the Sabbath, which He said was a shadow of what was to come (Christ).

I had a thread somewhere about the whole sabbath issue, but I haven't been able to find it; its kind of old and not coming up on the search, but it is out there somewhere if you want to know more about the Sabbath thing.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk


Several were instructions to kill unbelievers in General not just in specific cases, the links I gave were just the start I can produce dozens more. I think it is even mentioned in the NT but so far I havent found it so I could be wrong (first time for everything
)



Yes, I know they were general. They were general instructions to wipe out all idolaters. Yes, I know that. What I said was, it is wrong - in every single case - to take the instructions given by God to the Israelites and try to apply them in our lives. The only commandments given by God in the O.T. that were "living laws" were the 10 commandments. The rest were specifically aimed at the Israelites. Too many Christians today make the mistake of not understanding that. They want to take the specific situations of the O.T. and say - see, this is what we are supposed to do. No it's not! The entire O.T. is a historical record with one big phat lesson - this is how stinking rotten your life can get if you disobey. So the lesson in every SPECIFIC instruction from God to the Israelites is not what the instruction was, but how getting a big phat red flag from Grand Poobah, is probably something you shouldn't ignore, because following the red flag will most likely keep you out of a world of hurt.

FOR INSTANCE, there are quite a few rather unpleasant things going on in the world today because Abraham couldn't keep his winky in his pocket. The lesson here isn't "don't do the dirty with your handmaiden", it's when God says He's going to give you something in time...believe Him, and don't go trying to make it happen on your own timeline.

The O.T. is a book of lessons of obedience...and lessons of how none of us really can be obedient. It ties very nicely to the message in the New Testament - which frees us from the bondage of failure.



posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by drfunk
I don't feel you should take the old testament literally, nor should anyone. Let's be honest, a lot of it is a load of crap that should be ignored. The New Testament and our Lord have shown how we should act and we should follow in his example the best we can. thanks, drfunk



And yet in a post above,



Originally posted by drfunkContrary to right-wing FreeRepublic belief, the God of the Israelites and the God of Islam are the one and the same, the God of Abraham. If you don't believe me look it up for yourself.
drfunk



The Gods are NOT the same for Christ himself said :

“All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."


Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.


And last but not least,

John 1 The Word Became Flesh
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a] it.

6There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.

10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God– 13children born not of natural descent,[c] nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.



Therefore your argument that the God of Islam is the same as the God of Christianity is false....they are not the same.

In my opinion, I believe Mohammad was correct in his first assertion of his encounter with the supposed "Gabriel"



[edit on 25-1-2005 by edsinger]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join