Theological Opinions

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

firstly, for myself i DO make a distinction between God and the imperfect way he has been represented on earth by imperfect Man... and some of the things done in his name etc... nor do i see that every word written in God's name or relating to god written by man can or even could be truly God's word: some of it is frankly contradictory with other bits...

In no essential doctrine is the Bible contradictory. Many parts also can be perceived as contradictory, but on closer examination one finds that they aren't. For example, the number of women that came to Jesus' tomb, the number of angels that were present. A closer examination of the passages however wipes out contradictions. The fact that one passage says, "Mary of Magdalene went up," means the author was focusing on Mary Magdalene. It does not mean, "Mary of Magdalene went up alone." The fact that one scripture says, "an angel appeared to her and said . . ." does not mean that there was not another angel with him. So many errors actually aren't errors. They are faults in the reader's reading.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

also just because jesus never said "all killing is wrong" does not imply that it is:

he just never happened to have said it.

eg: Because jesus did not also say (presumably )

"20th century gas chambers are not on"
does not give any moral legitamacy to the use of gas chambers ... (ignoring the murder bit which does obviously cover this ... but you get the point )

Yes, and it is a good point. I agree with it.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

Again back to my central point ... there are writings saying all manner of things .. to me this is pointless: who wrote that? Why?

is it clear that it is indisputedly word for word direct from god?

The Bible is divinely inspired. According to Paul, "God-breathed." Sometimes an author writing it down might make a mistake in translation. There is a lot of evidence that massive effort was taken by the Jews in keeping accurate translations of the Old Testament, and we know that the New is as the gospel writers intended (I can present a good deal of evidence on these things, if you want to go that route).

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

Anyway "a season for every activity under heaven" does rather imply we can do whatever we like, if it is the right (and it's vague enough) season:

It is clear from context that the author was a very moral man. He talked about the importance of the fear of God and of living according to God's laws. Therefore it is obvious that when he says, "a season for every activity," he doesn't mean every activity.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

To me, the teachings of christ are to forgive: each sinner will be judged ultimately, but not by us here on earth, it is not our place to make such decisions; it is God's.

Christ spent a lot of time speaking to people as individuals. Revenge is sinful. Striking or retaliating at someone in anger is sinful. As an individual I should forgive. If someone sins against me 700 times, 700 times should I forgive him. However, if someone sins against someone else, do I do right to say, "I forgive you." I have not been harmed. Someone else has. I am no worse off. If I just blithely say, "I forgive you," I'm taking the easy way out and am acting in a highly flawed way. I am not acting in justice or righteousness. If Saddam tortures his citizens, should I just say to him, "I forgive you."

Perhaps I should forgive him on a personal level. However, that doesn't mean I would be doing right to just leave God to judge. God expects people to reject injustice and immorality, and in my opinion, to fight against them. He expects us to engage in active war against evil, not to just forgive it. Forgiving it can be part of fighting it, for it is not allowing the evil to control you personally. However, it is not the end. Christ came to bring justice to the oppressed (I think that's scriptural), and the responsibility is on us as well.

Remember that when the Christ encountered oppressors, he was not gentle. He saw Pharisees and teachers of the Law that were weighing people down unjustly, and in righteous anger Christ spoke out boldly against them. He did the uncomfortable thing, and he was an example for those that follow. The same bold attitude filled the disciples after Pentecost. I know you can argue, "from a Christian standpoint Christ was God, so of course he can speak up against people." He was also an example, my friend.

I think that it is clearly part of our duty as Christians to face evil and fight it. It is part of who we are. This definitely is not usually a violent war. It is a spiritual war. However, sometimes violent war also becomes necessary in order to free the oppressed, and in order to protect our lives and the lives of those we love.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

Excellent. But then how can we justify morally and as a christian - other than in everyday practical societal regards, the death penalty???

Or, if against Abortion, then condone a death penalty?

The death penalty is part of justice. Not even man-made justice- it was made part of the Law of Moses instituted by God. Abortion is completely different. It is not justice. It is not "taking a stand against evil." It is committing evil.

There's one critical thing I think you lack in your understanding of Christianity. God is a Lord of justice as well as forgiveness. He isn't leaving the world to injustice either, until the Last Day. Instead, he brings justice here and now. Through his followers too, he brings justice. According to scripture, we have been made co-creators with God. We are made one with him also, as he enters us.

"See, the Spirit of the Lord is on me . . . to bring justice to the widows and oppressed . . ."

In my opinion, if I just saw Saddam Hussein torturing people and did nothing, I would be guilty before God. I might forgive him for myself, but I will fight against him in the flesh so that evil might be stopped and goodness may prevail. The willingness to fight evil that exists is something God wants everyone to be ready to do.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

but did not jesus say " i will judge all" (or my father etc) : i.e. it is not for us to pick and mix which core ,oral techings to adhere to or to disregard

Agreed! I am very, very glad to meet someone else who feels the same way as I do about that. The scripture is there, it is from God, and we cannot pick and choose what we want and what we don't want.

God will judge everyone for all they have committed. He will do this on the Last Day. Until then, he often judges even here and now. He might bring a disaster upon a community sometimes as a form of judgment, or a series of rough experiences in life to discipline an individual for his or her own good. He does not always do this, but does it at his own discretion.

We also will act in justice at our own discretion. Forgiveness must be bound to justice. However, as the Apostle Paul said, "If your brother sins, rebuke him. If he repents, forgive him." The rebuke that he spoke of, the rebuke that Jesus issue toward the Pharisees, the blow that must sometimes be struck, is a part of Christianity. Justice as well as forgiveness. We will be counted guilty if we see oppression and do not fight it, if we see to evil and do not wage war against it. There is to be no quarter given to evil. We are expected to fight in the spiritual and physical realms. If I see evil done by a spirit, I banish the spirit. If I see evil done by a person, I rebuke the person and take a stand against him. If I ignore evil, or just forgive it everywhere, and thus allow it to rampage everything, I am stupid and, in my opinion, guilty. A stand against evil must be taken.

Occasionally, killing needs be part of that stand.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

... and the above quote too: "Revenge is in no way acceptable as far as the Lord is concerned" would support this, no?

Revenge and justice are two different things.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

But going back to the quote: you appear to be saying that in Christian moral belief: Hitler, in this example, would be ok in the eyes of God, or that Chevaz if harbouring exremist Muslims for example is also on good solid firm ground, because if they as equally as you see themselves as defending their faith and their way of life and their family and friends etc: then they too have every moral justification to assasinate, kill, attack etc because in your very words:

Defensive of preemptive war can also be highly moral

I would not say that Hitler or Chavez are "okay". They are wrong. The devil twists people in his role as "the Father of Lies." He makes people think they are doing good when they are acting in diabolical evil. This doesn't make the evil "all right." Almost everyone who does evil is decieved. Sometimes he decieves himself.

This is one of the reasons why our war is "not against flesh and blood," but against the spirits. Christians seek to overcome evil with good. People's state of deception can be revealed and purged by God's Holy Spirit, the "Sword of the Spirit" that God gives us.

Occasionally, however, evil in the physical too must be fought. This is clearly scriptural. "Judge not, or you will be judged," means God expects you to forgive those that sin against you. It does not mean you are to permit everyone who sins against others to keep right on sinning. Those that are unrepentant must sometimes be violently resisted. That is self defense, and again is a model that is plain to see in scripture. God continually offered people the chance to repent, and when they showed themselves utterly unwilling, he violently fought them. Paul did the same. Christians were cast out of the church if they were repeatedly warned against their sin yet refused to heed the rebuke. Evil is to be fought in this life.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

Surely Lief: we have a problem here?

What then do we distinguish between terrorists and evil killers and ourselves if we morally justify their behaviour?

A massive difference: While they strike at the innocent, we strike at the guilty. However, I do find the Muslim terrorists' behavior highly understandable, for they truly do think we are evil. We have no choice but to fight them, in spite of the fact that they are decieved.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

But i cannot see how a soul could be seen as joyus to the Lord that took issue with his word and instruction and actively sought to make it's own moral decisions on life and death and in this example advocated assasination or state sponsored death penalities, making it's own moral codes to replace God's.

The scripture is God's moral code. Jesus declared that he was the embodied "Fulfillment of the Law." Waging war is not against the moral code presented in scripture, but fighting against evil is mandatory.

[Butterbeer]

again, Lief .... shorter than i envisaged ...

where to start?

well of course i cannot reply to all or even just some of it just now ...

but one thing immediately springs to mind, if i cut down my replies by even a third... you'd have plenty of time for the occasional RPG post!

will have a go either later tonight or maybe tommorow.

best BB

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

... hopefully some others will join in with some attempts at answers

This seems like a thoughtful conversation, and I'd like to join in, if I may?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

This seems like a thoughtful conversation, and I'd like to join in, if I may?

Please .

[Rían]

Then I will, if it's OK with BB

(prob. can't do a whole lot, because school and the candy sale are starting up, but I"ll try to keep up with things)

[Lief Erikson]

Don't worry, this discussion is moving pretty slowly. Butterbeer often takes a couple days between his responses, and I've got college to deal with.

[Rían]

ok - nothing wrong with a slow discussion (within reason) - gives one time to do some "back-burner" thinking... I'll try to catch up on the thread over the next day or two.

[Butterbeer]

Rian:

Then I will, if it's OK with BB

well o.k. with me! ... course if you guys start ganging up on me (in a friendly non-war exploration of ideas kinda way) ...i may have to bring in a second ... who can duel, play chess... and, of course help convince 'dastardly good' Lief reconsider the merits of occasional Moot rpg!

...many thanks Lief for your PM! ... but you don't get off that lightly ... yet!

before i begin the marathon response to Lief .... what is your upbringing with regard, Rian, to "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt not murder" ? (and no conferring please! )

............

Don't worry, this discussion is moving pretty slowly. Butterbeer often takes a couple days between his responses ..

Blimey i thought i was an impatient rpg player .... give me a chance ... it's not natural terrority for me here .. and i have to at least pretend to consider what i am saying ...


previous BB post:
but did not jesus say " i will judge all" (or my father etc) : i.e. it is not for us to pick and mix which core ,oral techings to adhere to or to disregard

Lief response:

Agreed! I am very, very glad to meet someone else who feels the same way as I do about that. The scripture is there, it is from God, and we cannot pick and choose what we want and what we don't want.

I, too am glad you agree. My point, as always, is my trouble with distinguishing between various texts and scripture or writings that appear to contradict each other and apparently make any action the church may wish to pursue or have to defend for socio-economic-political or other reasons at any time in any place... etc .. and that truly of god.

We also will act in justice at our own discretion.

now this is what i wish to understand more about! How can we then do so if we make our own justice and yet honour the original quote ... (from god) ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Butterbeer
... and the above quote too: "Revenge is in no way acceptable as far as the Lord is concerned" would support this, no?

Lief:

Revenge and justice are two different things.

Agreed.
But in conjunction with the above point of God judging all and with the agreed "revenge is no way accepatable to the lord" ... if we take the moral authority onto ourselves to judge and act in response to a crime commited by punitive response it is a form of revenge ... where is the line between justice and revenge and how do we then define it?

Lief:

This is a tough issue. Sometimes the order is to kill people known to be non-combatants. I think perhaps this too can be sometimes morally justifiable. The people you are fighting often are aiding their war cause, even if they are non-combatants. Perhaps they are providing food. They give food, which enables a soldier to eat, which enables him to have energy to kill you. Destroying the civilian can at times be a matter of self-defense too, even if indirect.

thus the new pope, a non combatant Nazi could be morally and juifiably be killed in the eyes of God? Sure he did not want to be a nazi .. he was as innocent as other innocents you say it is o.k. or could be morally o.k. to kill because they directly or indirectly helped the opponents?

really Lief .. i really think this is hard to defend with any moral authority... a co-erced innocent or cog in the wheel of evil who is otherwise themselves oppressed yet directly or indirectly is "aiding their war cause" ... i can think of no better words than a simple ... ???

Lief:

Which is a worse evil?

Here again is, to me, the crux of the matter and the heart of my curiosity.
How can a choice between evils be a good or a moral, or good thing before God .... if it is evil, it is evil ....

surely God does not ask us in any shape, way or form to do, or condone evil .... you yourself say that we have a responsibility to fight evil ... therefore if evil, being the lesser of evils (but still undisputably evil) is done in our name or on our behalf, or by us or by our leaders ... it is evil and therefore our responsibility to fight it and not merely as shepherdless sheep follow it .... or attempt thereby to condone it?



... you appreciate i am talking perhaps more philosophically than practically here, i hope


well, there's my selective reply so far!
beware Lief: will Pm you ref rpg soon ....

very best
BB

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

Rian:
well o.k. with me! ... course if you guys start ganging up on me (in a friendly non-war exploration of ideas kinda way) ...i may have to bring in a second ... who can duel, play chess... and, of course help convince 'dastardly good' Lief reconsider the merits of occasional Moot rpg!

before i begin the marathon response to Lief .... what is your upbringing with regard, Rian, to "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt not murder" ? (and no conferring please! )

As far as my upbringing, do you mean what did my parents teach me? Basically that murder (i.e., killing someone for personal and selfish reasons) was wrong, and that killing in a war was a terrible, sad thing, but a reality of life in this world. Is that what you mean? (I haven't read the whole thread yet, so don't know if that's what you mean.) And as I have thought about it in my older years, I pretty much agree with that still.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

I, too am glad you agree. My point, as always, is my trouble with distinguishing between various texts and scripture or writings that appear to contradict each other and apparently make any action the church may wish to pursue or have to defend for socio-economic-political or other reasons at any time in any place... etc .. and that truly of god.

I have yet to see any scripture that says, "all war is wrong. You shall never fight a war." Never ever have I seen that, or anything like. I haven't seen any scriptures that say no one should ever kill anyone else either. Those two ideas just aren't in the scripture, so there is no major difficulty in my mind when I seek to show you what the Christian message is on these matters. You seem to keep thinking that there is a major issue here, that the Bible says definitively that killing is wrong. It totally doesn't say that though.

War is sometimes justified and sometimes not. Sometimes a war is completely wrong. It might be greedy and selfish. Other times it can be like the American attack on Iraq- a war done in order to protect our country (we thought there were WMDs there), save the helpless (those brutalized by Saddam), and spread democracy (freedom) in the region. Sometimes war is justified. Other times it isn't.

I have one point I will make regarding your issues with us "making our own decisions" about killing people, and "using our own standards." People who have been filled with the Spirit can see where the Spirit leads. Sometimes the Spirit reveals things about the Bible to the believer. Sometimes He guides us in interpretation. Given this, and the fact that God lives inside his followers, they are (in my view) better equipped to make judgments regarding morality than are non-believers. Therefore it isn't only their own discernment and judgment (though if they have nothing other than that, they need to use it) to do what's right to the best of their ability. They have God there to help them.

So that's just one more Christian theological point I thought I'd throw into the discussion.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

now this is what i wish to understand more about! How can we then do so if we make our own justice and yet honour the original quote ... (from god) ?

"Thou shalt not murder"? When Jesus spoke of murder, he spoke of anger. I think murder is often done for personal gain of some kind. A different way of killing is for defense of others. This way of killing I think would be more reasonable in God's eyes.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

But in conjunction with the above point of God judging all and with the agreed "revenge is no way accepatable to the lord" ... if we take the moral authority onto ourselves to judge and act in response to a crime commited by punitive response it is a form of revenge ... where is the line between justice and revenge and how do we then define it?

Justice in court isn't so much about revenge as about prevention, in my opinion. If the court didn't exist, there would be a far greater number of criminals in the country. I think that our justice system, while partly there to punish people for their crimes (with death, imprisonment, fines or other), also is there in order to protect the common man. If there is no law, no justice, the temptation to behave in wicked ways would be much higher for many people. The presence of law prevents these people from controlling society.

Therefore, law and justice are defensive as well.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

thus the new pope, a non combatant Nazi could be morally and juifiably be killed in the eyes of God? Sure he did not want to be a nazi .. he was as innocent as other innocents you say it is o.k. or could be morally o.k. to kill because they directly or indirectly helped the opponents?

Yes, I'm afraid killing him might have been necessary. If it had been necessary, I would not have condemned the bomber, in spite of the enormous goodness of the pope.

Let me give an example to illustrate my point. I'll give more like this later . Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait with an enormous military machine. Hundreds of thousands of people, mostly drafted, mostly with no desire at all to be where they were. Nonetheless, they would do as they were told. Their families were threatened, many of them. These were innocents, yet they also were soldiers who would shoot to kill us.

We bombed them. If we had refused to kill them, Kuwait could not have been saved. We killed tens of thousands of innocents, and saved a country from brutal oppression. It was a horrible thing we did, but it also was necessary. I think that frequently in wars there are good people on both sides. Almost every single time there is a war, good people on both sides die. I would say a significant exception would be Joshua's invasion of Canaan, and the Godly war against man in Revelation will also be like this.

It's a very nasty business. War is always horrible. It also is occasionally necessary. We do the best to be as moral as possible in the course of the war, but we know that some immorality will take place even if we don't want it to.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

How can a choice between evils be a good or a moral, or good thing before God .... if it is evil, it is evil ....

I think in some ways war is always evil. However, I think also that there are times where refusing to enter a war is even more evil. When one engages in a war, it should always be for good motives and purposes. You are fighting for what is good and right, even if it is tough.

I think slaughters of people that are aiding a war effort can sometimes be justified, for they really are just as much enemies as the soldiers you fight. Soldiers have guns in their hands, but civilians with bread or dollars can be just as much dangerous enemies. Sometimes without defeating the civilian population, you cannot win the war. It's very, very ugly, but many of these civilians aren't really innocent (they are helping the war effort, whether they want to or not, and therefore provided your cause is just they are doing evil, even if unwillingly), and for those that are, you can't really help it.

We had to go into Kuwait. Think what a precedent it would be if Saddam were allowed to get away with rejecting international law, plundering an innocent and helpless nation, and seizing control of much of the world's oil supply! We had to stop him. We had to kill some innocent people in order to establish justice too.

In the same way, look at courts. Courts are set up in order to bring justice, but inevitably they will make some mistakes. Some innocents will be judged improperly. Does this make the court system evil? I don't really think so. Does the killing of innocents in the Gulf War make that war evil? I don't really think so. But if we had let Saddam get away with it, that would have been evil.

[Butterbeer]

just a quick one, for now

but civilians with bread or dollars can be just as much dangerous enemies.

it's true, as any one hit on the head by a slightly crusty french stick will testify to.... and someone dropping large numbers of dollars over your head and walking away whistling .... well you wouldn't thank them would you?



sorry, couldn't resist.

Hope BM does not see this post! ...mind you will reply in more depth later: i guess i am talking more philosophically then real life examples in the main ....


Rian: sorry, i meant specifically were you taught of the commandments "thou shall not kill" or were you taught that it was "thou shalt not murder" ?

[Rían]

I've always understood that particular commandment to be killing in the sense of murder, and I think the context and a common-sense reading support this, as well as the language (as Radagast the Brown, our resident Israeli, informed us).

And then Jesus upped the bar when he said that even if you are angry with someone (i.e., selfish anger) or insult them, that you're just as guilty. (Matthew chpt 5)

[Butterbeer]

o.k. but perhaps i need to be clear here: it's as much about the the actual words themselves exactly i am asking

were you taught as a kid etc the commandments, word for word as "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt not murder" ?


... we'll move on the ideas behind them in a mo' ..

best
BB

[Butterbeer]

I have one point I will make regarding your issues with us "making our own decisions" about killing people, and "using our own standards." People who have been filled with the Spirit can see where the Spirit leads. Sometimes the Spirit reveals things about the Bible to the believer. Sometimes He guides us in interpretation. Given this, and the fact that God lives inside his followers, they are (in my view) better equipped to make judgments regarding morality than are non-believers. Therefore it isn't only their own discernment and judgment (though if they have nothing other than that, they need to use it) to do what's right to the best of their ability. They have God there to help them.

well o.k. i can go with that (to a degree ... well i add that bit 'to a degree' partly as a back-up position you understand )

as i understand it God is (potentially) in all of us and works through us sometimes... but would it not be more accurate to say "the spirit reveals things about God" rather than "reveals things about the Bible"?

unless that person cannot read? But even then the bible is there to attempt to portary god's will not god being there to justify the bible!

they are (in my view) better equipped to make judgments regarding morality than are non-believers.

how so? Unless they happen to be morally right, either as a beleiver or a non beleiver i do not see just because they have a certain viewpoint or knowledge it makes them morally correct in any given situation.

again, i can see what you are saying, but all people are different, some better at making judgments than others ... just because they are of a certain denomination does not make them automatically a better judge or morally superior.

"Thou shalt not murder"? When Jesus spoke of murder, he spoke of anger. I think murder is often done for personal gain of some kind. A different way of killing is for defense of others. This way of killing I think would be more reasonable in God's eyes.

when he spoke of murder, surely he spoke of murder. Else on an important teaching like this he would have said anger specifically, no?

yes, the way you put it, more reasonable, but ultimately right?

Are you sure? To be honest killing through love and defense of others close to you does seem on a personal level another thing .. but to me the question then is, ulitmately this may be o.k. if you forgive yourself, if you in your heart of hearts and your soul truly feel it was the right thing to do ... but to take this to another widespread impersonal level where we justify killing of innocents, or the opressed or the innocent opressed, including children, because they are oppreseed and indirectly in any shape or form helping our enemies... i cannot beleive that the Lord thinks this is a morally good thing.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

as i understand it God is (potentially) in all of us and works through us sometimes... but would it not be more accurate to say "the spirit reveals things about God" rather than "reveals things about the Bible"?

unless that person cannot read? But even then the bible is there to attempt to portary god's will not god being there to justify the bible!

Justify? No, it's much the same as me writing an essay. I will write the essay and then perhaps sit nearby you as you read it. If you don't understand something, I'm there to explain it. This is a similar way to how God reveals things about his word. The difference lies in the fact that the Bible is flawless; my essay isn't. If you don't understand something in my essay, usually it's because I made a mistake. If something in the Bible isn't understandable, usually it's the person who has a veil over his or her vision.

In the epistles, I think the author of Hebrews talks about a veil being over our eyes when we read the scripture, until through the Spirit that veil is lifted. That happens in the Born Again experience, I think. Though the Lord isn't bound by that; occasionally I expect he will open up people's minds to the scripture before that.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

Unless they happen to be morally right, either as a beleiver or a non beleiver i do not see just because they have a certain viewpoint or knowledge it makes them morally correct in any given situation.

It will seem arrogant. When Christ enters a person, he really enters the person. He actually really powerfully goes about transforming their lives for the better. He's not willing to sit in a stinky house. He'll go and get rid of everything that's immoral, moving from one thing to another. I've experienced that in my own life. When I'm in prayer suddenly flaws will come before me and through Jesus, power to overcome them will follow. On a very few occasions, I have heard an actual voice in different ways. I flip the Bible open at random and wherever my finger touches, I come upon a fault in a person. That fault applies to me as well. This is God speaking. Other times I've heard it in other ways. But he doesn't just tell us of our faults. He really, actively participates in eliminating them. Drug addicts have been supernaturally cured by God's power. People bound up in addictions to sexual immorality, smoking, alcohol, gambling and other things have been supernaturally released. Murderers have been transformed. There are dramatic accounts of that available from Cuba. When Christ comes into someone's life, he makes his presence known. In my opinion, with the increased morality that his presence inspires, many strong believers are able to make more accurate moral judgments than non-believers.

Of course these people are still flawed. They are still imperfect. They still make plenty of mistakes. But I still think that they have a better moral vantage point, having experienced Christ's transforming power, than most non-Christians do.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

when he spoke of murder, surely he spoke of murder. Else on an important teaching like this he would have said anger specifically, no?

As RÃ*an points out, he was saying that murder from a selfish and unholy motive is evil, and that even desiring murder for these same reasons (or feeling such evil feelings) is the equivalent to doing.

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

Are you sure? To be honest killing through love and defense of others close to you does seem on a personal level another thing .. but to me the question then is, ulitmately this may be o.k. if you forgive yourself, if you in your heart of hearts and your soul truly feel it was the right thing to do ... but to take this to another widespread impersonal level where we justify killing of innocents, or the opressed or the innocent opressed, including children, because they are oppreseed and indirectly in any shape or form helping our enemies... i cannot beleive that the Lord thinks this is a morally good thing.

I am in favor of avoiding this kind of killing as much as is possible. I think it's a hideous and tragic aspect of war. In the recent war in Iraq, we did a LOT better than has been possible in previous wars. The killings of civilians were far, far fewer. Modern technology finally was enabling us to behave in a more moral fashion, while fighting.

I am advocate fighting war as humanely as we possibly can. I hate the fact that in war we cannot just hit those responsible all the time, but will, even though we don't want to, kill people who are innocent and oppressed. War is horribly ugly, but if you refuse to let there be any chance at all of your killing innocents, you have to just not fight. You have to just let your enemy overrun you.

What, in your opinion, makes killing through love and defense of others close to you better than killing in defense of your country?

[Lief Erikson]

Bump.

[Butterbeer]

bumps into your bump, and apologizes for not looking where i was going and being too involved elsewhere ... *glint in eye as he does a jaunty wink about the elsewhere bit... *

... one very quick thing ... did a little quick research ... very depressing ... lots of "wrong translation ... kill is murder stuff!" ...

best
BB ... till next time

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

o.k. but perhaps i need to be clear here: it's as much about the the actual words themselves exactly i am asking

were you taught as a kid etc the commandments, word for word as "thou shalt not kill" or "thou shalt not murder" ?


... we'll move on the ideas behind them in a mo' ..

best
BB

gotta be real quick, I'm off to a school meeting -

As far as I remember, the words that I learned in my younger days were "thou shalt not kill", but to me, it was very clear that it was what we would call today "murder", since God clearly authorized wars (which means killing ) against people like the followers of Moloch, who were fond of infant sacrifice... they did terrible, terrible things with babies, as historians note.

I'm not trying to be clever with words or anything - I clearly understood "kill" to be in the sense of "killing with personal, selfish motives".