Kiryan wants to see this

[kiryan]

look I already explained to you that the commandment is not thou shalt not kill. There is nothing to explain.

We can go into the translations, we can go into the context of the book, style of writing and the context of the commandments, we can go into what the holy spirit says, but you aren't going to listen.

So congratulations, you found an incontrivertible contradiction that the 1.5 billion christians presenty on this earth and the billions that came before missed or ignored cuz were just a bunch of sheep. Go on and complete your life's work, get on CNN and make sure we all know that Christianity is a crock of shit.

[Sarvis]

look I already explained to you that the commandment is not thou shalt not kill. There is nothing to explain.

No, you explained that it's probably the commandment was "thou shalt not cause death"

"You can argue that the ancient hebrew had one word for die, (to cause death basically) and no separate word for murder"

We can go into the translations, we can go into the context of the book, style of writing and the context of the commandments, we can go into what the holy spirit says, but you aren't going to listen.

I'll listen when you actually show some independent thought on the subject.

Why is it ok to cause death in some circumstances?

Why does it not occur to you that maybe they made war ok, but not causing death, because the people who wrote the Bible thought you would be more useful that way?

Or, more importantly, can you come up with an independent thought on why that is morally good.

[kiryan]

No sarvis, you want more proof, go to google and research it yourself, or go get the ancient greek and hebrew texts and trace the books lineage back. truth is truth whether or not its good enough proof for you.

[Sarvis]

No sarvis, you want more proof, go to google and research it yourself, or go get the ancient greek and hebrew texts and trace the books lineage back. truth is truth whether or not its good enough proof for you.

No Kiryan, I don't want proof. I want to see you think.

Fool's errand, I know.

[Ashiwi]

First, I'm just going to point out that I am Agnostic, and have my own issues with organized Christianity, so this isn't coming from somebody defending their own belief set.

Attacking somebody else's religion is just wrong. Whether it comes from a secular or non-secular viewpoint, to take a stance that it is okay to villify, belittle, or ridicule a specific section of the population based on their heritage, theology, or color of their skin, is bigotry. Period. To foster hate and ill treatment of a specific population based on the actions of a segment of that population, or the historical actions of a segment of that population, is to risk putting yourself in the same position you decry.

There are obviously some people in these forums who have a serious issue with organized religion. I understand how that can happen, because it's certainly riled me before, but you really need to learn how to grow beyond mere self-righteous anger against stereotypes and generalizations. Look beyond the surface to the individuals and intentions behind the hyperbole. It's the generalization of what is right and what is wrong on both sides that causes the hatred of one against the other. There are mindless morons and those who would take advantage of them in every population, but there are wise and charitable people in every population, as well.

If everybody here who has a real issue with somebody else took some time to stop and fix themselves first, their problems with everybody else might come a lot closer to being fixed.

[kiryan]

sarvis, I want to see you think about the number 2 or the color blue.

Ashiwi, I don't agree that its wrong to challenge aggressively another person's religion or world view. The trend towards no one can tell me what is right or wrong except what I decide for myself is exactly how we end up with people like Al Qaeda, the abortion doctor killer, the columbine kids and the vtech massacare. People's views of what is right or wrong must be challenged. People must be told they are wrong when they are wrong. Getting offended is a weak response and that above all is what needs to change. The dumbing down of the debate so as not to offend anyone.

[Ashiwi]

There's a difference between challenging aggressively, and attacking in order to belittle, demean, or ridicule.

Challenging somebody's viewpoint and beliefs in meaningful discussion invites the growth of ideas, cross-cultural educational opportunities, and the chance to build a greater understanding between individuals. There's no reason to dumb it down. Typically the dumbing down comes when the discussion degenerates into slurs, epithets, and generalizations, because one or both sides of the discussion stop listening to the other.

As for the cultural events you're referring to, the path leading to those involves a lot of factors. When one culture is reduced to the generalized attributes that another finds threatening, abhorrent, or intolerable, then it is easier to justify the persecution or elimination of that culture. One method of doing that is to attack the overall beliefs that define the culture in order to villify the culture as a whole, without acknowledging the alternative good that has been accomplished by those of the same belief structure.

This goes for both Christian and Muslim societies. Persecution of Christianity just because it's the majority and its influence is pervasive, is no more right or justified than the persecution of Judaism or Buddhism. Or Muslism.

[kiryan]

fair enough.

[Sarvis]

sarvis, I want to see you think about the number 2 or the color blue.

Kiryan, I said earlier that you do not understand what it means to be human. By comparing death to the number 2, or the color blue, you have proven me correct.

I'm sure even your Bible holds life more sacred than that.

[kiryan]

i'm suggesting that you asking me to think about what the bible says about killing or murder is equivalent to thinking at length on the subject of the number 2 or the color blue. there is nothing to think about, it simply is.

if you are hoping ill come to the realiziation that all killing is wrong, well i was a strong supporter of capital punishment (recently changing positions because of the fraud that occurs in the justice system) and if I felt like killing someone in self defense, I don't think I'd have much remorse. Once you cna justify killing for some reason, I don't think its hard to justify killing in some "just" wars (just war being my standard, not something from the bible).

[Todrael]

But religion _is_ ridiculous. And we should define our own ethics, not try to "interpret" thousand-year-old doctrine.

[Sarvis]

i'm suggesting that you asking me to think about what the bible says about killing or murder is equivalent to thinking at length on the subject of the number 2 or the color blue. there is nothing to think about, it simply is.

Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, Martin Luther, Desiderius Erasmus, and tons of other Christian philosophers thought there was PLENTY to think about beyond the simple letters on the page.

I'm sure you're just smarter though. :roll:

if you are hoping ill come to the realiziation that all killing is wrong, well i was a strong supporter of capital punishment (recently changing positions because of the fraud that occurs in the justice system) and if I felt like killing someone in self defense, I don't think I'd have much remorse. Once you cna justify killing for some reason, I don't think its hard to justify killing in some "just" wars (just war being my standard, not something from the bible).

Again, I'm not asking you to come to a conclusion I am asking you to think.

By the way, WWJD? Not to use a silly shirt slogan here, but I don't remember anything about Jesus putting up a fight when the Romans came to get him. It leaves the impression that it is more moral to let yourself be killed than to kill another.

[kiryan]

there are plenty of things the bible says to think about. however there isn't much to think about with regards to whether thou shalt not kill is a commandment to never cause death to anyone under any circumstance. Thats simply not what it says.

If you want to think about whether you should or be predisposed towards pacifism (not whether its permissible under the "law"), you can find lots of evidence from the old and new testament including much from Jesus' life. However, you should also note that Jesus wasn't particularly "nice" or 100% pacficist.

Religiously, I lean towards preferring not to kill people even if it is justified. Practically, I'd probably just shoot a burglar dead and then shoot him enough times to make sure he doesn't come back and seek revenge or sue my ass.

[Sarvis]

Thats simply not what it says.

Really? I must have missed the "unless..." at the end of that commandment.

If you want to think about whether you should or be predisposed towards pacifism (not whether its permissible under the "law"), you can find lots of evidence from the old and new testament including much from Jesus' life. However, you should also note that Jesus wasn't particularly "nice" or 100% pacficist.

Religiously, I lean towards preferring not to kill people even if it is justified. Practically, I'd probably just shoot a burglar dead and then shoot him enough times to make sure he doesn't come back and seek revenge or sue my ass.

Good to know that your morals are important to you. :roll:

[Alta]

Thats simply not what it says.

Really? I must have missed the "unless..." at the end of that commandment.

If you want to think about whether you should or be predisposed towards pacifism (not whether its permissible under the "law"), you can find lots of evidence from the old and new testament including much from Jesus' life. However, you should also note that Jesus wasn't particularly "nice" or 100% pacficist.

Religiously, I lean towards preferring not to kill people even if it is justified. Practically, I'd probably just shoot a burglar dead and then shoot him enough times to make sure he doesn't come back and seek revenge or sue my ass.

Good to know that your morals are important to you. :roll:

Sarvis, I do hope you don't believe that Kiryan is attempting to represent Christians. While it says very clearly in the bible that one should not be lukewarm (Rev 3:16), his undertanding of being on fire for the Lord is questionable. And I think you are missing the point that Kiryan says that he knows he should do one thing, according to his religion, but irl, he'd rather just do something else (way to represent the Christians, Kiryan.) Kiryan.. go watch Harvey and stop attempting to prove to the world that you are so superiorly smart. It doesn't matter one bit if you're a huge jerk.

[kiryan]

any given situation is often far too complicated to reduce into a general statement I will always XYZ. your morales and principles guide your specific action. In the specific case of a burglar, I'd probably just shoot them dead. I'd be within my rights to shoot a guy who takes a swing at me in a bar, but I'd probably not shoot him.

rage on robot man.

[Sarvis]

I'd be within my rights to shoot a guy who takes a swing at me in a bar,

No, actually, you wouldn't. Ever hear of excessive force?

[Corth]

Generally you are only justified in using deadly force in the event that you or another's life is in danger. Can't speak for the specific rule in all 50 states, but that's generally how it goes. Even in so called "castle law" states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doc ... ted_States), like Texas, you generally need to have at least some reasonable belief that you are in imminent danger, though I'm guessing there might be some presumption that if a person is illegally in your house, it is reasonable to believe you are in danger.

So if a guy takes a swing at you in the bar.. you probably can't shoot him. If he breaks his bottle half and swings it at you.. maybe then you have an argument.

edit: I was right about the presumption. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... d5252.html

[kiryan]

You are both right in general, I should've probably mentioned that I live in Montana and the laws are more liberal in that respect here.

If a guy picks a fight with you and you say you felt threatened, in Montana you can whip out your gun and shoot him dead. There was a fist fight in front of walmart less than 2 years ago, one guy pulls out a gun shoots him in the face and the courts found it perfectly legal.

[teflor the ranger]

Generally you are only justified in using deadly force in the event that you or another's life is in danger. Can't speak for the specific rule in all 50 states, but that's generally how it goes. Even in so called "castle law" states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doc ... ted_States), like Texas, you generally need to have at least some reasonable belief that you are in imminent danger, though I'm guessing there might be some presumption that if a person is illegally in your house, it is reasonable to believe you are in danger.

So if a guy takes a swing at you in the bar.. you probably can't shoot him. If he breaks his bottle half and swings it at you.. maybe then you have an argument.

edit: I was right about the presumption. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... d5252.html

The less the jury likes you, the better a reason you need.

[kiryan]

exactly why I hope to never face a jury of my peers.