"An order to kill from God...?"

[Miss Sera]

I've always found this strange. God says "Thou shall not kill," yet he has ordered people throughout the bible to kill. Maybe not directly, but the "law" leaves no alternative. In a children's bible I own it says the following things:

"Put to death any woman who does evil magic."
"Put to death anyone who has sexual relations with an animal."
"Destroy completely any person who makes a sacrifice to any god execpt the Lord."

So you're not allowed to kill, unless God says you can. But some people claim God did tell them to kill their victims. ex. I've heard of people say that the reason they've killed homosexuals, or other such things, is because God told them to, or because it written in the bible. But then we frowned at that, saying we're not supposed to kill. So how do those "laws" that say to kill those people actually work? Or do they not even apply anymore, and if they don't, are we sinning everytime we ignore them?

(Note: this is not a question posed to justify a past, present, or future murder. Just a curiousity.)

 

[MKalashnikov]

Thou Shalt Not Kill, is a condemnation of MURDER, not Killing.

רצח
râtsach

raw-tsakh'

A primitive root; properly to dash in pieces, that is, kill (a human being), especially to murder: - put to death, kill, (man-) slay (-er), murder (-er).

A Soldier in War does not MURDER his opponents, I am a Police Officer, If I ever have to use Deadly Force to protect myself or another person it is Not Murder, The State executing a Criminal for a Crime, for which the criminal has been found guilty in a fair trial, with due-process rights, Is not Murder either.

God Commands the death penality for certain crimes against society and him.

Many people today try to read "Barney Theology" into the Bible. They claim that God is different in the Old Testament than in the New Testament, and that God is loving and overlooks sins.

God is in fact Love, but he is also Just and Holy. He cannot overlook sin.

Let me give you a working example of this entire principle, using a passage that those with liberal theology try to twist.

In the account of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-12), many believe they have found proof that Jesus "overlooked" the woman’s sin while forbidding the Pharisees to condemn her according to the Law of Moses. Jesus’ words and actions in this passage are often misrepresented however.

Scripture tells us that Pharisees and scribes were often antagonistic toward Jesus (cf. Matt 22:15-46). John 8 records that the enemies of Jesus had found a woman caught in the very act of adultery (John 8:4). They brought her to the Lord and asked Him for a judgment: "Moses, in the Law, commanded us that such should be stoned, but what do You say?" (John 8:5). Jesus was seemingly in a dilemma: to exercise capital punishment without consent of the Roman authorities would put Jesus in violation of Roman law. On the other hand, if Jesus refused to obey the Law of Moses, how could He still claim to be the Messiah? Thus, the enemies of our Lord thought they had created an unanswerable question. However Jesus answered, they would have the means to rid themselves of Him.

Exegenesis reveals a number of problems with this case that are not readily evident from John 8:1-12. First, the Law of Moses proscribed capital punishment for both parties in an adulterous union (cf. Lev. 20:10; Deut 22:22). In the case described in John 8, where was the man? The Pharisees claimed to have taken this woman in the act of adultery, and yet they conveniently ignored her partner in the sinful union. Second, notice again that the Law of Moses commanded death to BOTH of the parties involved. If Jesus and the Pharisees were to follow the Law concerning this matter, they could never execute just ONE party and claim that justice had been done! Third, it is possible that the woman’s partner in adultery was among her accusers! Jesus’ only statement to these men was, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first" (John 8:7).

Scripture records that they were thus, "convicted by their conscience," and each Pharisee and scribe quietly slipped away. Based on this statement, there is a distinct possibility that one of the guilty parties in the adulterous union was standing in accusation against the woman. Notice, however, that Jesus was not forbidding all judgment! Because the scribes and Pharisees were interested in vengeance rather than justice, any judgment they pronounced would have been tainted. God expects us to speak out against sin (Jude 3).

As the Lord stood and looked around, He saw that the accusers had all departed. He asked her, "has no one condemned you?" (John 8:10). When the woman answered negatively, Jesus declared, "neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more" (John 8:11). Notice that Jesus did NOT say He overlooked this woman’s sin; rather He was pronouncing judgment according to the Law of Moses.
The law required:

Deu 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses shall he that is worthy of death be put to death. At the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
Deu 17:7 The hands of the witnesses shall be first on him to put him to death, and afterwards the hands of all the people. So you shall put the evil away from among you.

Deu 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sins. At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be made sure.
Deu 19:16 If a false witness rises up against any man to testify a falling away against him,
Deu 19:17 then both the men who are disagreeing shall stand before Jehovah, before the priests and the judges which shall be in those days.
Deu 19:18 And the judges shall make careful inquiry. And behold, if the witness is a false witness and has testified falsely against his brother,
Deu 19:19 then you shall do to him as he had thought to have done to his brother. So you shall put the evil away from among you.
Deu 19:20 And those who remain shall hear and fear, and shall commit from then on no such evil among you.

Jesus did not overlook the Woman's sin at all, He in fact told her "Go and Sin No More." He had followed the law to the letter, perfectly, because the witnesses departed, there was no way to legally apply the death penalty.

I've heard people say, in a court of law, that the reason they've killed homosexuals is because God told them to, or because it written in the bible

Really? You have heard this with your own ears in a court? Would you mind giving a case cite please? Or at least what County and State this occured in. No sane defense attorney would ever offer such an argument, and no judge doing his job would allow it. (Unlike what you see on TV and the Movies, there are actually limits on what kind of defenses a court has to hear, and any new novel theory has to be accepted by the court as a defense before it can be offered.)

The only thing a Google searched turned up was a case where a man claimed "God told him to Confess."

Secondly, no matter what activists tell you, so-called "Hate-Crimes" are extremely rare, and violent "hate crimes" are rarer still.

In 1998, there were 16,914 murders committed. Of those, 13 were considered "hate crimes." The victims were all men, as were their killers. Four of these murders were committed against homosexuals. So out of 16,914 murders in 1998, only four were considered to be "hate crimes" directed against homosexuals.

In my entire career as an LEO I have NEVER encountered a "Hate-Crime" of any sort.

Finally "Hate-Crimes" are a foot in the door to "Thought-Crimes". Murder, Assault, Arson Ect... are already illegal. It doesn't really matter WHY someone committed an illegal act, the act is illegal.

Homosexual activists want "thought crimes" because they want to criminalize opposition to their immorality. This has already occured in Canada where people have been arrested for merely speaking out against homosexuality.
Homosexual activists have made it clear that they want to criminalize opposition to their behavior, and close any church that preaches homosexuality is a sin.

 

[Miss Sera]

I can see how killing someone in self defense is different from murder, but if you willingly kill someone, isn't that still killing them?

Perhaps the homosexual issue was a bad example. Lets look at another one, a touchy subject, if you will:

"Put to death any woman who does evil magic," or, a little familiar way of putting it: "Suffer not a Witch to Live." The bible clearly says to kill witches, yet we say it's wrong. (Note: I'm not saying kill one. Lord no, that's not what I'm saying, I'm just pointing out that's what it says.) People once killed, and continue to kill on occastion, witches because the bible says so.

Here's a sermon I found, there are MANY like it:

It's been 20 years since we legally executed a witch on this campus, but our lawyers are working very hard with the Federal Government to ensure that we can continue to practice our religion the way the Bible tells us to. [...] We are supposed to be killing witches! If we don't, we are disobeying God. Jesus would weep tears of joy if He leaned down off His cloud and sniffed up the burning flesh of a witch this Halloween. Wouldn't that ruin Satan's little birthday party! Praise God! It's just a shame that the United States Government has placed restrictions on the Biblically-mandated practice of witch burning.

- Pastor Deacon Fred
(The site won't let me post the site. Put "www" "landoverbaptist" "org", with the appropriate dots, and go to the "sermons" section. You'll find it there.)

I know killing is bad, but why does the Bible say to do it? How is it justified, by either not doing it, and actually doing it. How is that line drawn, in the name of religion?

 

[MKalashnikov]

(The site won't let me post the site. Put "www" "landoverbaptist" "org", with the appropriate dots, and go to the "sermons" section. You'll find it there.)

Are you serious? Landoverbaptist is satire written by atheists and skeptics.

I can see how killing someone in self defense is different from murder, but if you willingly kill someone, isn't that still killing them?

If someone uses deadly force on me, I WILLINGLY use deadly force back in order to stop the threat. That is not Murder. A Soldier in War WILLINGLY uses deadly force against the Enemy, that is not Murder.

Murder is the taking of INNOCENT life without cause.

I know killing is bad, but why does the Bible say to do it? How is it justified, by either not doing it, and actually doing it. How is that line drawn, in the name of religion?

God set the penality for certain CRIMES at death. Some Crimes are so abominable to him and to his holy nature, that he set the penality at death.

Western Law was built on this principle. Virtue was considered the guardian of liberty and true freedom for all of society.

The Founders NEVER Intended for Liberty to be the freedom to do as one pleases.

To demonstrate my point, lets look at how modern dictionaries define liberty compared to how it was defined in early America:
"Civil liberty, is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty, so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty, not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty." --- Webster’s 1828 Dictionary of the American Language.

"Freedom of choice.; "liberty of opinion"; "liberty of worship"; "liberty--perfect liberty--to think or feel or do just as one pleases"; "at liberty to choose whatever occupation one wishes". --- WordNet 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University.

Notice how the modern definition of liberty has redefined the word.

Liberty has been redefinied by those who are libertines and want license to replace liberty.

Libertine: A man who lives without restraint of the animal passion; one who indulges his lust without restraint; one who leads a dissolute, licentious life; a rake; a debauchee.

License: Excess of liberty; exorbitant freedom; freedom abused, or used in contempt of law or decorum.

Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few; as we have learned to our sorrow. -- Judge Learned Hand

"Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles." Patrick Henry

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our constitution as a whale goes through a net."
John Adams

"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their appetites; in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsel of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." Edmund Burke

 

[12volt_man]

I've always found this strange. God says "Thou shall not kill," yet he has ordered people throughout the bible to kill. Maybe not directly, but the "law" leaves no alternative. In a children's bible I own it says the following things:

"Put to death any woman who does evil magic."
"Put to death anyone who has sexual relations with an animal."
"Destroy completely any person who makes a sacrifice to any god execpt the Lord."

So you're not allowed to kill, unless God says you can. But some people claim God did tell them to kill their victims. ex. I've heard of people say that the reason they've killed homosexuals, or other such things, is because God told them to, or because it written in the bible. But then we frowned at that, saying we're not supposed to kill. So how do those "laws" that say to kill those people actually work? Or do they not even apply anymore, and if they don't, are we sinning everytime we ignore them?

Actually, the Bible doesn't say, "thou shalt not kill", that's a bad translation. What it says is, "thou shalt do no murder". Notice that the word used here for murder is "ratsach". Nowhere else do we see this word, except when applied to murder.

We never see it used when referring to warfare, capital punishment or self-defense.

 

[12volt_man]

Here's a sermon I found, there are MANY like it:

It's been 20 years since we legally executed a witch on this campus, but our lawyers are working very hard with the Federal Government to ensure that we can continue to practice our religion the way the Bible tells us to. [...] We are supposed to be killing witches! If we don't, we are disobeying God. Jesus would weep tears of joy if He leaned down off His cloud and sniffed up the burning flesh of a witch this Halloween. Wouldn't that ruin Satan's little birthday party! Praise God! It's just a shame that the United States Government has placed restrictions on the Biblically-mandated practice of witch burning.

Pastor Deacon Fred(The site won't let me post the site. Put "www" "landoverbaptist" "org", with the appropriate dots, and go to the "sermons" section. You'll find it there.)

Sorry, I posted before I realized this was based on a Landover Baptist piece.

Nevermind.

 

[Lavis Knight]

What of the innocents that were slaughtered by the Israelites? When they "killed" everyone in a town that would include children as well.

What of the time that the israelites tricked other people's into circumsizing themselves so they would not be able to defend themselves as the israelites slaughtered them en masse?

I don't see how you cannot call such things anything else but murder.

 

[Miss Sera]

Ooook... I think we have a miscommunication. I didn't open this to debate what the words "kill" and "murder" means. I asked how can you follow the "people's laws" and the "biblical laws" when the clash?

btw, I know Landover is Satire. Sadly, my ex best friend wasn't useing satire when she said I should be burned at the freaking stake for even researching witchcraft, let alone practicing it.

 

[Miss Shelby]

Sadly, my ex best friend wasn't useing satire when she said I should be burned at the freaking stake for even researching witchcraft, let alone practicing it.

That is sick. I can understand why she is your *ex* best friend. With friends like that, you may have to sleep with one eye open.

Michelle

 

[12volt_man]

Ooook... I think we have a miscommunication. I didn't open this to debate what the words "kill" and "murder" means.

But when you start a thread on the premise that the Bible says something that it doesn't say, then don't you think it's reasonable to define the terms you're using?

I asked how can you follow the "people's laws" and the "biblical laws" when the clash?

What laws and how do they clash?

btw, I know Landover is Satire.

Then wasn't it a little misleading of you to present it as fact and representative of Christian teaching?

 

[MKalashnikov]

What of the innocents that were slaughtered by the Israelites? When they "killed" everyone in a town that would include children as well.

People forget that God is not only a God of love, but He is also a God of justice. The attributes are mutual, they don't clash. When a people sin, they incur his judgment; and when people incur his judgment, God is patient, but his patience runs out eventually. God will tolerate sin for so long and then God will move in judgment against that sin.

When Sin reaches a certain point, the punishment becomes National rather then individual. (Which is exactly the point where we as a nation are heading today.)

When God destroyed the Canaanites, He did it to preserve his truth among the Israelites. They were like cancer and when cancer exists, the only wise thing to do is to cut it out. And God does that in a preserving act.

The people whom God judged were not "innocent" he pronounced judgement against them, and convicted them.

 

[MKalashnikov]

Then wasn't it a little misleading of you to present it as fact and representative of Christian teaching?

I agree. In addition the quote about "heard in a court of law" also seemed to disappear when I pointed out that no court would ever hear such an insane defense.

 

[Miss Sera]

But when you start a thread on the premise that the Bible says something that it doesn't say, then don't you think it's reasonable to define the terms you're using?

The bible doesn't say it? Guess what my mother's defense is when we would get into discussions about witchcraft: "the bible says it's evil." When we got into a talk about tolerance with Homosexuals: "the bible says it's wrong." When my ex-best friend told me she couldn't be my friend b/c cause I was into Wicca, and I was talking to my mother over it, she told me to my ****ing face, had my mother and I had the discussion over witchcraft in any other country it could have ended with someone being killed, and her reasoning behind it? She uses something from the bible to justify it! Gee, how am I supposed to interprete it?

 

[MKalashnikov]

The bible doesn't say it? Guess what my mother's defense is when we would get into discussions about witchcraft: "the bible says it's evil." When we got into a talk about tolerance with Homosexuals: "the bible says it's wrong." When my ex-best friend told me she couldn't be my friend b/c cause I was into Wicca, and I was talking to my mother over it, she told me to my ****ing face, had my mother and I had the discussion over witchcraft in any other country it could have ended with someone being killed, and her reasoning behind it? She uses something from the bible to justify it! Gee, how am I supposed to interprete it?

You missed the point, You posted something from Landoverbaptist and represented it as fact, after it was pointed out that it was satire, you said, "Oh I knew it was satire."

You stated that you "Heard in a Court of Law."

When I asked for a case cite, and then pointed out that no judge would ever allow such a defense, you changed the subject.

It appears to me that your post was with a specific agenda in mind, not to ask any real questions or engage in debate.

Your point about murder vs kill was answered.

The Bible condemns MURDER not Killing.

Killing is sometimes justified, necessary and commanded. Wars, Self-Defense, and the State Executing Criminals all involve killing, none of those actions are murder.

 

[MKalashnikov]

I've heard people say, in a court of law, that the reason they've killed homosexuals is because God told them to, or because it written in the bible

I noticed you edited the above quote to this:

I've heard of people say that the reason they've killed homosexuals, or other such things, is because God told them to, or because it written in the bible.

Could it be because you never heard anyone actually offer this defense in a court of law as I pointed out?

Now, I must ask you, How many people do you know that killed homosexuals, and then told you the reason that they did it?

Ooook... I think we have a miscommunication. I didn't open this to debate what the words "kill" and "murder" means. I asked how can you follow the "people's laws" and the "biblical laws" when the clash?

If this was your point, you should have opened with it. This is not of course what you opened with.

Let's let Mr. Blackstone answer you. (Sir William Blackstone was considered the one of the foremost authorities on Law, his Commentaries are quoted to this very day in Case Law.)

"Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being And, consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker's will, this will of his Maker is called the law of nature. These laws laid down by God are the eternal immutable laws of good and evil. This law of nature dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this.

"The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures [and] are found upon comparison to be really part of the original law of nature. Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these.


Now, Mr. John Locke:

[T]he Law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men's actions must be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e., to the will of God. [L]aws human must be made according to the general laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made. Locke, Two Treatises on Government, Bk II sec 135. (quoting Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, 1.iii, § 9)

 

[Miss Sera]

Hey, back off. I merely stating that from the way I enterpreted it. The same way somone may have interepreted that someone asking for something blue, doesn't care what type of blue you get them. You may not feel it's relavent, but it is, from my life and past experiances, I have been lead to believe that is what the Bible meant. Would you jump down a woman's throat for interepreting that all men are untrustworthy after she's been raped?

My original intent of this debate was this: I merely wanted to know how you follow both "laws." Forgive me if I didn't state that clearly enough. Also, please do not talk to me like I'm talking blasphamy. The Bible does say those things.

As to why I changed the "court of law" thing was because I couldn't back it up. I can't present information I can't back up, can I?

The disclaimer to Landover says: "The Landover Baptist Church is a complete work of fiction. It is a satire/parody." I didn't know that when I posted it. Do you want me to find something "un-satire" that bad.

 

[MKalashnikov]

Would you jump down a woman's throat for interepreting that all men are untrustworthy after she's been raped?

Yes, In fact I would.

My original intent of this debate was this: I merely wanted to know how you follow both "laws." Forgive me if I didn't state that clearly enough. Also, please do not talk to me like I'm talking blasphamy. The Bible does say those things.

As the Quotes I posted above show, Western Law was built upon God's Law.

As to why I changed the "court of law" thing was because I couldn't back it up. I can't present information I can't back up, can I?

Once again I must ask you, How many people do you know that have killed homosexuals, and how many of them personally told you why they did it.

 

[Miss Sera]

Once again I must ask you, How many people do you know that have killed homosexuals, and how many of them personally told you why they did it.

I think you've forgotten I said "heard of people" who've done things like that. I never once claimed I personally heard it. And why are you acting like I just said that God was evil? I merely stated at first how people thought thoses "laws" work, and later turned it towards "how do you follow both?"

 

[MKalashnikov]

I think you've forgotten I said "heard of people" who've done things like that. I never once claimed I personally heard it. And why are you acting like I just said that God was evil? I merely stated at first how people thought thoses "laws" work, and later turned it towards "how do you follow both?"

And how common do you believe the killing of homosexuals to be? Furthermore how many of those who killed homosexuals then said "God told me to do it?"

In 1998, there were 16,914 murders committed in the United States. Of those, 13 were considered "hate crimes." The victims were all men, as were their killers. Four of these murders were committed against homosexuals. So out of 16,914 murders in 1998, only four were considered to be "hate crimes" directed against homosexuals.


Secondly, I (Actually Blackstone and Locke) answered how you can follow both.

 

[12volt_man]

And how common do you believe the killing of homosexuals to be? Furthermore how many of those who killed homosexuals then said "God told me to do it?"[/font]

In 1998, there were 16,914 murders committed in the United States. Of those, 13 were considered "hate crimes." The victims were all men, as were their killers. Four of these murders were committed against homosexuals. So out of 16,914 murders in 1998, only four were considered to be "hate crimes" directed against homosexuals.

And out of the remaining four, how many did so because they felt the Bible told them to?