Is it Ever Okay to Kill

[keith99]

OK I'll buy that.

IF

It turns out both of you have also given away all you have to the poor.

Somehow I doubt it as you are both online.

 

[Max S Cherry]

OK I'll buy that.

IF

It turns out both of you have also given away all you have to the poor.

Somehow I doubt it as you are both online.

Will you elaborate as to what you will buy, who "both of you are," and what giving to the poor has to do with killing people?

 

[keith99]

Will you elaborate as to what you will buy, who "both of you are," and what giving to the poor has to do with killing people?

Who?

You and QueSi

What does it have to do with killing people?

Nothing directly, it has to do with your simplistic out of context reading of Scripture. I'm sure you are aware of the passage which read in the same manner requires you to do such.

 

[Jonathan95]

Properly translated means "You shall not murder." There is a difference.

No.. I'm not assured of that. There are "abortionists" that try to justify abortion by saying it's not murder because it's not unlawful. Read more about it here: Exodus 20:13 not kill - Another King James Bible Believer

 

[revrobor]

No.. I'm not assured of that. There are "abortionists" that try to justify abortion by saying it's not murder because it's not unlawful. Read more about it here: Exodus 20:13 not kill - Another King James Bible Believer

The KJV is an outdated translation. Any modern translation renders "Thou shalt not kill" as "You shall not murder." We have a group of right-fighters fighters in this thread and you people are free to believe what you want. However, I wonder what you do with the verse where Jesus tells his disciples to buy swords. I don't think He wanted them to use it to shave as most men back then did not shave. (Lk. 22:36)

 

[Lilly Owl]

Is it ever OK to kill? Yes.

 

[keith99]

The KJV is an outdated translation. Any modern translation renders "Thou shalt not kill" as "You shall not murder." We have a group of right-fighters fighters in this thread and you people are free to believe what you want. However, I wonder what you do with the verse where Jesus tells his disciples to buy swords. I don't think He wanted them to use it to shave as most men back then did not shave. (Lk. 22:36)

I think that is a fair way to characterize the KJV.

Tis foolish to split hairs over words when one is doing it over the translated words.

Should I point out that in todays usage of the word "Kill" applied to man, beast and tree. If one is going to hand on the word kill one has to go much farther than just not killing humans.

 

[Max S Cherry]

Who?

You and QueSi

Thank you. I wanted to be sure I was included in it before responding.

What does it have to do with killing people?

Nothing directly, it has to do with your simplistic out of context reading of Scripture. I'm sure you are aware of the passage which read in the same manner requires you to do such.

First, I am under the impression that *usually* the simplest reading is the best whether it be in reference to the Bible, constitutions, or opinions. Second, if you believe that one must take Christ's instructions out of context in order to oppose killing, we simply disagree.

I am aware of Matthew 19:21 which reads,
"Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me."

Are you referring to that verse or another?

 

[keith99]

Thank you. I wanted to be sure I was included in it before responding.



First, I am under the impression that *usually* the simplest reading is the best whether it be in reference to the Bible, constitutions, or opinions. Second, if you believe that one must take Christ's instructions out of context in order to oppose killing, we simply disagree.

I am aware of Matthew 19:21 which reads,
"Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me."

Are you referring to that verse or another?

Yup that verse.

And yes generally simple reading are best, but not simplistic readings or ones that depend on maintaining a mistranslation.

Or for that matter ones that when read in a simple manner contradict other verses.

Now if "Thou shalt not kill" were NT one could argue it is a change in the rules. But it is O.T. And there are scores of verses that require a human to be killed.

 

[Max S Cherry]

The KJV is an outdated translation. Any modern translation renders "Thou shalt not kill" as "You shall not murder."

An outdated translation? What exactly does that have to do with anything? Does translating change the meaning of the Bible, or does it make it easier to read? By the way, I have no problem accepting that particular commandment as a prohibition against murder. I think the support for opposing all killing comes from Christ's instructions to His followers.

We have a group of right-fighters fighters in this thread and you people are free to believe what you want.

I have to admit that I do not know what you mean by this statement.

However, I wonder what you do with the verse where Jesus tells his disciples to buy swords. I don't think He wanted them to use it to shave as most men back then did not shave. (Lk. 22:36)

I do not pretend to know for certain what He wanted them to do with the swords. I do submit that telling someone to buy a sword is long way from giving the okay to use those swords in violation of everything else He had told them.

It is my belief that He wanted them to be armed when the soldiers came to get Him, so it would be seen that He offered no resistance when He could have do so. It seems that He did not want them to use the swords for defense. When Peter did that very thing, He was rebuked, and Christ healed the servant's ear.

 

[keith99]

An outdated translation? What exactly does that have to do with anything? Does translating change the meaning of the Bible, or does it make it easier to read? By the way, I have no problem accepting that particular commandment as a prohibition against murder. I think the support for opposing all killing comes from Christ's instructions to His followers.
.....
I do not pretend to know for certain what He wanted them to do with the swords. I do submit that telling someone to buy a sword is long way from giving the okay to use those swords in violation of everything else He had told them.

It is my belief that He wanted them to be armed when the soldiers came to get Him, so it would be seen that He offered no resistance when He could have do so. It seems that He did not want them to use the swords for defense. When Peter did that very thing, He was rebuked, and Christ healed the servant's ear.

A reasonable argument.

There is a danger in discussions in forums like these as just who made which argument often gets forgotten. I will try to remember which arguments are your going forward.

BTW your argument serves as an excellent example of the difference between simple and simplistic.

I consider your argument simple. A simplistic argument would be arguing that since Jesus told them to get swords he must condone violence.

I also note that you DID NOT say that your idea msut be the one and only correct one. That scores points in my book. I'll propose an alternate idea, that perhaps Peter was simply too eager and the timing was wrong. (Please note that these ideas are not diametrically opposed, I'd say they have far more in common than opposed).

I think both are worth considering.

 

[revrobor]

A reasonable argument.

There is a danger in discussions in forums like these as just who made which argument often gets forgotten. I will try to remember which arguments are your going forward.

BTW your argument serves as an excellent example of the difference between simple and simplistic.

I consider your argument simple. A simplistic argument would be arguing that since Jesus told them to get swords he must condone violence.

I also note that you DID NOT say that your idea msut be the one and only correct one. That scores points in my book. I'll propose an alternate idea, that perhaps Peter was simply too eager and the timing was wrong. (Please note that these ideas are not diametrically opposed, I'd say they have far more in common than opposed).

I think both are worth considering.

I do not believe Jesus condoned violence. But I do believe He wanted them to buy swords in the event they needed them to protect themselves or Him. They would wound or kill anyone who attempted to harm them or the Lord.

 

[xxxxxxtra]

I agree max. We should never resort to violence. Infact Jesus set the standard. We should be willing to die if necessary.. But to pick up arms is rebellion against all that Christ is and stood for. Honestly, if Jesus taught a gospel of vengence and self defence. I would be the first to say He was merely a man.. But, His gospel talks of sacrifice, and unconditional love.. Thisvis how i know He is God..

 

[Max S Cherry]

Yup that verse.

That is a particularly confusing verse. I see that it can be read to mean sell "all" or sell "some," and honestly, I do not know which is correct. Christ was speaking to a man with many possessions, and I believe He was demonstrating the difficulty the rich have with letting go of their reliance on "stuff." I think it would be great if a man would sell all his possessions and give the money to help the poor. Of course, if he did so, he would then be one of the poor and have to have someone help him.

So, in response to your questioning, I have to say that I believe Christ wants me to not worry with accumulating lots of worldly goods, to be charitable to others, and to not be a strain on anyone else. How much is enough? I have no idea, but it is certainly less than what I have. I could help more.

A reasonable argument.

There is a danger in discussions in forums like these as just who made which argument often gets forgotten. I will try to remember which arguments are your going forward.

Thank you.

I also note that you DID NOT say that your idea msut be the one and only correct one. That scores points in my book. I'll propose an alternate idea, that perhaps Peter was simply too eager and the timing was wrong. (Please note that these ideas are not diametrically opposed, I'd say they have far more in common than opposed).

I think both are worth considering.

No, I usually try to steer clear of absolutist statements especially when discussing beliefs. Your suggestion is not out of the question, and it is not out of the question that God supports self-defense killing. I would never tell someone who had to kill in defense of himself or someone else that he had erred. I simply believe it to be wrong.

The Old Testament seems to be a book of violence to one's enemies, but to me, it seems the New Testament points in the opposite direction. I read it as a book of forgiveness and peace with one's enemies even at the cost of earthly life.

 

[Max S Cherry]

I do not believe Jesus condoned violence.

On that much, we agree.

But I do believe He wanted them to buy swords in the event they needed them to protect themselves or Him. They would wound or kill anyone who attempted to harm them or the Lord.

But this is precisely what Peter tried to do, and he was stopped by Christ.

 

[Max S Cherry]

I agree max. We should never resort to violence. Infact Jesus set the standard. We should be willing to die if necessary.. But to pick up arms is rebellion against all that Christ is and stood for. Honestly, if Jesus taught a gospel of vengence and self defence. I would be the first to say He was merely a man.. But, His gospel talks of sacrifice, and unconditional love.. Thisvis how i know He is God..

Hello and thank you for sharing your thoughts. I also find Christ's message to be of sacrifice and unconditional love for others. I believe we would all be better off if we could be dedicated to those ideas.

 

[Jonathan95]

I do not believe Jesus condoned violence. But I do believe He wanted them to buy swords in the event they needed them to protect themselves or Him. They would wound or kill anyone who attempted to harm them or the Lord.

I already proved by scripture that the weapons weren't to be used for protection or such. It had to do with the prophecy in Isaiah 53:12.. See Luk 22:37.

(Luke 9:54 NKJV) And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?” 55 But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of.

He rebuked their "violent behavior"

 

[revrobor]

I already proved by scripture that the weapons weren't to be used for protection or such. It had to do with the prophecy in Isaiah 53:12.. See Luk 22:37.

(Luke 9:54 NKJV) And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?” 55 But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of.

He rebuked their "violent behavior"

He rebuked them because that is not what He wanted them to do at that time. It was not a condemnation of self protection.

 

[LionofJudahDK]

As a Christian, I do not believe it is ever acceptable for one person to kill another person. What are your thoughts?

As a Christian, I believe it CAN be right for one person to kill another. And pacifism is up there among the most disgusting ideologies ever spawned in a human mind.

Is it ever acceptable (moral, good, etc.) to take a person's life?

That depends 100% on the circumstances.

If you think/believe it can be acceptable, under what circumstances would it be permitted?

Soldiers in battle, judges ruling according to the the law of the land, executioners carrying out those rulings, someone defending his/her family, or other innocents, etc.

 

[ebia]

As a Christian, I believe it CAN be right for one person to kill another. And pacifism is up there among the most disgusting ideologies ever spawned in a human mind.

That's a rather serious claim, bordering on flaming. Particularly given that the earliest church was pretty much entirely pacifist until Augustine of Hippo