Please show me, where under various religious protocol and philosophical/spiritual whatevers, you are allowed to kill, hurt, rob, steal etc.

All's fair in love and war, right?

I just need some guidance here. Under what circumstances can you hurt, under what circumstances can you kill, and under what circumstances can you take possession of property/goods.

If you read my post on the Atheist thread, you'll see how several chapters of Deuteronomy give numerous examples of the Israelites committing total genocide (men women and children) because they believe that God is on their side.

So the overall message is that on one hand it's "Thou shalt not kill", however on the other hand as long as they belong to a different religion and you believe that God is on your side, it's OK to kill as long as you kill every last one of them and destroy all their groves and graven images. In the name of the Lord of course.

It's plain that the Israelites took such pride that they recorded these Bronze Age mass murders in their sacred texts and the later Christians thought that they were pretty cool life examples to leave in there. At the same time they expunged the Bible of embarrassing Books such as Enoch which actually explored 'God' face to face and included some amazing transcendental and otherworldly experiences. Enoch obviously failed the test for inclusion, presumably because of its low body count, and was consequently relegated to the enigmatic  world of the apocryphal.  

The detail on Deuteronomy is paraphrased of course.

Don't confuse your testaments and religions muso...

muso wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 6:30am:

If you read my post on the Atheist thread, you'll see how several chapters of Deuteronomy give numerous examples of the Israelites committing total genocide (men women and children) because they believe that God is on their side. ....

I've read your post on the Atheist thread and I've pointed out to you that at the time when all that was happening it was acceptable modus operandi while mid 20th century when atheists did genocide it was exception not the rule.

Also according to your quotations victors invoked God after it was over not before so it looks like you confused cause and effect.

Grendel wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 7:52am:

Don't confuse your testaments and religions muso...

So are you saying that the OT is not relevant to Christianity and that Yadda was incorrect in quoting another part of Deuteronomy to make a point?

tallowood wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 8:19am:

muso wrote on Nov 30th, 2008 at 6:30am: If you read my post on the Atheist thread, you'll see how several chapters of Deuteronomy give numerous examples of the Israelites committing total genocide (men women and children) because they believe that God is on their side. .... I've read your post on the Atheist thread and I've pointed out to you that at the time when all that was happening it was acceptable modus operandi while mid 20th century when atheists did genocide it was exception not the rule. Also according to your quotations victors invoked God after it was over not before so it looks like you confused cause and effect.

What counts here is its inclusion in the religion's sacred book in the 21st Century.  

I think I understand your last sentence. It's like Osama Bin Laden saying "Allahu Akbar!" after hearing of the 911 attacks as opposed to before. So that somehow makes it ok, and justifies its inclusion in a sacred text?

muso wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 8:32am:

tallowood wrote on Nov 30th, 2008 at 8:19am: muso wrote on Nov 30th, 2008 at 6:30am: If you read my post on the Atheist thread, you'll see how several chapters of Deuteronomy give numerous examples of the Israelites committing total genocide (men women and children) because they believe that God is on their side. .... I've read your post on the Atheist thread and I've pointed out to you that at the time when all that was happening it was acceptable modus operandi while mid 20th century when atheists did genocide it was exception not the rule. Also according to your quotations victors invoked God after it was over not before so it looks like you confused cause and effect. What counts here is its inclusion in the religion's sacred book in the 21st Century.   I think I understand your last sentence. It's like Osama Bin Laden saying "Allahu Akbar!" after hearing of the 911 attacks as opposed to before. So that somehow makes it ok, and justifies its inclusion in a sacred text?

Muso, there is nothing sacred any more, not even PUB, TAB, TEST CRICKET, RL FINALS, ANZAC DAY, SANTA CLAUSE, ENVIRONMENT, ETC., ETC., ETC..

I think you will agree that the Atheism is to blame for THAT.

Muso...  If you think I read everyone of Yaddas or anyone elses posts here you've got rocks in your head.

The OT is the Jewish "bible" is is basically a history and is treated as such in Christianity.  The NT... is about Christ upon which... funnily enough...  Christianity is based... upon whose teachings it is based.

The OT says...  an eye for an eye...  the NT preaches forgiveness and tolerance... turn the other cheek etc.

Easel -
"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also.
If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic.
Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.
Do to others as you would have them do to you.
"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them.
And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that.
And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full.
But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back.
Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.
Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful."

Luke 6: 27 - 36


"For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins."

Matthew 6:14,15


I hope that helps. Jesus's words read really nicely, but are VERY hard to do.
From my experience, his advice is amazingly effective.

tallowood wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 9:07am:

I think you will agree that the Atheism is to blame for THAT.

For disrespect of the sacred? Maybe terrorism is to blame for that. Maybe drugs and rock and roll are responsible for that. Maybe it's some chemical they add to Big Macs or Coca Cola.

Maybe a religious upbringing that suppresses and penalises a questioning attitude is responsible for it.

As far as Atheism is concerned, I've never heard of any Atheist inspired terrorist groups similar to Al Qaeda, the IRA, the Tamil Tigers etc.  

Religion-inspired terrorism has appeared on the fringes of all major (and some minor) religions including Christianity, Judaism, and even Buddhism, as well as Islam of course.

But batty and disrespectful as he may be, I've never heard old Richard Dawkins say, "Come on chappies, let's strap on a suicide bomb or two and show those deluded religious bastards that we'll jolly well blow them up"

North Korea is a possible exception, but the main religion there seems to be the worship of Kim Jong.  

Do you think that Atheism is probably more of a symptom than a cause?

Sprint, doesn't it also say in the Bible something like (not an exact quote), "If you have no sword sell your cloak and buy a sword" or something?

Also, are Christians allowed to fight? Are they allowed to go to war? Wasn't Jesus meant to be a fulfillment of the law? And he only told us to love thy neighbour and love God? Therefore, can seizure of property, fighting, killing etc, be justified in any way?

Would a true Christian never fight anything and go the Ghandi route?

muso wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 12:00pm:

Do you think that Atheism is probably more of a symptom than a cause?

Just like other religions  :)

muso wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 11:57am:

... Maybe a religious upbringing that suppresses and penalises a questioning attitude is responsible for it. As far as Atheism is concerned, I've never heard of any Atheist inspired terrorist groups similar to Al Qaeda, the IRA, the Tamil Tigers etc.   Religion-inspired terrorism has appeared on the fringes of all major (and some minor) religions including Christianity, Judaism, and even Buddhism, as well as Islam of course. But batty and disrespectful as he may be, I've never heard old Richard Dawkins say, "Come on chappies, let's strap on a suicide bomb or two and show those deluded religious bastards that we'll jolly well blow them up" North Korea is a possible exception, but the main religion there seems to be the worship of Kim Jong.

Atheists Mao, Stalin and Polpot were inspiring mass murders and it is just as good that R Dawkins is not in a position of power and even many atheists take him for a joker.

Is self defence ok? For example, if you are in a situation you did not initiate, can you defend yourself, the whole do unto others thing, I would hope if someone else was in a situation they did not start they would defend themselves.

If you have a gun and someone else has a gun, and they are going to shoot you, is it ok to get in first?

If someone robs you, can you go reclaim your possessions plus compensation?

If someone bashes your girlfriend, can you go give them a flogging?

Where do we draw the line? What can you do and what can't you do?

The me part of me says I would like other people to get even, but the Christian part of me stops me doing it.

What's the deal?

If your next door neighbour sets your dog on fire, and you considered the dog a member of the family, is it justifiable to set your next door neighbour on fire, the whole, do unto others etc etc.

easel wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 12:54pm:

Is self defence ok? ...

Yes, and it works better when you use pre-emptive strike.

Did I ever tell the internet about the time I beat a black belt martial arts instructor more than just one time at a martial art neither of us were totally familiar with?

Where can pre emptive strikes be justified? What about revenge?

If you use preventive strike properly you will not need revenge attack later.

Easel - yes, Jesus does tell some of his followers to sell their cloaks to buy swords.

"He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.
It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'[b]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me.
Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."

The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
     "That is enough," he replied.

Luke 22:36 - 38

Jesus said that to fulfil this OT prophecy.
" Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,  
      and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
      because he poured out his life unto death,
      and was numbered with the transgressors.
      For he bore the sin of many,
      and made intercession for the transgressors."

Isiah 53:12


Remember, Jesus healed the guard that arrested him, and rebuked his own follower who hurt the guard.


What's the deal you ask Easel ?
"For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins."

Matthew 6:14,15

That's the deal. As easy is it is to say and think, it is REALLY hard to do.
The worldly ways are against you to forgive, your pride, ego etc etc etc
But God is for you.

Good luck mate. I'm praying for you

Christianity teaches that murder is generally not right, that is what the old testament 10 commandments mean.

obviously indirectly killing  or accidentally killing someone is not murder so its not the same.

as for intentional killing, the 10 commandments are a basic set of rules demanded by the jews as they refused to follow god as he wanted them to, he wanted to reveal himself and his intentions for humanity over time.

Like a father folding to teh whinging of his children God gave ten general laws which were meant as a guide for people of all time to adhear to, they are not prerequisites for salvation.

they are bound by the human construct of language and are thus imperfect.

Christianity teaches a philosophy of just war and you can find a good summary of this here http://www.rmbowman.com/catholic/war.htm

Classic Liberal wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 11:48pm:

... God gave ten general laws which were meant as a guide for people of all time to adhear to, they are not prerequisites for salvation.

What about Mortal Sins, Pender? (Not trying to be smart here)

easel wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 12:55pm:

If your next door neighbour sets your dog on fire, and you considered the dog a member of the family, is it justifiable to set your next door neighbour on fire, the whole, do unto others etc etc.

Do you know how to make a cat go 'Woof' ?  ;D

muso wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 8:18am:

Classic Liberal wrote on Nov 30th, 2008 at 11:48pm: ... God gave ten general laws which were meant as a guide for people of all time to adhear to, they are not prerequisites for salvation. What about Mortal Sins, Pender? (Not trying to be smart here)

All sin is an offense against God and a rejection of his perfect love and justice. Yet, Jesus makes a distinction between two types of sins. We call the most serious and grave sins, mortal sins. Mortal sins destroy the grace of God in the heart of the sinner. By their very grave nature, a mortal sin cuts our relationship off from God and turns man away from his creator. St. Paul’s letter to the Hebrews tell us that "if we sin willfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins" (Hebrews 10:26). The second type of sin, venial sin, that of less grave matter, does not cut us off from Christ. However, venial sin does weaken grace in the soul and damages our relationship with God. A person who frequently indulges in venial sin is very likely to collapse into mortal sin if they persist in their evil ways.

Thanks for refreshing my memory Pender. I'll be able to impress the wife now.  ;)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't spouses of the devout get a free ride into heaven according to mainstream Catholic belief? A kind of Get out Hell Free card? There is a scriptural reference somewhere. Not that I'm concerned  8-)

Yes read that a long time ago about the one sanctifying the other.

yeh its paul who said it i think, because the two become one thus if one is saved both are saved

Classic Liberal wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 6:50pm:

yeh its paul who said it i think, because the two become one thus if one is saved both are saved

Let's hope she doesn't take the opportunity to go drugging and p!ssing it up.  [smiley=evil.gif]

Oh she 's a good Catholic. She doesn't do drugs, but drinks like the best of them ;)  I'm the one who doesn't drink.

muso wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 7:30pm:

Oh she 's a good Catholic. She doesn't do drugs, but drinks like the best of them ;)  I'm the one who doesn't drink.

Or so you thought...  [smiley=laugh.gif]

i'm a catholic and have been with an atheist/agnostic for a year now, if we were to marry there would be somewhat of a parallel with you muso.

if you have kids what will they be raised as?

We already have two fine boys, now both in their 20's. They went to Catholic schools, but both ended up atheists despite the fact that I encouraged them otherwise (overcompensating if anything). They just lost interest.

I didn't mind the Catholic school because it was quite liberal in its teachings, and one of the factors that helped us decide was the high education standard. Sitting through religious talks in Parents nights and Awards nights was a bit boring at times though, but I wasn't alone there.

easel wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 12:54pm:

Is self defence ok? For example, if you are in a situation you did not initiate, can you defend yourself, the whole do unto others thing, I would hope if someone else was in a situation they did not start they would defend themselves. If you have a gun and someone else has a gun, and they are going to shoot you, is it ok to get in first? If someone robs you, can you go reclaim your possessions plus compensation? If someone bashes your girlfriend, can you go give them a flogging? Where do we draw the line? What can you do and what can't you do?

Hi easel,

I have replied to these Q's here....

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge...."
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1228368272/0#0

Instead of killing, how about cutting someones eyes out? Maybe testicle removal/massive ovarian trauma (like a good punch) to stop them seeing or reproducing? In the name of revenge/self justification?

What are the rules on that? What are the rules on that if they are vehemently anti Christian and oppose all facets of Christianity with almost militant vigour, from a Christian perspective?

easel wrote on Dec 8^th, 2008 at 5:33pm:

Instead of killing, how about cutting someones eyes out? Maybe testicle removal/massive ovarian trauma (like a good punch) to stop them seeing or reproducing? In the name of revenge/self justification? ...

That's what muslims use to do during Caliphate.