Originally posted by toms
PS/ yaebginn: "Thou shalt not kill"... doesn't that mean you won't make a great marine....
Its thall shall not murder in my translation, and I wont murder. I'll do my duty, which probably inplies killing, and thats ok. murdering is another issue. and to jack
1. I didnt even understand that. Just convert someone to Christianity. I dont care whether the yjoin the marines or not, every christian is different.
5. Why exactly is that selfish? Wanting to make my life worth something. So that I can do what I was made to do and my Heavenly Father can say 'Well done my good and faithful servant' yeah, how selfish of me.
6. In most cases, getting my name written down in the records means I did something, or contributed something. Whether its book, or whether I end up doing something really important, I want to contribute something. and I want my name written down, so I can carry on the family name. I dont plan on getting married (cause I'm not in love, at least yet) and I'd like to leave sometihng behind on this Earth.
-and not arrogant, they said themselves 'No goal' or 'To cease existing' those are the two I was implying. and it is sad. One just wants to stop living, which is very very sad, and the other said, 'no goals' thats sad to me. Not having any goals, nothing to strive for. Excuse me for taking pity on my fellow man. and skin, I never siad my ambitions were bigger than anyones, they said they had no goals at all. I dont count to stop living as a goal.
Originally posted by yaebginn
Excuse me for taking pity on my fellow man.
It's Ironic coming from someone whose goals include joining the marines, where you will in fact be killing your fellow man. If you want to take pity join the Peace Corps. :dozey:
no, the people I'd be shooting arent my fellows, they are peopel who hate me and wish me to die. I dont count thme as my fellow man. If they hate me that much, they are my fellows, they are my enemy.
Originally posted by yaebginn
no, the people I'd be shooting arent my fellows, they are peopel who hate me and wish me to die. I dont count thme as my fellow man. If they hate me that much, they are my fellows, they are my enemy.
And we know that every war the government will send us to, is because the enemy hates us...
not at all (I know u were being sarcastic) but no matter what, the enemy does hate you.
Originally posted by yaebginn
not at all (I know u were being sarcastic) but no matter what, the enemy does hate you.
Logically, that means we hate them back too. Right?
Now playing - Black Eyed Peas - Where is the love?
Yeah, we should hate them back, cause they're trying to kill us. They have nothing else to live for. :dozey:
Have you not considered that each human soldier has a life? Maybe a wife, kids to come back to...
Maybe they're just soldiers that have been forced to fight against their will?
:indif:
Your lack of sympathy for "your fellow man" scares me.
I never said I hated them. Tyrion said that. I dont hate them. I am doing my job, they are doing theirs. If I go down, I wont hate them for it. I volunteered. and what lack of sympathy? because I would shoot back at someone whos trying to kill me? Self defense scares you? Please explain.
Originally posted by yaebginn
I never said I hated them. Tyrion said that. I dont hate them. I am doing my job, they are doing theirs. If I go down, I wont hate them for it. I volunteered. and what lack of sympathy? because I would shoot back at someone whos trying to kill me? Self defense scares you? Please explain.
You misunderstood what I said. You said that the enemy does hate you and want you to die. Thus, we can assume the same point of view for our enemy's enemy(us) and come to the conclusion that we both hate each other. Unless you mean we don't hate our enemy, in which case I'm sure there are plenty of cases where our enemy doesn't hate thier enemy.
Yaeb, you say you'd only be killing because you were told and it's self defense, but logically, you would never need to defend yourself if you hadn't been in THEIR country attacking them. The US has rarely had to fight a defensive war on our own soil. No matter where the fighting is it has almost ALWAYS been in a country that was not our own, and therefore it was our "enemies" that were doing the killing in self-defense, not the other way around.
(they attacked us on 9/11, now we have to take them out so it doesnt happen again. They drew first blood, I dont wanna get off topic, talk to me on AIM if u want to continue this, my s/n is yaebginn.
i was watching this little known film about this guy who apparently lived a long time ago (Jeff or Jess or something) called the Passion of Christ... he had this really weird idea about not only loving your friends, but loving your enemies too.
In fact i think i remember this scene where his mates chopped the ear off a guy who was attacking them, and jesus (i remember his name now) told his mates to stop fighting and then HEALED his enemy.
Its a good thing people didn't decide to follow HIS odd example or we might all be going around being nice to our enemies. Silly idea.
;)
My goal is to be less sarcastic...
Its called Tough Love. I dont hate them. and I try to follow Jesus example. But I often fail. I am not perfect. But I didnt say I didnt love them. I said, 'I dont exactly love them.' and I love my family and friends more than them, so if I had to choose...
Originally posted by yaebginn
(they attacked us on 9/11, now we have to take them out so it doesnt happen again. They drew first blood,
No, the terrorists of the Al Queda attacked us on 9/11. The NATION of Iraq did NOTHING to us. Our attack was pre-emptive, and were you there YOU would be the aggressor.
TERRORISTS attacked us. We are getting rid of TERRORISTS. War on TERROR. Saddam was a major threat. we got rid of him.
Originally posted by yaebginn
TERRORISTS attacked us. We are getting rid of TERRORISTS. War on TERROR. Saddam was a major threat. we got rid of him.
And there has been no link between Al- Qaida (sp?) and Iraq. Bush wasn't and hasn't been able to find Osama so he went after someone he could get.
For one, there are still troops in Afganistan, but he also moved on to Iraq to get a large threat, and succeeded. He got Saddam. and now you guys are still complaining.
yesyes, and as everyone can see there is now finally the total peace going on in iraq.
because its not yet over. But its definitely better than it was. (btw whos gonna watch The Republican Convention?)
Originally posted by yaebginn
TERRORISTS attacked us. We are getting rid of TERRORISTS. War on TERROR.
Saddam was not a TERRORIST, ergo, he is absolutely unrelated to the war on TERROR.
He was a ruthless dictator. He also tried to take Kuwait in the Gulf war, we left him alone for a bit, and then he tries some more stuff. Are you saying saddam wasnt a threat and that we shouldnt have taken him down?
Originally posted by yaebginn
He was a ruthless dictator. He also tried to take Kuwait in the Gulf war, we left him alone for a bit, and then he tries some more stuff. Are you saying saddam wasnt a threat and that we shouldnt have taken him down?
Was Saddam posing a direct threat to us? I sure didn't think he was threatening us?
I'm saying he wasn't a threat to US, yes. If we're planning on taking out every ruthless dictator who is a threat to other countries, then we've got a LOT of wars on our hands. Africa alone is full of them. :dozey:
You still didnt answer my question. Here it is again- Are you saying saddam wasnt a threat and that we shouldnt have taken him down? answer yes or no.
he did answer, Saddam wasn't a threat to us.
We did not need to waste precious manpower and lives going after a man who poses no threat to us.
Bush needed a scapegoat. Why? a year in Afganistan and no Osama caught, hmm... I know... let's go after Saddam, who's not really doing anything of importance, and reignite something that should have ended years ago when my father was the president.
Originally posted by Tyrion
And we know that every war the government will send us to, is because the enemy hates us...
Good point. I would also like to point out that once you join the military, you are no longer required to think, you are no longer allowed to give opinions. The quite literally belong to the Government. That means every fiber of your being. I know this because I pissed away 5 years of my life in the United States Navy.
Once, I actually had a Warant Officer tell me that I could be court martialed for "defacing Government property". Know what I did? I got a tattoo. First I thought he was joking with me, but he turned out to be as serious as a heart attack. Eventually he just left me alone. I suppose had I got a tattoo of a ship's anchor or "GO NAVY", or some hokey crap like that, he's have looked the other way....but I got something that I wanted instead.
Being in the Navy, I was not allowed to vote, because my address was a ship. It's TRUE!!!
So if you don't like to think, and you don't have opinions, your on your way to a fantastic career in the military.
One final note, when you are in the military, the Government decides who your enemy is....not you!
Originally posted by yaebginn
TERRORISTS attacked us. We are getting rid of TERRORISTS. War on TERROR.
A war on terror that Bush just said he doesn't think we can win.
Just like Mike said, Bush needed something to try and take the public mind off of the lack of success in finding Osama and now we are in Iraq.
See... I've been saying it all along. Bush is a loser. :cool:
Originally posted by SkinWalker
See... I've been saying it all along. Bush is a loser. :cool: and a sore one at that.
The old testament, containing the 10 commandments, from which you are quoting, was written in 'Greek'. New Testament writers wrote in Greek, but spoke Aramaic, many words in these languages have more than 1 meaning, love for example, has 3 meanings in Greek "Eros, phileo, or agape"
"Eros" means "romantic love", the root word for "erotic"
"Phileo" something along the lines of loving someone as a friend
"Agape" means "love for God", a love you may have for a religion, or higher power.
Our language is not very advanced IMO, so we break words down, and sadly, in many cases, lose the meanings or the depth.
Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill."
“Kill” is also a word that has more than 1 meaning, MURDER is to take ones life without reason or regard... an entirely different matter to kill someone in battle. Some translations read “kill” others read “murder” but the intended meaning was murder.
Originally posted by ZDawg
but the intended meaning was murder.
And God himself has told you this?
There were two sets of commandments. Moses broke the first lot in a rage, god made a second (and slightly different) lot.
There are no importances on them, so who knows if they are meant to be equal or not....
Several christian religions set tehm out differently.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm)
one for that other thread:
3. The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep in the month when the ear is on the corn.
4. All the first-born are mine.
6. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, even of the first fruits of the wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.
7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread.
8. The fat of my feast shall not remain all night until the morning.
10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk.
Zdawg is right about the transations and "kill" vs "murder".:
"You shall not murder" - The Hebrew Bible makes a distinction between murdering and killing, and explicitly notes that murder is always a heinous sin, while killing is sometimes necessary, and in these cases just in the eyes of God. Thus, Jews take offense at translations which state "Thou shall not kill", which Jews hold to be immoral. Many Protestant and most Catholic Christians hold that this verse forbids abortion; Judaism disagrees.
wikipedia (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments)
However i doubt this will comfort yaebginn much as he is pro killing (but not murder) but anti abortion. (odd, but common).
However, of course, the 10 commandments are pre-jesus and he did add some clarification. HE was explicit that one should try to love one's enemy, he did not support the use of force.
The problem with joining the army (for a christian) would be that one would loose one's right to choose whether a particular death would be "killing" or "murder". One would just have to follow orders. Of course, if you assume that any orders given by your superiors are just and right and good then you would be ok... but i bet the poor guys on the other side would feel the same thing... so either god is supporting both sides, or one side is in for dissappointment whent hey get judged.
Under these rules i can understand a christian being willing to fight to defend their homes, or to save others... but i can't see that christians should be rushing to join the army. :(
Originally posted by ET Warrior
And God himself has told you this?
If there is one thing I never do, its open my mouth if I dont know what Im talking about. The original Greek textbooks show that the original word used, was the Greek word for murder
Originally posted by toms
However, of course, the 10 commandments are pre-jesus and he did add some clarification. HE was explicit that one should try to love one's enemy, he did not support the use of force.
The problem with joining the army (for a christian) would be that one would loose one's right to choose whether a particular death would be "killing" or "murder". One would just have to follow orders. Of course, if you assume that any orders given by your superiors are just and right and good then you would be ok... but i bet the poor guys on the other side would feel the same thing... so either god is supporting both sides, or one side is in for dissappointment whent hey get judged.
Under these rules i can understand a christian being willing to fight to defend their homes, or to save others... but i can't see that christians should be rushing to join the army. :( The bible also says to obey the laws of the land (I.E Government). Take it how you choose, but fighting for you country seems to fall into that area.
And yet Jesus told you to love your enemy. And you don't shoot and kill somebody that you love, so there seems to be a paradox.
That is because Yeab is not Jesus, by a long shot...but we knew that already, didn't we? ;)
Originally posted by ET Warrior
Saddam was not a TERRORIST, ergo, he is absolutely unrelated to the war on TERROR. I agree with you on most of the things, and I think Yaeb is as stupid as can be, but that statement has been proved false. Saddam has been funding terror attacks. But that doesn't make the rest of the Iraqies "Bad people", a term that was made by an american general, don't remember his name.
Bush is an idiot, removed flame/insult
Please refrain from insulting LF members. Feel free to bash Bush.
Originally posted by Hiroki
That is because Yeab is not Jesus, by a long shot...but we knew that already, didn't we? ;) true, but the point of christianity is to be christ like and follow christ's example :dozey:
Originally posted by ET Warrior
And yet Jesus told you to love your enemy. And you don't shoot and kill somebody that you love, so there seems to be a paradox. Love your enemy as yourself... how many times have you been mad, angry, even suicidal to yourself?
Originally posted by InsaneSith
true, but the point of christianity is to be christ like and follow christ's example :dozey:
Yes, but we all fall short. This isn't justifying the fact for killing another human being in any way, but people have feelings/emotions/pride etc..
I know, but I'm just saying he can't use humanity as an excuse for not trying. I realize noone is perfect, but you gotta try :p
g2g to work, so Icant address all the issues right quick. thanx to those who are on my side and such to make my job eaiser.
I cleaned this thread up (mostly page 2) and re-opened it.
The topic is Thou Shalt Not Kill? Please stick to it and avoid ad hominem remarks (a.k.a. flames).
I for one, found the discussion regarding the ancient Greek translations to be fascinating and it is sad to see a few members become juvenile and trite to the point of flaming with serious discussions like this going on in a thread.
Those that participated should each be a shamed.
--SkinWalker
ooohh! by the time i get here Skin has always cleaned up the mess... :(
I was interested to find the original translations and the fact there were two sets as well. There is often more than meets the eye when you dig around in these things.
I'm not so sure about the "obey the law of the land" though, as jesus himself wasn't a bit averse to breaking the law. The law in nazi germany (for example) wouldn't be very christian to obey.
I understand that the bible is basically trying to stop you going around murdering people, while giving you the freedom to defend yourself and protect people. however, when it came down to it, jesus wasn't willing to hurt or kill ANYONE no matter what they did to him.
While we can't all be as saintly (?) as jesus, i'd think most people would want to at least try. One easy step for a christian towards this goal would be to not get a job that includes carrying a gun and fighting as it's main goals.
Ok, if you are directly attacked, or your country invaded, or whatever then you would be free to defend yourself (even if jesus might not) but revenge attacks, maximum force and preemptive strikes would seem to be out of the question.
I guess it is possible to justify almost anything as allowed by your religion if you try (crusades, islamic terrorism, inquisition, etc..) but just because something is possibly allowed by the small print doesn't mean you should go after it wholeheartedly when it is patently against the overall message of the religion.
Early christians were willing to be persecuted and tortured, but unwilling to fight back (we are told), some modern christians seem almost EAGER to find a loophole to allow them to get around the "no killing" rule.
toms, there is no 'no killing' rule. where did you get that? Murder is different than killing. The main reason I want to join the military is the training. its free training, it pays for college. I mean, its a good deal. IMO, if the rules of the goverment contradict God's word, you dont do it, but if it doesnt contradict it, its free game. Thats my opinion.
skin- do you have AIM or email? I'd like to discuss your last post in this thread briefly with you.
Originally posted by yaebginn
toms, there is no 'no killing' rule. where did you get that? Murder is different than killing. The main reason I want to join the military is the training. its free training, it pays for college. I mean, its a good deal. IMO, if the rules of the goverment contradict God's word, you dont do it, but if it doesnt contradict it, its free game. Thats my opinion.
skin- do you have AIM or email? I'd like to discuss your last post in this thread briefly with you. If you are only gonna do the training, I guess there's nothing wrong with it. Especially if you wouldn't even go to Iraq. Fact is, that I'm not sure it's possible. If it is, then there's something really wrong about the US government.
Originally posted by yaebginn
skin- do you have AIM or email? I'd like to discuss your last post in this thread briefly with you.
cfeagans@email.com
Originally posted by yaebginn
toms, there is no 'no killing' rule. where did you get that? Murder is different than killing. The main reason I want to join the military is the training. its free training, it pays for college. I mean, its a good deal. IMO, if the rules of the goverment contradict God's word, you dont do it, but if it doesnt contradict it, its free game. Thats my opinion.
Hmm, you say murder is different to killing. Muder, though, is the unlawful killing of another person. And law of is course varies from country to country. For instance, in certain Islamic countries women who get raped but only have 2 witness', are commited of adultery and stoned to death. They didn't commit murder, since it was perfectly legal to kill the women in the thier country.
Oh, and I googled "ten commandments", and most of them seem to have "thou shalt not kill" as part of thier commandments, not "thou shalt not murder"