The answers are in the scriptures that I've been giving you. You refuse to believe. Knowledge is not a feeling. Evidence of creation has clearly been seen by all so that nobody is without excuse. The bible is the most accurate book ever written and archaeological evidence supports the bible 100%.

I have peace and contentment because I have a gracious and merciful God who has forgiven me of my sins past present future. Repent and believe and His mercy and grace will be showered upon you as well. The bible is the only book that has a savior that shed His blood and fully satisfied God's wrath as a propitiation for my sins. He took the punishment that I fully deserved. I have broken everyone of God's laws and deserve eternal hell but by His grace He saved me.

First off, I would like to thank you for serving our country. The first case would be murder and the second case would be killing if you were put in a situation of self defense. I don't know about you but I would feel guilty in either case. Taking another life in any case is awful. The truth according to scriptures is that we're all murderers in our heart when we get angry with someone for no reason. 

 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire. (Matthew 5:21-22)

Even though they may not be able to feel empathy they still know it's wrong to murder. What you reap you shall sow. Yes we can ask for forgiveness but the bible also says we are not to go on sinning willfully either (Hebrews 10:26-27) We all deserve punishment because we are all evil. And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone. (Mark 10:18) 

The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (Genesis 6:5)

  I am so glad to say yes I fully agree with you on this point Lee There are people on the board that have actually looked over texts and some who were merely exposed to them at one point or another. But, The board consists of individuals and as such there are many different experiences represented here (a word to the wise).

First god's morals don't change and now they do ? Which is it ? Inconsistency is the first sign of faulty logic.

What evidence of creation ? Oh, you mean the Big Bang ? Evolution ? Abiogenesis ? What evidence of creation are you talking about ?

 Re :: Trying to understand how he feels that way

  (Trying to understand how he feels that way)

 Lee has be relatively interactive and very patient with the board thus far and overall that has become rare these days (Twd39; JesusLovesYou, needn't be mentioned).

  It is part of my make-up and personality is to want to understand (as you might have guessed). I think Lee can sincerely feel this way because of statements like this one:

 ²⁷ “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ ²⁸ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

     Adultery from someone who had actually committed it (below):

  Suggested in an example of  sin in a life that started with a lust problem but didnt stop there (over-the-top sinful SINNING): 

  You remember the detailed in 2 Samuel chapters eleven and twelve. The narrative describes the king’s lusty liaison with the first gazed on nude Bathsheba. When it was the time when he (the King) was supposed to be doing other things (it starts out). This adulterous union that ensues from making inquiries about the nude woman. Later we find it resulted in the conception of a child, (remember the one who didnt become king later on) and led the king to arrange for the murder of his paramour’s husband (she already had one). Btw, Recall David already had multiple wives by this time. Mel Brooks and his typically off-colored remark about "It's good to be King" (if you remember the film I needn't say more).  It gets even worse with him ensuring the gal's husband was killed while waring. Not dissimilar than placing a 'hit' on him. **Can you see what I mean about after people wont commit these transgressions in whole of their lives ** This did not go unnoticed, Severe judgments were leveled against the house of David, and affected him very personally, for these transgressions (according to the account).

7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9 Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’

  Fall-out 

     As one of the many examples was a direct judgement (according to the passage in the text) was the punishment levied against his own  child, the child illegitimately conceived with another man's wife on David's part was not to live. When the infant was finally born to Bathsheba, David being the character he was, hoped to influence events, on behalf of the the sickly and feeble little baby. The king prayed and fasted, but the baby lived only a week (I havent read all of it). When the 'then' remorseful ruler learned of the illegitimate child’s death, he arose from the earth, cleaned himself up, broke his fast and went to worship in the house of Yahweh. This is from the man you was credited with the phrase "Though he slay me, yet will I just him", I include for context, according to the tradition. Their were a series of events that David attributed to this and many admitted consequences to all of it, I gather. Later on, "Tamar’s half-brother, Amnon, was quite taken with his sister. He lusted for her, and when she would not yield, he raped the girl (2 Samuel 13:14). I thinking their some lust issues in the family. Tamar’s full-brother, Absalom, learned of the horrible deed and was outraged. Doubtless his father to avenge the wicked act. But David did nothing—perhaps due to his own weakness in the area of fleshly desire. At this point I am not liking any of this!! But Absalom would not be denied justice. And so, at the end of two years, seething all the while, he laid a plot and had Amnon killed (2 Samuel 13:28-29). What disgrace! What heartache in the house of David.As a result of this assassination, Absalom was forced to flee beyond the Jordan for asylum. Three years he was in exile, “and David mourned for his son every day” (2 Samuel 13:37). Finally, Absalom was allowed to return to Jerusalem; but even then, he was not permitted into his father’s presence for two years more (2 Samuel 14:28).From the outset of his return, the ungrateful lad began to make plans to wrest his father’s throne from him. But kingdoms are not toppled overnight, and so the rebel son stealthily “stole the hearts of the men of Israel” (2 Samuel 15:6). There is more than one kind of thief in the world!When the time was right, Absalom, with a strong military force, declared himself to be the new king. David fled from the capitol city, weeping as he climbed the Mount of Olives east of Jerusalem (2 Samuel 15:30)" David was forced to flee from his own son. Anyhow. After it all shakes out  Absalom is one day killed. And even then, the grief stricken father was to have memorably said upon hearing the news: "O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! Would I had died instead of you ...

  Link .. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absalom

I live a nice life in Australia, I commit no crimes (apart from occasionally speeding on my motorbike), could not be bothered to lie. But if some one asked me if the house I live in was stolen from the aborigines, would I be lying if I said - no it was not - I own it legitimately? What about jewish settlers on the West Bank? Are they thieves? And are the palestinians lying when they say the jews have no place in palestine? When theists claim baselessly that atheists are immoral are they bearing false witness?

At some point in the near past, my ancestors all got married in the Celtic way. No doubt there were branches strewn around and flowers and the congregation knelt to the River God. Are you lying when you say these blameless folk were committing adultery? Was their idea of marriage any less than that of the violent culture that subsumed my own 18,000-year-old aboriginality? That continues to do so?

And human imagination being the broken instrument that it is, many witnesses invent memories that never happened. Were they lying, if they made a mistake? Were they bearing false witness? Did zombies really prowl the streets of jerusalem? Did Gadera's pigs fly?

But in the second case I am not in a situation of "self defense". However you construe it, as an American the fight is most likely in the foreigners homeland. And my MOS (mode of service) was recon. Which means my job was to infiltrate enemy lines and if any killing was involved it was done as quietly as possible. IOW, some poor SOB who was just pulling guard duty would get his throat slit or shot in the back of the head with a silenced weapon so I could recover whatever intel my mission required me to gather. If everything went as planned, no one would know I approached so no person could possibly be threatening me to the point where I could credibly claim self defense. I am clearly the aggressor, in HIS country, attacking him without his knowledge. I am nothing more than an assassin that has the blessing of the US government. Does the US government's decisions carry the weight of god?

Like I said, in my personal opinion, the asshole who beats his wife definitely deserves to die. My heart tells me that his death makes the world a better place to live. My heart also tells me that the poor sap who pulls guard duty the night I have to infiltrate the enemy camp and happens to be in my way is probably a decent person who is doing nothing more than what I am, protecting his country. While it makes nice movies to pretend otherwise, the reality is that the majority of the people we kill in our wars are not Osama Bin Laden that want every American dead. The majority of them are simply young men who need a way to support and feed their families and joining the military is a good way to make money. IOW, they are no different than me, they just happened to be born in a different country and I am killing them simply because of that fact and not because of any terrible deed they personally performed.

As a soldier you are killing a perfectly decent person simply for being born in the wrong country. And if you refuse to believe that you are simply deluding yourself (which many do). As a person who accepted that reality, the prospect that I might have to do so was a real moral crises for me and the decision that I was in fact capable of it was neither easy nor happy the day I realized I was capable of killing another human in cold blood.

Yet somehow, you justify that killing.... why? Because Bill Clinton said so? Because GW Bush said it was right? Because Obama said so? HOW do you differentiate between murder and killing? Yet you condemn the killing of an asshole that probably 90% of the world would agree that we would be better off without? All I knew is that I was able, and willing to point my gun and pull the trigger wherever my superiors said so without question, regardless of whether I personally believed the person in my sights deserved to die. 

From a subjective human standpoint, it is very clear. I cannot kill someone without consent of the government. And the government is more likely to consent to me killing someone who is not part of our society and anyone who is part of our society gets a special trial. It makes sense from a human level that those inside society get more consideration than those outside society.

From a god level, it makes no sense that one gets preference over the other. From a god level, I don't see how you can possibly differentiate between the two. Sure, someone who carries mass murders and terrorist attacks you can justify killing. But someone who is just serving as a guard? Or is the communications man? All those two are doing is living their lives and following gods commandment against lying (and in all probability follow gods laws much closer than I ever did as I have never had a monogamous relationship, drank since I was 14 and have never believed in god). Outside of the subjective human standpoint, I don't see how you can say they deserve to die at all. And this is coming from a man who agreed to kill them. 

 I'd also like to mention at this point that my colourful response earlier in the thread was based upon the assumption that Lee did in fact support stoning adulterers. He has subsequently made clear his position on that (Which was that he was playing a Reductio ad absurdum position) - I should have withdrawn my previous statements earlier, but I got caught up in the following debates.

I do so now.

That was very well stated and poignantly put Beyond.

1) The moral law is the 10 commandments

2) An example of a civil law is Deuteronomy 15:1 , "At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts."

3) Deuteronomy 16:13, which instructed the Israelites to "celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles for seven days after you have gathered the produce of your threshing floor and your winepress."

Have you ever taken anything that didn't belong to you? Even once? Have you ever looked at a woman with lust...just once? 

 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.(James 2:10)

We are all guilty and will be judged according to God's perfect standard not our own human fallible standard.

Disagree! A hunch is a feeling...something that may be true and it might not be true. 2+2=4 and we know this equation to be true because of....knowledge. 2+2=4 is not a feeling. I would think logic would be enough evidence and the universe God has made. Where do you think all this came from...nothing? The 100+ billion galaxies we've discovered, so many stars that can't be counted. If the earth were to tilt off it's axis by 1 degrees it would be catastrophic. What keeps the earth on it's axis? 

Read the book of Exodus. Nowhere in the bible does it claim that Hebrew slaves built the pyramids. Archaeological evidence demonstrates the historical and cultural accuracy of the bible. 

I know I'm saved because I test myself by God's word.

Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test! (2 Corinthians 13:5)

 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. (1 John 1:6-10)

 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. (1 John 2:22-23)

To use and old cliche I know because the bible tells me so.

They don't change - they just no longer apply, right Lee? After all, Jesus abolished all those laws and replaced them with faith and belief. Read Romans - none of this stuff you're discussing applies to the believer.

Don't ask me to take seriously the commandments you don't.

Don't care to read about murderers thank you. The human heart is evil continually (Genesis 6:5) and the heart is deceitfully wicked (Jeremiah 17:9) You say you're not a sinner? You've never stolen anything just once or taken the name of the Lord in vain just once? You remind me of the rich young ruler who thought he followed all the commandments and didn't need to humble himself before God. You're comments sound as though you are self-righteous...I don't do this I don't do that. You can't work you're way to heaven we are saved by His unmerited favor through our faith which are both gifts from Him. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Oh so you plan to stop reading the Bible?

What do you call people who lie and continue to lie (like you, Ray and Kirk)?

I hope someday that you learn to think for yourself and not take the word of con artists.

 Misc. --

 

Quote:

Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. (1 John 2:22-23) 

Misc. --

I couldnt tell you why, it is errie (variant spelling eery).. I know part of a browser page is idle and left sitting for four days with a passage attributed to 'the lawless one' in the New Testament's 2 Thes. (with these greek words) jumping out, as follows : 

ἀγάπηνerrie


τῆς

ἀληθείας

 JcGadfly   Speaking only generally, of course, Some of the  tradition, almost thoughtlessly, are sometimes accustomed to forgetting some parts, or even go so far as to put an end to even considering various passages, or if I am being unfair create distinctions nonetheless for themselves.  

If you are going to quote bible, I thought of a few verses, I was able to quickly look, though given time I am sure there are more than the mere few that come to mind.

   I have only the briefest of moments to even comment so let's make the very quick and this is misc. --

  94 1:3 Yahweh, how long shall the wicked, How long shall the wicked triumph?  4 They prate, they speak arrogantly: All the workers of iniquity boast themselves. 

   No comment about who that normally describes the best in these parts to everyone's sad experience.  Btw, The verse just preceding the example Lee gave to Blacklight  (part b) says: 

27.. and the fatherless, and the widow, that are within, thy gates, SHALL COME, and shall eat and be satisfied; .. 'that Yahweh the God may bless in all the word of they hand which thou doest. (end quote)"

  There is that  example in the New Testament --

 James 1:27  Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

 . . .

I don't justify murder. The difference is intent.

It is called an ANALOGY, A-N-A-L-O-G-Y. Your telling me that you do not see the parallels. Re-read, and then read jcgadfly's post about it.

So when God wiped people off the face of the earth or commanded others to do so - they were all accidental or unintentional?

dp

nothing of god's intent. You can't even coherently define god, or comprehend such a thing if it existed. But you can glibly rationalise the murder and torture spring-loaded into your cult by past men. How lovely you are.  

At the time I wasn't a libertarian. I was a card carrying conservative deeply involved in republican party politics hook line and sinker and would generally just spout the party line with no thought. It was actually during the service that I had time to really think about such things and started doing a lot of reading on things like history, ethics, politics and even religion (I was an atheist but mostly by default, I had never really thought about it). The military is great for having a lot of time to think. I wouldn't say my views were really formed until about 5 years later or so. 

So can you tell me how to objectively determine which intents to kill are murder and which not? It seems pointless to say "thou shalt not murder" if you don't define "murder". You might as well say, "thou shalt not snarkwargle". You tell me the knowledge is in my heart and I got drunk and spilled my heart all over the thread, yet my heart came to a very different answer than you said it should. So is my heart defective? If so, how do I obey gods commands to follow his commandments using my heart as a guide when he apparently fucked up making it? 

Give me a definition so if I am ever in a situation where I am deciding whether or not to kill someone I know if it is murder. And it has to be a definition that both of us could consider a particular situation and come to the same conclusion. 

"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?"

2 Corinthians 6:14

I encourage you to leave the site as soon as possible.