pajarito

Just some background: The Hebrew word used in 6th Commandment is ratsach which translates “intentional killing without cause” (e.g. murder). Hebrew law recognized accidental killing as not punishable. In these instances, the Hebrew word nakah is used. For God (or anyone else) to be guilty of murder, the killing would have to be unjustified or without cause. This is never the case with God or for anyone he commanded to kill. God is always completely holy and just. When God ordered Joshua, for example, to kill the people of Canaan, Joshua was completely justified in his actions. The Canaanites had forsaken God and were performing acts such as burning their children as sacrifices to pagan gods. They were considered wicked by God and the order was given. The Canaanites were not innocent and deserved God’s righteous judgment. The penalty for your sin today has not changed since then. God is merely withholding judgment and giving you the time to repent and trust in him. This is righteous judgment. The ultimate penalty is the same now as it was then. Anyone with sin on their record when called to accountability on the Day of Judgment will be put to death. Righteous judgment was immediately delivered in those days for sins against God. It has been withheld now due to the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. In those days, people could only be justified before God through their faith. It had to be great faith measured by God himself. Because they are different. Exactly! And that is precisely why you, as an unbeliever, are still under the weight of the law and will be held accountable to it on the Day of Judgment. It is why it is still as valid today as it was when it was given. He wasn’t speaking of the laws of a particular nation or those which applied to a particular ceremony of a people. He was talking about God’s laws (e.g. His laws). The fulfillment of the law is through him and only him. You can’t say that you’ve kept the 10 Commandments or that it is even possible for you to do so. He is the atoning sacrifice for your having broken the law, being under penalty of death, and unable to pay your own fine. The punishment for the transgression of the law that you mentioned has not changed. It is death. As you stated above, however, Jesus came to fulfill the law, not to abolish it. There is a New Covenant with God through his atoning sacrifice. Judgment has been withheld but not forever. You will have to answer for every thought and deed done during your lifetime. You just broke Commandment # 3. Where will you be going when you die?

I served in Afghanistan 02-03. We captured, interrogated, and sent off plenty who weren't Taliban and who were from many other countries. They traveled to Afghanistan for Jihad. I also dealt with the Taliban and understand exactly who they are.

How about the Sudan? There were insurgents captured from all over the place who went to Afghanistan for Jihad. Sudan has been a party to the conventions since 1980. Surprising. Thanks. Do you know of any who weren't? Added: But you know, if I'm fighting under the banner of Al-Qaida, that's not a country. Why would it matter where I'm actually from. How can they possibly be covered if that's the criteria? Again, I haven't read it and don't know. Just curious.

What if the insurgent was not a national of a country party to the convention?

How about the Sudan? There were insurgents captured from all over the place who went to Afghanistan for Jihad. This was a serious question. How about it?

Right. That taxi driver only picks up his Makarov when he has a target. Puts it down and it "belongs to someone else" when he doesn't. He's back to just being a taxi driver. Not saying that's always the case Bill. Just very frustrating when you've had to deal with it personally. It's can all be a "perfect world" with justice for all... when you're not there.

How about the Sudan? There were insurgents captured from all over the place who went to Afghanistan for Jihad.

Yes. However, doing something in the name of a deity doesn't preclude having your own reasons behind your actions. Yep!

Um... no. Have you read the conventions? The third Geneva Convention, signed and ratified by the US, covers soldiers and militias. The fourth Geneva Convention, signed and ratified by the US, covers everyone not covered by the third. "Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals." -Geneva 4, Art. 4 Pretty clear, yes? I've not read it. Just curious. Don't they have to represent a particular country, though.

Commandment #2 In this verse, the word jealous is not used in the sense that God is envious of something that someone else has. There is nothing that God “needs” or “has to have.” He is complete. We are not here because he needs us. We are here only as an expression of his glory. In the context of Exodus, God is speaking of people making and bowing down to idols instead of giving him the worship that he deserves. He isn’t jealous of what someone else has. He is jealous of what already belongs to him. There is a big difference. - It explains that God's kingdom will not appear immediately - It predicts that the Lord's reign will be rejected by many - It describes the role of a disciple between the Lord's departure and his return - It describes the reckoning that awaits all Christians - It describes the punishment awaiting those who do not submit to the King.

Dude... You are an intellectual giant!

Excellent Hairyjuan!!! I agree (NEVER thought I'd get the chance to say that).

My belief is secure. It is based not only on faith but personal experience. You have no evidence that could shake it. So, the answer to your question is no. Wow. No evidence at all, not even in principle. I wish I could think of a nicer way of saying it but it would be a waste of time for anyone to try to tell you anything then. My wife tells me that... Sometimes...

My belief is secure. It is based not only on faith but personal experience. You have no evidence that could shake it. So, the answer to your question is no.

But it was implicitly condoned by God then, and (apparently) is not now. Moral relativism. Moral Relativism - Moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths but instead exist relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references, and that no single standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. As stated before, stoning for adultery was the civil law of the Nation of Israel and not “God's law.” God’s law is absolute and universal. It is the same now as it was then. It’s not “relative” to anything. It is in fact above everything.

Are you asking me or telling me?

But it was implicitly condoned by God then, and (apparently) is not now. Moral relativism. God is not subject to us or our rules. We are subject to his.

Is there a serious question in any of this or is it just one big rant?

Many practices in the Old Testament were tolerated by God, for his purposes, but not necessarily condoned. These were primitive peoples. You’d be guilty of breaking the 6th Commandment and God will hold it against you. “Stoning for adultery was the civil law of the Nation of Israel, which operated as a Theocracy, and was not the civil law of any other nation.” It was not the law of God. “Interestingly, stoning for adultery was not acceptable under Roman law at that time and Jesus would have actually violated the civil law if he agreed to it.”

I'm not so sure that when we do something that is wrong, we know it. For example, I hit my husband one time. He said something stupid, I reacted by hitting him. We are talking less than a second reaction time, not enough of a moment to process anything mentally, just a total knee jerk reaction. At the second I hit him, there was absolutely no cognizance that it was wrong, I just lashed out the only way I knew how. Immediately afterwards, I was horrified and apologizing though. I still feel awful for it.... he forgave me, but I'll probably never forgive myself for that one. So based on your definition of sinning, did hitting my husband fall into that category or not? Were you "angry without cause" before you did it? Jesus said that if you just call your brother a fool, you are in danger of judgment, and the Bible says that if you've ever hated anyone (doesn't matter if it was just in the heat of the moment; God sees your heart), you are a murderer in God's eyes. Your hitting him was just an extension of that. Doesn't make you less guilty. Sounds like you did the right thing, though. I've been there. Most times, both parties are at fault, although I rarely ever admit that. Added:

Don't generalize Bill. The bad apples don't represent the whole tree.

Quotehaving just reread matthew, mark, luke, and john in their entirety, to preclude 'your taking it out of context' claims; this verse from luke 19:27 throws out any and all claims that the 'christian' god and mythical saviour loves the world. it reads: but those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring them hither, and slay them before me. THIS IS ONE OF THE 'SCRIPTURES' THAT IS THE FOUNDATION OF ALL THE BLOODSHED COMMITED IN SPREADING THE 'WORD OF GOD'.Quote That's a great illustration of why one should not simply pluck a sentence from anything you read and use it to suite your own purposes. The verse you quoted comes from The Parable of the Ten Minas. It's a short story with a moral lesson. - It explains that God's kingdom will not appear immediately - It predicts that the Lord's reign will be rejected by many - It describes the role of a disciple between the Lord's departure and his return - It describes the reckoning that awaits all Christians - It describes the punishment awaiting those who do not submit to the King.

I have no idea what you're talking about and how it pertains to a serious conversation.

No. "I" didn't define anything. I stated what translates into English from the original Hebrew. However, when we sin (whatever it is), we do it "with knowledge" (conscience) that it is wrong. I don't buy for a minute that the woman in your scenario suddenly forgot that murder was wrong before she did it. Sure, she may have been enraged, but she still knew it was wrong. You have to take responsibility for your actions. Like I said, God knows your heart.