Thou shalt not kill?
Drunk commies deleted
06-07-2005, 15:58
A man who sued his community over their display of the ten commandments on public property has had his name, a description of his automobile, and his licence plate number published. He's recieved death threats.
www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000972884
Hab-Bubble24601
06-07-2005, 16:13
I love hippocrites, they make me laugh. especially christians who don't understand their own religion.
Sarkasis
06-07-2005, 16:15
Thou shalt not kilt.
Guadalupelerma
06-07-2005, 16:16
What if instead of demanding that the ten commandments come down we demand that every other commandment goes up? The pillars of Islam, the four fold path and 8 noble truths....everything from every religion massed in the same place. That would be fun. :p
My dad tells me that it's actually "thou shalt not murder" in the newer translations. I s'pose he uses that so the Bible doesn't contradict the death penalty.
Intangelon
06-07-2005, 16:21
This, coming from a community who joyfully slaughters OB/GYNs who perform abortions, doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
My dad tells me that it's actually "thou shalt not murder" in the newer translations. I s'pose he uses that so the Bible doesn't contradict the death penalty.
That would probably be more correct, since there are times when killing is unavoidable and has to be done for self defense or the defense of others. However, he legitimacy of the death penalty is a whole other discussion.
That would probably be more correct, since there are times when killing is unavoidable and has to be done for self defense or the defense of others. However, he legitimacy of the death penalty is a whole other discussion.
Indeed, but it raises the question whether death threats against a heretic are considered murder (by christian fundamentalists).
Lanquassia
06-07-2005, 16:27
If God said, Thou Shalt Not Kill to Moses, and then Moses led them back to the Promised Land...
...and then the Jews killed the Canaanites...
CthulhuFhtagn
06-07-2005, 16:31
Indeed, but it raises the question whether death threats against a heretic are considered murder (by christian fundamentalists).
If they take a literal interpretation of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, pratically everything is punishable by death.
If they take a literal interpretation of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, pratically everything is punishable by death.
As far as I can remember, Jesus revokes some of those laws (the dietary ones, at least) in one of his preachings. But that's just the new testament. If the death threats came from members of the Jewish Faith, would it be OK?
[NS]Parthini
06-07-2005, 16:36
OMFG!!1! TEH XTIANS R HYPPICROTS!!1! HAR HAR GAWSH XTIANS R SO DUM!!! [/sarcasm]
Get over it. There have been hypocrites in the Church since Peter joined. There are just bigger and stupider ones among Christians because there's more of us. We all know there are big hypocrites among Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Atheists, and I'm sure probably even Buddists, though I never hear about it. People aren't perfect and bitching at them won't help. Fix yourself before you fix others.
UberPenguinLand
06-07-2005, 16:36
What ever happened to "Love your Neighbor as you Love Yourself"?
[NS]Ihatevacations
06-07-2005, 16:38
Should bring a suit against the paper, could at least get them to stop printing his name and provide a retraction. If he gets hurt, just sue their asses because it is EASILY provable it was their intention to get him injured. There is no rational reason to provide his car description and license plate nubmers as well as any other personal facts
UberPenguinLand
06-07-2005, 16:39
Ihatevacations']Should bring a suit against the paper, could at least get them to stop printing his name and provide a retraction. If he gets hurt, just sue their asses because it is EASILY provable it was their intention to get him injured. There is no rational reason to provide his car description and license plate nubmers as well as any other personal facts
From what I gathered from the article, he tried and failed.
Neo Rogolia
06-07-2005, 16:39
Weee, another Christian-bashing thread :rolleyes:
UberPenguinLand
06-07-2005, 16:41
Weee, another Christian-bashing thread :rolleyes:
If you would actually read the article, you would realize that these particular(SP? I hate this word.) Christian were being total assholes. It WAS technically against the law to have the Ten Commandments there.
My dad tells me that it's actually "thou shalt not murder" in the newer translations. I s'pose he uses that so the Bible doesn't contradict the death penalty.
Actually, given the language, that is a correct translation into modern language.
"Thou Shalt not kill" originates in the KJV, "Kill" in 1611 does not mean exactly the same thing as "kill" at present. Also the Septugent (Greek Old Testament) and original Hewbrew use a different word for "murder" and "kill"..
In Hebrew the word for "kill" as is "Harag"; for "murder" or "assassinate" it's "Ratsach"..... the word used in the original is "Ratsach" and not "Harag". In greek the word for "Kill" is "Apokteino", "murder" is "Phoneuo".... It too uses "Phoneuo" in the text...
Kill/Killen was used to denote "putting to death in secret"/"assasination" in Middle-English through to Elizabethian form of "Modern".
If God said, Thou Shalt Not Kill to Moses, and then Moses led them back to the Promised Land...
...and then the Jews killed the Canaanites...
Ah he led them there, then sent scouts who lied so they wandered in the dessert, where he later died, they decided to go back and kill those people.
Drunk commies deleted
06-07-2005, 16:46
Weee, another Christian-bashing thread :rolleyes:
When you do something bashable (using public land and funds to promote your religion and threaten the life of someone who objects) you will get bashed. Get used to it.
UberPenguinLand
06-07-2005, 16:48
Besides, we're not 'bashing' them because they're Christians(Heck, I'm a Christian.). We're 'bashing' them because they think they're above the law.
Berlinerland
06-07-2005, 16:49
Wouldn't you be a sinner if you step on an ant or let any germ inside your body die?
Wouldn't you be a sinner if you step on an ant or let any germ inside your body die?
Since they don't have souls, and they're not human, probably not.
Where are you from, btw? (If you're from Berlin, what part?)
UberPenguinLand
06-07-2005, 16:54
Wouldn't you be a sinner if you step on an ant or let any germ inside your body die?
It's already been explained it says Murder, not Kill. And it's not like you automatically go to Hell for sinning.
Velvet Acid Christ
06-07-2005, 17:05
Actually, there is no such thing as "Hell" anymore. Vatican 2 took care of that. "Hell" is now a metaphor for the anguish of not being beloved by God in ther afterlife.
Furthermore, the 10 commandments were displayed outside a courthouse, not just any public place in this case. The man protested against it, the court denied him (duh), so he's taking it to a federal court. Unfortunately, the state consitution does not explicitly demand the seperation of church and state, so it will most likely become another state's rights fistfight.
And yes, f*ck Mississippi.
UberPenguinLand
06-07-2005, 17:09
Actually, there is no such thing as "Hell" anymore. Vatican 2 took care of that. "Hell" is now a metaphor for the anguish of not being beloved by God in ther afterlife.
:headbang: Catholicism :headbang: is :headbang: not :headbang: all :headbang: Christianity! :headbang:
Sarkasis
06-07-2005, 17:20
Thou salt not quilt?
[NS]Ihatevacations
06-07-2005, 17:39
Actually, given the language, that is a correct translation into modern language.
"Thou Shalt not kill" originates in the KJV, "Kill" in 1611 does not mean exactly the same thing as "kill" at present. Also the Septugent (Greek Old Testament) and original Hewbrew use a different word for "murder" and "kill"..
In Hebrew the word for "kill" as is "Harag"; for "murder" or "assassinate" it's "Ratsach"..... the word used in the original is "Ratsach" and not "Harag". In greek the word for "Kill" is "Apokteino", "murder" is "Phoneuo".... It too uses "Phoneuo" in the text...
Kill/Killen was used to denote "putting to death in secret"/"assasination" in Middle-English through to Elizabethian form of "Modern".
Well in the modern day murder and kill are interchangeable, your technciality is moot.
Ihatevacations']Well in the modern day murder and kill are interchangeable, your technciality is moot.
Murder and kill are not interchangable:
"Murder": "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice."
"Kill": "To deprive of life"...
All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder...
Between the two you have "manslaughter" : "The unlawful killing of one human by another without express or implied intent to do injury."
Sumamba Buwhan
06-07-2005, 18:55
What ever happened to "Love your Neighbor as you Love Yourself"?
I tried that but then they stopped inviting me over
The Black Forrest
06-07-2005, 19:11
Thou shalt not kilt.
Watch it. I am Scottish and I have one! :D
Katganistan
06-07-2005, 19:20
Ihatevacations']Well in the modern day murder and kill are interchangeable, your technciality is moot.
Untrue.
You can lawfully kill in defense of your life. You cannot unlawfully kill (aka murder).
Guadalupelerma
06-07-2005, 23:31
I tried that but then they stopped inviting me over
That's because you keep leaving little puddles of love stains on the good carpet. Try the hardwood. :D
Swimmingpool
06-07-2005, 23:34
Parthini']We all know there are big hypocrites among Atheists
How can an atheist be a hypocrite when there is no doctrine to follow?
Sumamba Buwhan
06-07-2005, 23:41
How can an atheist be a hypocrite when there is no doctrine to follow?
Atheism is merely a belief that there isn't a God right? It's a belief that some try to shove down the throats of believers while they themselves are completly disgusted by believers that try to shove their beliefs down the throats of atheists. That is where the hypocrisy lies in my eyes. Contradicting absolutists is fine and not hypocritical though.
The Cat-Tribe
07-07-2005, 00:13
Weee, another Christian-bashing thread :rolleyes:
Curious that you equate all Christians with those that threaten the life of someone who seeks to enforce the First Amendment.
I don't. The author of the thread didn't. At least most, if not all, of those posting so far didn't.
Cafetopia
07-07-2005, 00:14
Atheism is merely a belief that there isn't a God right? It's a belief that some try to shove down the throats of believers while they themselves are completly disgusted by believers that try to shove their beliefs down the throats of atheists. That is where the hypocrisy lies in my eyes. Contradicting absolutists is fine and not hypocritical though.
I'm an atheist and I do often try to convert christians to atheism because they bug me. And I am disgusted when Christians do the same. I don't consider myself a hypocrit though because I am right and they are not. So NAAAHH.
Sumamba Buwhan
07-07-2005, 00:17
I'm an atheist and I do often try to convert christians to atheism because they bug me. And I am disgusted when Christians do the same. I don't consider myself a hypocrit though because I am right and they are not. So NAAAHH.
and here you will see that my point was proven.
I'm an atheist and I do often try to convert christians to atheism because they bug me. And I am disgusted when Christians do the same. I don't consider myself a hypocrit though because I am right and they are not. So NAAAHH.
And what makes your particular -ism right? Come on now; back it up with evidence!
Cafetopia
07-07-2005, 00:23
And what makes your particular -ism right? Come on now; back it up with evidence!
The first law of thermodynamics does.
What if instead of demanding that the ten commandments come down we demand that every other commandment goes up? The pillars of Islam, the four fold path and 8 noble truths....everything from every religion massed in the same place. That would be fun. :p
i think that would be a great idea
And what makes your particular -ism right? Come on now; back it up with evidence!
religion isn't supposed to have evidence. you're supposed to be able to believe in something despite the lack of proof. that's the whole point of faith.
religion isn't supposed to have evidence. you're supposed to be able to believe in something despite the lack of proof. that's the whole point of faith.
It's going ballistic.... Wow... look how high that one went.... My God.....
[NS]Simonist
07-07-2005, 00:48
religion isn't supposed to have evidence. you're supposed to be able to believe in something despite the lack of proof. that's the whole point of faith.
Which is precisely what they were trying to point out -- note that the insistence to "back it up" was to an ATHEIST, who will just as quickly shoot down the argument of "that's what faith is about". (Note: this is more about what most atheists in general do, not what this particular one will do...sorry, I worded that poorly)
Just pointing it out.
And what's with the guy on the first page who said "especially christians who don't understand their own religion"? I couldn't figure out if he was talking about the guy the article was about, or what.....'cause, 'cause, he was an atheist.... :headbang: so confused.
Ravenshrike
07-07-2005, 01:08
Ironically, athiests also take the non-existance of god as a matter of faith.
CthulhuFhtagn
07-07-2005, 01:13
Ironically, athiests also take the non-existance of god as a matter of faith.
You're confusing atheists with antitheists.
You're confusing atheists with antitheists.
Unfortuneatle, when dealing in most online religious debates; the "atheists" which come in are antitheists.... They do go by the same name....
Which was also my ascertion.... The person tries to convert "Christians"; but would get pissed off when they try to convert him; because "he is right"...
I actually like debating with Agnostics more than "Atheists".... Having been one myself; they generally like to consider all alternatives; and don't pass wide-sweeping judgement.
[NS]Simonist
07-07-2005, 01:23
Unfortuneatle, when dealing in most online religious debates; the "atheists" which come in are antitheists.... They do go by the same name....
Which was also my ascertion.... The person tries to convert "Christians"; but would get pissed off when they try to convert him; because "he is right"...
I actually like debating with Agnostics more than "Atheists".... Having been one myself; they generally like to consider all alternatives; and don't pass wide-sweeping judgement.
Wait wait wait, are you one of the "saved" agnostics?
'Cause if so, you're so the first I've met on this forum. Or at least the first I've seen admit it.
Sarkasis
07-07-2005, 01:26
Active atheism is a faith by itself, I think. Why not? These guys believe in the absence of a God or divine essence. They believe in quantum physics or in something so small or gigantic, that they don't have to relate to it on a personnal level. They refuse to ask questions about the whole meaning of existence (including the purpose -- or absence thereof -- of the Universe). It's a belief system that can be very sophisticated, when real Atheists understand the implications of their beliefs.
But like any other belief system, most people don't have a clue on what they really believe in. What are the implications. How it should influence their life. There are some truly bigot or misinformed / ill-tempered Atheists out there.
Agnostics? I do respect a lot the non-minimalist agnostics. Those who engage in a real spiritual dialogue. But then again, there are also lazy Agnostics. Those who say "I'm pretty sure there's something out there, but I don't give a damn, lemme wash my car, eat peanuts and get fat."
On the other hand...
Many Christians are "lukewarm theists", or inactive atheists. They just don't care, don't take the time, don't question themselves or society, they just call themselves "Christians" because they want to keep mom and dad's traditions alive. And they find churches "cute".
That, my friends, is the true absence of spiritual life.
Simonist']Wait wait wait, are you one of the "saved" agnostics?
'Cause if so, you're so the first I've met on this forum. Or at least the first I've seen admit it.
Yes.... I'm a former agnostic.... was raised in the Methodists church by my parents; left the Church as soon as a could; spent about 12 years agnostic, bordering on atheistic; and then returned as Reformed.... I arrived at my position from personal study; and presently am a communing member of a PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) denomination...
[NS]Simonist
07-07-2005, 01:38
Yes.... I'm a former agnostic.... was raised in the Methodists church by my parents; left the Church as soon as a could; spent about 12 years agnostic, bordering on atheistic; and then returned as Reformed.... I arrived at my position from personal study; and presently am a communing member of a PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) denomination...
Not to sound uber-Christian or anything, but I find that so awesome. Not that you turned to Christianity in your time of darkness or that Fundamentalist crap....but that you found something that works for you and are happy with it.
I'm sure there are many who envy your position, whether or not they acknowledge that it's envy they feel.