Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Re:  91.1493

  >I see very little consistency in the way the different authors of the
  >Bible approached morality except in a very narrow context.  

Indeed, I have usually found the reason why the consistency is not
seen is because people usually look for consistency with their own
beliefs rather than an internal consistency in the Bible.

The example you brought up regarding God-ordered bloodshed and God's
law not for us to murder is one such example.  

We are all sinners (Romans 3:23).  We all deserve to be punished
by death (Romans 6:23).  God has not only the right but the
*obligation* (according to his own perfect morals) to carry out
this punishment.

The problem is with God using other sinful humans in order to carry out 
a God-ordained (according to the Bible) punishment.  Actually, I believe 
the problem you see is with God ordaining the punishment in the first
place, which is internally consistent with a righteous, just and loving 
God.  Again, I expect you probably have a problem with the use of "loving" 
in the previous sentence - but you need to understand loving from the
perspective of Scripture and not your own.  Scripture claims that
love does indeed punish - and, in fact, love may punish one person
now so that another person may recognize the consequence and make a
better choice.

This is how it is reconciled.  

It is probably not reconcilable according to your morals or your beliefs of
right and wrong.

I have made the choice to modify my beliefs so that it conforms to my
understanding of the Bible.

Collis

Killings that are carried out by the state are murders.  You may not agree.

Killings that are carried out during times of war are murders.  You may
not agree.

I bid you peace,
Richard

    My understanding is that the word used in the origional language 
    of the Bible is one of several that can be translated "kill." It
    more correctly means murder. Murder, I have been told repeatedly in
    discussions on abortion, is a legal term that means illegal killing.
    
    			Alfred

    Let's take a few statements:
    
    "God does not change. He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow"
    
    "We are created in the image of god's likeness"
    
    "You shall not murder"
    
    Now, in the OT, god order's the Israelites to kill people who are not
    acceptable to him. In other places in the OT, he kills people himself.
    
    Now, if we are created in the image of god, and god tells us not to
    murder, why does he do it himself or order others to do it for him in
    the OT?
    
    If you look through the OT, you can't help being struck by how blood
    thirsty god is. In the NT, the image changes. To say that these images
    are simply facets of one god is beyond belief (as in, trying to ensure
    "god does not change" still has meaning).
    
    It's this kind of thing that convinces me that the bible is written by
    humans, is inconsistant and not something to take too seriously.
    
    Otherwise I'll be seeing flying scrolls next.
    
    Pete.

| <<< Note 519.2 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Keep on loving boldly!" >>>



| Killings that are carried out by the state are murders.  You may not agree.
| Killings that are carried out during times of war are murders.  You may
| not agree.

	Richard, I do agree with both of your statements. What I am wondering
though is if God takes a life, is it murder?



Glen

	Glen ... Richard ... Define murder please. Thanks.

			Alfred

    re .4
    
    Exactly my point, Pete!  Thanks for expressing it so succinctly.
    
    Nanci

.4> Now, in the OT, god order's the Israelites to kill people who are not
.4> acceptable to him. In other places in the OT, he kills people himself.
.4> 
.4> Now, if we are created in the image of god, and god tells us not to
.4> murder, why does he do it himself or order others to do it for him in
.4> the OT?
.4> 
.4> If you look through the OT, you can't help being struck by how blood
.4> thirsty god is. In the NT, the image changes. To say that these images
.4> are simply facets of one god is beyond belief (as in, trying to ensure
.4> "god does not change" still has meaning).

     I think, Pete, you suffer from a lack of perspective.  From  our,  wee
     human  perspective, death is the end of life.  From God's perspective,
     this human life is only a  phase  of  an  eternal  life.   From  God's
     perspective,  the  death  of  our  bodies  is no more significant than
     removing your coat is to you.  People who use the phrase, "God  called
     that  person  home",  as a euphemism for death are speaking from God's
     perspective.

     Looking at it this way,  God  is  literally  incapable  of  committing
     murder, let alone of being "blood thirsty".  As for calling on someone
     to be the agent of someone  else's  death,  I  don't  know.   If  it's
     important to you, why don't you review those passages and give it some
     more thought.

     Think "Peace",

     Alvin

	Murder: Willfully taking another living person's life.


Glen

    Can God murder is like can the government steal. What is stealing?
    It is the involuntary taking of ones positions. Taxation is involuntary
    in many cases and takes peoples money. So is the government stealing?
    Legally no. The government has some rights under the law. Moving this to 
    God. Life is a gift of God. It comes from God. Our life is as much God's 
    as it is our own. Is there something in God's law that would prohibit 
    Him from taking a life? Not that I'm aware of.

    RE: .4

>    Now, if we are created in the image of god, and god tells us not to
>    murder, why does he do it himself or order others to do it for him in
>    the OT?

    Please show where God orders a murder. Murder being defined as a
    killing that violates a law that has jurisdiction over God. Unless you
    have a different version of murder in which case please give that
    definition and show a killing that fits it.

    I think this discussion is pretty worthless without a definition of
    murder.

    			Alfred

re: Note 519.8 by Alvin 

Suppose that I, as a Christian, inspired by God's perspective, choose to 
"go home"?       

Or suppose someone is in the process of a painful death, and they ask me, as a 
Christian, to "send them home"? 

Are either of these cases murder?

Just pondering...

Peace,

Jim

| <<< Note 519.10 by CVG::THOMPSON "Radical Centralist" >>>



| Please show where God orders a murder. Murder being defined as a
| killing that violates a law that has jurisdiction over God. 

	I guess our version of what murder is are two totally different things.



Glen

>	Murder: Willfully taking another living person's life.
    
    	I read that to include abortion.
    
    			Alfred

| <<< Note 519.13 by CVG::THOMPSON "Radical Centralist" >>>



| >	Murder: Willfully taking another living person's life.

| I read that to include abortion.



	I did too Alfred.



Glen

.8>Suppose that I, as a Christian, inspired by God's perspective, choose to 
.8>"go home"?  Is this murder?

     The son of a friend of mine committed suicide a year or so ago, and so
     I've given this more thought than I might have otherwise.

     Anyone who commits suicide is suffering from some kind of  illness,  a
     chemical  imbalance  for  example.   Why  would an all knowing and all
     loving God look at it any differently?  So neither one of us  (God  or
     me)  would  consider this murder (which is how I was raised to believe
     that Christians look at suicide, i.e., self-murder).

.8>Or suppose someone is in the process of a painful death, and they ask me, as 
.8>a Christian, to "send them home"?  Is this murder?

     In the sight of God; maybe, maybe not - we'd have to be privy  to  the
     mind of God.  I have no opinion.

     In the sight of man; absolutely.  And if a  Christian  truly  believed
     the  action  was  directed  by God, all that means is that that person
     should be able to die with a clean conscious.  It  doesn't  mean  they
     should  be excused for their action in a human court of law.  The laws
     of man apply to man (sorry for not being PC here).  If one  is  acting
     in  the name of God, the proof of their conviction should be that they
     act despite the consequences.  For a  Christian,  Jesus  is  the  role
     model here.

     Think "Peace",

     Alvin

Re:  519.4
    
  >If you look through the OT, you can't help being struck by how blood
  >thirsty god is. In the NT, the image changes. To say that these images
  >are simply facets of one god is beyond belief (as in, trying to ensure
  >"god does not change" still has meaning).

I certainly agree with you that the emphasis is different.

I think you must go much further than a surface look, however, in
order to conclude (as you are concluding) that the God of the Bible
has indeed changed.  For example, let's look at:

  - the great killing (final judgment) promised by Jesus to be
    executed by Jesus upon His return in the New Testament (isn't
    this the Old Testament God according to you?)
  - the greatest commandments contained in the Old Testament:  love 
    God and love your neighbor (isn't this the New Testament God according 
    to you?)

In other words, a surface examination of your position indicates that
the God of the New Testament has striking similarities to the God of
the Old Testament and vice versa on these critical issues you mentioned.
The problem, then, is not Old Testament versus New Testament, but
reconciling these attributes in one God.

Now, the issue is *not* reconciling these attributes of God with
what *you* think is acceptable, but rather showing *from Scripture*
that a God with these attributes is logically impossible.  Good luck.  :-)

Collis

Note 519.5 Glen,

>	Richard, I do agree with both of your statements. What I am wondering
>though is if God takes a life, is it murder?

When does God take a life?  "Acts of God" is a convenient phrase for insurance
companies.

If you are talking about spontaneous abortion (miscarriage), you might say that
God took that life.  But I don't believe it.  To my knowledge there is nothing
in the Bible that would support it, at least not outright.

Peace,
Richard

.9>  Murder: Willfully taking another living person's life.
    
.13> I read that to include abortion.

I read that to include my activities during my service in the USMC.

Aw .. don't sweat it .. I've been called a murderer, a liar, a fool,
etc ... they don't call me the Teflon Texan for nothin'.

Bubba

Bubba Jerry (Gen'ral, Suh!),

	It has been said that "Nobody hates war like a warrior."  I suspect
you detest war and all the insane cruelty that goes with it.

	I cannot fault you for doing what you believed to be right and doing
so under orders from your government.

	I could not do it, myself.  Not because I was classified 4F.  Even if
I had been fit for military duty, I would not have done it.  I would have
probably ended up in prison (because I wouldn't have become a Conscientious
Objector either).

	I suspect you and I might have very different approaches.  Ultimately,
however, I think you and I both would like to see an end to all war.

Civilian Richard

    Re: .15
    
    -Anyone who commits suicide is suffering from some kind of  illness,  a
    -chemical  imbalance  for  example.   Why  would an all knowing and all
    -loving God look at it any differently?  So neither one of us  (God  or
    -me)  would  consider this murder (which is how I was raised to believe
    -that Christians look at suicide, i.e., self-murder).

    Suicide is an illness? Actually, I thought it was an act of will... you
    might say that some kind of illness lead to the suicide but I wouldn't
    say ALL suicides are the result of an illness.
    
    Pete.

    Re: .16
    
    What makes you think I'm only making a 'surface' look? How did you
    arrive at that conclusion? Actually I think you're simply fitting your
    preconceptions - "he doesn't agree with my beliefs therefore he can't
    have researched it carefully enough".
    
    -Now, the issue is *not* reconciling these attributes of God with what
    -*you* think is acceptable, but rather showing *from Scripture* that a
    -God with these attributes is logically impossible.  Good luck.  :-)
    
    Ah, but the issue IS what I think is acceptable! (Or are we back
    "you're thoughts are not my thoughts" - a neat sidestep for applying
    logic if ever I heard one). I don't need to use scripture to say a god
    with these attributes is a logical impossibility.
    
    If god punished people in the OT by wiping them out, and by striking
    them dead, why does it not occur now? Where are the examples nowadays
    of god killing people on the spot. If I were to say "hey god! I think
    you're a phoney? Strike me dead where I stand" nothing happens.
    
    Pete.

I completely agree that if God ordered the Israelites to kill children
that the killing was not murder, either legally or morally, since God was
the one who defined what was moral, according to the Old Testament.
However, I also believe that it is immoral to kill children.  Therefore, I
don't believe that God ordered the Israelites to kill children, and
thus I think that the Old Testament contains statements that are not true.

				-- Bob

re:  Note 519.22                 GRIM::MESSENGER "Bob Messenger"    

Bob,

>However, I also believe that it is immoral to kill children.  Therefore, I
>don't believe that God ordered the Israelites to kill children, and
>thus I think that the Old Testament contains statements that are not true.

How do you feel about the account at Gen 19:24,25? Do you rule this out as
erroneous as well? Or do you think the children were somehow spared? Also
consider the account at Exodus 11 dealing with the plague on the 1st born.
Surely some of these were children. 
How about the prophetic account at Isaiah 12:9-16. Don't you think this is
accurate?
There are many accounts dealing with judgements being met out to people of
    all ages. Why do you doubt this?
    
  robin

	Bob, you do know that if one part of the Bible has a flaw in it, then
that means the entire Bible isn't to be trusted as we wouldn't really know what
was truth by God or human feelings and emotions. I do think this to be true,
but that's for another topic.




Glen

Re: .23 Robin

One thing that I didn't make clear in my previous note was that I no
longer consider myself to be Christian.  It's not that I accept the entire
Bible except for a few inconvenient passages; I consider the entire Bible
to be "just a book".

>How do you feel about the account at Gen 19:24,25? Do you rule this out as
>erroneous as well? Or do you think the children were somehow spared?

I don't think that God destroyed Sodom and Gommorah.  Perhaps Sodom and
Gommorah were destroyed by some natural disaster, and the Hebrews
interpreted it as God's judgement on those cities.

>Also
>consider the account at Exodus 11 dealing with the plague on the 1st born.
>Surely some of these were children. 

Of course, but again I don't believe that God killed the first born of
Egypt.

>How about the prophetic account at Isaiah 12:9-16. Don't you think this is
>accurate?

There are only 6 verses in Isaiah 12.  Do you mean Isaiah 13:9-16?

	Behold, the day of the LORD comes,
	  cruel, with wrath and fierce anger,
	to make the earth a desolation
	  and to destroy its sinners from it.
	...
	Whoever is found will be thrust through
	  and whoever is caught will fall by the sword
	Their infants will be dashed in pieces
	  before their eyes
	their houses will be plundered
	  and their wives ravished.  (Isaiah 13:9,15-16, RSV)

No, I don't believe that this is an accurate prophesy, and (hoping not to
offend) I can't see how any compassionate, moral person would hope for this
prophesy to come true.

>There are many accounts dealing with judgements being met out to people of
>    all ages. Why do you doubt this?
    
Admittedly, I doubt this first of all because I am not a Christian.  Even
if I were still a Christian, I think I would doubt that these judgements
were met out by God because I can't reconcile it with my conception of
morality.

As I see it: either you accept the Bible and accept genocide or you reject
the Bible (or at least important parts of the Bible) and reject genocide.
I've chosen to reject genocide.

				-- Bob

Re: .24 Glen

>	Bob, you do know that if one part of the Bible has a flaw in it, then
>that means the entire Bible isn't to be trusted as we wouldn't really know what
>was truth by God or human feelings and emotions.

My liberal Christian friends won't agree, but I think that there is a
certain amount of truth to this.  Once you've rejected the Bible, as I
have, what convincing reason do you have for thinking that Christianity is
a true religion?

				-- Bob

.20>-Anyone who commits suicide is suffering from some kind of  illness,  a
.20>-chemical  imbalance  for  example.   Why  would an all knowing and all
.20>-loving God look at it any differently?  So neither one of us  (God  or
.20>-me)  would  consider this murder (which is how I was raised to believe
.20>-that Christians look at suicide, i.e., self-murder).
.20>
.20>Suicide is an illness? Actually, I thought it was an act of will... you
.20>might say that some kind of illness lead to the suicide but I wouldn't
.20>say ALL suicides are the result of an illness.

     First of all, I did *not* say (as you can clearly see) that suicide is
     an  illness.   The  unfortunate  symptom of an illness, yes, but it is
     not, itself, an illness.

     And hopefully, Pete, you will always be  able  approach  this  subject
     academically.   I've  personally  known two people (one a relative and
     one the son of a very good friend) who committed  suicide.   Sure,  as
     you  say,  their  act  was  an of will, but is that any consolation to
     those of us who are left behind to ask why?

     No, I'm sorry, but I respectfully choose disagree with you.  I believe
     ALL suicides are the result of an illness.

     Think "Peace",

     Alvin

       re: Note 519.25                   GRIM::MESSENGER "Bob Messenger"  
>I consider the entire Bible to be "just a book".

    Soory you feel that way. I can not agree. There is far too much
    evidence to the contrary but that's for another topic.
    
|>How about the prophetic account at Isaiah 12:9-16. Don't you think this is
|>accurate?

>There are only 6 verses in Isaiah 12.  Do you mean Isaiah 13:9-16?

    Yup.. that's the one. I must be more tired then I thought. Sorry for
    any confusion.
    
>No, I don't believe that this is an accurate prophesy, and (hoping not to
>offend) I can't see how any compassionate, moral person would hope for this
>prophesy to come true.

    You can't "see" the forest for the trees as it were, possibly because
    your looking at these few verses, not the reason it's going to happen,
    what it allows afterwards etc. But then, if you don't think of the Bible
    as anything more then stories, you probably don't think it makes much 
    difference to you; it does!    


>As I see it: either you accept the Bible and accept genocide or you reject
>the Bible (or at least important parts of the Bible) and reject genocide.
>I've chosen to reject genocide.
 
     No, what you've chosen to do is reject God's word and his expectations
    of mankind. We can reject anything we want (free will) however, we will
    be judged on our decisions.
    
     Robin

Re: .28 Robin

>     No, what you've chosen to do is reject God's word and his expectations
>    of mankind.

I don't believe that the Bible is the word of God, not when it describes a
god of love who orders his followers to kill children.

				-- Bob

re: Note 519.29      GRIM::MESSENGER "Bob Messenger"               
    
|>     No, what you've chosen to do is reject God's word and his expectations
|>    of mankind.

>I don't believe that the Bible is the word of God, not when it describes a
>god of love who orders his followers to kill children.
    				
    Like I said. It's your choice. I just want to be sure you realize you
    are making a conscious decision to reject God's Word. If I understand
    your reason properly you are saying it is because you see the Bible 
    showing God both loving and hating/peaceful and fighting etc. Well, the
    Bible says there's reasons for that. Divine principles have to be
    upheld. The "blame" is with those who reject what is right in God's
    eyes. Look at the example of the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah etc.
    People chose to live in a manner that was not in line with God's
    wishes. The Watchtower magazine of March 15,1985 discussed this very
    subject. The 1st article is "Jehovah A Cruel or a Loving God?". On
    the very 1st page at the bottom it showed 3 pictures and under has the
    caption "Was Jehovah just in sending the Flood, in destroying Sodom and 
    Gomorrah, and in executing the Canaanites?"  It explains about each
    event, the reasons etc. If interested in the details let me know and
    I'll try to enter some of the scriptural points or get a copy to send
    you. As an example.. Noah was a preacher of rightiousness for many
    years (probably 40-50 years) before the flood. God used Noah to warn
    people of the coming destruction. People had the opportunity to choose
    survival, or death.
                                                
     robin

re Note 519.30 by SALEM::RUSSO:

> re: Note 519.29      GRIM::MESSENGER "Bob Messenger"               
>     
> |>     No, what you've chosen to do is reject God's word and his expectations
> |>    of mankind.
> 
> >I don't believe that the Bible is the word of God, not when it describes a
> >god of love who orders his followers to kill children.
>     				
>     Like I said. It's your choice. I just want to be sure you realize you
>     are making a conscious decision to reject God's Word. 
                                                
        robin,

        I don't quite follow your response to Bob.  He states that,
        in his opinion, the Bible is not the word of God.  You
        immediately respond that he is "making a conscious decision
        to reject God's Word."

        Even if it is a decision to reject God's Word, it certainly
        isn't a CONSCIOUS decision -- right?

        Bob

Re: .30 Robin

>    Like I said. It's your choice. I just want to be sure you realize you
>    are making a conscious decision to reject God's Word.

No, I'm not rejecting God's Word, I'm rejecting the Bible.

>    If I understand
>    your reason properly you are saying it is because you see the Bible 
>    showing God both loving and hating/peaceful and fighting etc.

It goes deeper than that.  The Bible says not just that "God is loving" but
"God is love".  If God is love then God is incapable of hate.  The Bible
also says that God is just.  It was not just to kill the Midianite
children.  The Bible says that God is merciful.  It was not merciful to
kill the Midianite children.

> Well, the
>    Bible says there's reasons for that. Divine principles have to be
>    upheld.

Of course.  One of those principles, according to the Bible, is "Thou
shalt not kill".  Even if God *could* say "ignore this commandment in this
one instance" and it would still be moral because God said so, God
*wouldn't* if he were a God of love.

> The "blame" is with those who reject what is right in God's
>    eyes.

Or possibly with those who ascribe evil acts to God.

> Look at the example of the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah etc.

I've already talked about Sodom and Gomorrah.  Likewise the flood could
have been a natural disaster that people though was an act of God.

>    People chose to live in a manner that was not in line with God's
>    wishes.

What about the newborn babies who drowned?  Did they also choose to live
in a manner that was not in line with God's wishes?

>    The Watchtower magazine of March 15,1985 discussed this very
>    subject. ...
>    It explains about each
>    event, the reasons etc. If interested in the details let me know and
>    I'll try to enter some of the scriptural points or get a copy to send
>    you.

Go ahead; I'm listening.

>    People had the opportunity to choose survival, or death.
                                                
That didn't make it right to kill them, and young children didn't have the
opportunity to choose survival.

				-- Bob

re:Note 519.31                    Thou LGP30::FLEISCHER 
    
    
    |  robin,
    |    I don't quite follow your response to Bob.  He states that,
    |    in his opinion, the Bible is not the word of God.  You
    |    immediately respond that he is "making a conscious decision
    |    to reject God's Word."
    |    Even if it is a decision to reject God's Word, it certainly
    |    isn't a CONSCIOUS decision -- right?

     It sounded to me like Bob has thought this over; and has decided 
    that the Bible is not God's word. If he has done some study and
    simply wishes to reject the Bible that's his choice. The only thing
    I can do is try to help him take another look. Maybe explain any
    "inconsistancies" he may feel have justified his decision.
    Do you think Bob isn't aware (aware=conscious) of what he's deciding?
    Maybe you'd like it better if I worded it " making a conscious
    decision to reject the Bible"?
    
      Robin  
        
    

    Re: .27
    
    Ah... but you say suicide is the result of an illness. OK, I misread
    what you said, however I believe what I said still stands - SOME
    suicides are the result of illness. However, I believe there are some
    that are NOT.
    
    What I find appalling about saying suicide results from illness is that
    it implies one must go searching for the illness. If one allows for no
    illness, it opens doors that otherwise might be closed... despair is
    not an illness (though it might result from illness).
    
    -And hopefully, Pete, you will always be  able  approach  this  subject
    -academically.   I've  personally  known two people (one a relative and
    -one the son of a very good friend) who committed  suicide.   Sure,  as
    -you  say,  their  act  was  an of will, but is that any consolation to
    -those of us who are left behind to ask why?
    
    Ah, more assumptions! This subject is not "academic" in my case.
    
    Pete.

Re:  519.21
    
  >What makes you think I'm only making a 'surface' look? How did you
  >arrive at that conclusion?

I call the proposition "surface" because it made a very general,
broad claim about God's nature in the Old Testament and the
New Testament.

It did not:

  - look at specific examples
  - give specific references
  - examine counter examples
  - support the contention with numerous reasons

I gave two specific counter examples that, in my opinion, showed
the falseness of the proposition.  Certainly these counter examples
were not hard to find as probably everyone who reads this conference
is familiar with both of them.  That is why I called it a surface
argument.  It had no depth.

  >Actually I think you're simply fitting your preconceptions - "he
  >doesn't agree with my beliefs therefore he can't have researched it
  >carefully enough".

Although sometimes I certainly take this view, I certainly have met
people who research things very well and don't agree with me.  I've
learned that knowing facts is not enough (although still quite
important to me).

Instead of assuming that it is my attitude towards you that causes
me to say what I say, you may instead examine the reasons I listed
above and you may possibly see how someone could say what I said
without any hidden agenda against you or your beliefs.
    
    -Now, the issue is *not* reconciling these attributes of God with what
    -*you* think is acceptable, but rather showing *from Scripture* that a
    -God with these attributes is logically impossible.  Good luck.  :-)
    
  >Ah, but the issue IS what I think is acceptable!...  I don't need 
  >to use scripture to say a god with these attributes is a logical 
  >impossibility.

I'll agree.  However, you do need to much much more than simply assert
that it is a logical impossibility.

I think you find it very easy to believe that a God could not possibly
be as Scripture tells us.

I think you will find it impossible to logically prove that God cannot
possibly act this way given the attributes assigned to Him by Himself.
(Actually, I know it's impossible because that's the way it is!)  
However, you're welcome to try.

  >If god punished people in the OT by wiping them out, and by striking
  >them dead, why does it not occur now?

Possibly it does.  However, there's no prophet to tell us that it is
God's hand that causes it.

Possibly it doesn't.  The situations before (usually) had to do with 
protecting the nation of Israel.  Possibly God chose these methods
to accomplish a specific task at the time.  God has indicated that
he would never have a flood again as he did in Noah's time.

In either event, raising the question is no proof whatsoever that God
is not God as revealed by Scripture.  You need to logically prove
that God's attributes are inconsistent with God's standards - not with
*your* standards, but with *God's* standards.  God can still be a
perfect and holy God without living up to your standards as long as
He lives up to His standards - assuming His standards are as He
proclaims them to be:  perfect.

Collis

    Bob,
    
    I have come to the similar conclusion as you have.  I too reject the
    bible as the word of God.  I find in the bible many things that are
    inspirational.  I also find many things that cannot inspire me.  Issiah 13
    cannot inspire me.  The passover story cannot inspire me.  
    
    The God I worship is a God of love.  
    
    I need to keep reminding myself especially about the Old Testament that
    these are stories written by men who knew far less about the world than
    we do trying to make sense out of their lifes.  And then the old
    testament was re-written by others trying desparately to preserve the
    Hebrew traditions once the Hebrew went into exile.
    
    And then all the books and pieces of biblical literature were reviewed
    and assembled by other men.  And what was the criteria of inclusion. 
    those books that supported their point of view.
    
    But what was preserved does provide us with great wealth and insight
    into the minds and lifes of the Hebrews and early Christians. 
    
    
    Patricia 

	Patricia, I couldn't have said it any better myself (and I know I
haven't). Another thing that would show the Bible to NOT be 100% true is the
fact that it was supposed to have been written by men through the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit would have kept the men from any human flaws and therefor the
Bible is supposed to be the Word of God. In one of Paul's letters he said that
what he was about to say wasn't from God, but his own opinion. I have heard
many people say things like even though he said that, it didn't go against the
rest of Scripture so it was ok. But the whole point is if Paul could put in
his opinion, regardless of whether it is in line with Scripture, it clearly
shows that the Bible isn't the Word of God. It makes me wonder how many other
areas had people's "opinions".



Glen

    When one denies the Bible to be the Word of God, then what defines God
    that is not the subjective opinion of the definer?
    
    Or is this a question that is insignificant?

    Patrick,
    
    >...then what defines God that is not the subjective opinion of the
    definer?
    
    >Or is this a question that is insiginificant?
    
    This is probably *the* most significant question asked in this 
    forum.
    
    Karen

	Patrick, the Bible is a guide. Nothing more. To *me* it isn't the Word
of God because it has too many flaws in it. How else could you explain Paul's
opinion? Is his opinion the Word of God? 



Glen

    Patrick,
    
    It is a significant queston.  My answer is that we are all responsible
    for our own answers.  My subject opinion is a valid as Paul's or Mark's
    or the Popes or my ministers or anybody else's.
    
    And the truly amazing wonderful things is that once we strip away the
    crede and dogma and get down to the principles, they are universal. 
    Who would deny the love, truth and justice are essential.  Or human
    dignity and rights.
    
    I believe that God cannot be defined by creeds and dogma. 
    S/He is much more infinite than can be defined.  None of us know
    perfectly.  But we all can know enough.  Each of us can read the Bible
    or anyother book and know what in it is worthy of inspiration and what
    is not.  The bible is a collection of faith stories.  We are enriched
    by understanding the faith stories of others.  We do not need however to
    adopt them as our own.  Particularly when they are conditioned by the
    historic realities of the time.
    
    Patricia

    Paul wrote as a witness to Jesus Christ was inspired by the Holy
    Spirit.

      <<< Note 519.42 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY "Patrick Sweeney in New York" >>>

|  Paul wrote as a witness to Jesus Christ was inspired by the Holy
|  Spirit.


	Patrick, why didn't he give the Holy Spirit the credit? Surely the Holy
Spirit would have known that this was coming from Him and would have the power
to say where it came from and not that it was a human opinion, right? But
seeing it was Paul's opinion, it shows that those words, anyway, weren't from
God. As I have been told many times if there is one flaw in the Bible, then it
flaws the entire book.



Glen

>Patrick, why didn't he give the Holy Spirit the credit?

He did.

/john

The word of 		   God.
	 from
	 owing to
	 composed from
	 made from
	 associated with
	 adhering to
	 belonging to
	 connected to
	 containing
	 centered on
	 directed toward
	 produced by
	 issuing from
	 with reference to
	 about

"and a whole lot more..."

Peace,

Jim

.34>...................... I believe what I said still stands - SOME
.34>suicides are the result of illness. However, I believe there are some
.34>that are NOT.

     We will have to agree to disagree here, but I must add that I'm  sorry
     that's what you believe.

.34>What I find appalling about saying suicide results from illness is that
.34>it implies one must go searching for the illness. If one allows for no
.34>illness, it opens doors that otherwise might be closed... despair is
.34>not an illness (though it might result from illness).

     I don't know why I, as a loving person, would want to open those doors
     you  allude  to  if,  by  doing  so, it means I then have no reason to
     forgive the victim of a suicide.  And please forgive me, but it  seems
     to  me  that you're not looking at this logically.  If despair results
     from an illness, then why can't you see that the actions  that  result
     from that despair are also the result of the illness?

.34>-And hopefully, Pete, you will always be  able  approach  this  subject
.34>-academically.   I've  personally  known two people (one a relative and
.34>-one the son of a very good friend) who committed  suicide.   Sure,  as
.34>-you  say,  their  act  was  an of will, but is that any consolation to
.34>-those of us who are left behind to ask why?
.34>
.34>Ah, more assumptions! This subject is not "academic" in my case.

     If I read this correctly, Pete, then ,of course, my condolences.

     But why shouldn't I have assumed you'd never  experienced  this  first
     hand?   Or  did  you  come  away from the experience so angry that you
     haven't been able to forgive that person yet?   If  that's  so,  then,
     please  consider  that  you  may  need to give this some more thought.
     Please let me offer the following.

     There are those who would say it's all chemistry.  I don't want to  go
     into how this point of view does, or doesn't, jive with the concept of
     free will, but for myself I think that when the chemistry is right, we
     see  our  own  lives as, at least, interesting and, at best, exciting.
     When the chemistry isn't right, our own lives are seen as,  at  least,
     dull  and,  at worst, meaningless.  Can our will control our chemistry
     to make it right again?  For many of us the answer may often  be  yes.
     But  what  about when the chemistry is so out of balance that our will
     can no longer override it?  This  is  how  I  think  and  believe  all
     suicides  happen.   This  is  how  I can forgive those I know who have
     committed suicide and how I come to the conclusion that suicide cannot
     be thought of as murder.

     I hope this helps, Pete.

     Think "Peace",

     Alvin

   Suicide is not monolithic.

   A persons internal chemistry may be the illness that triggers it.
   Then again, the illness may be in the society as the victim 
   experienced it.  Either way a life is lost, but the later case
   perpetuates itself.


     Peace,
     Allison

    Re: .35
    
    .I gave two specific counter examples that, in my opinion, showed the
    .falseness of the proposition.  Certainly these counter examples were
    .not hard to find as probably everyone who reads this conference is
    .familiar with both of them.  That is why I called it a surface
    .argument.  It had no depth.
    
    Well, let's take a look at these two examples:
    
    .- the great killing (final judgment) promised by Jesus to be executed
    .by Jesus upon His return in the New Testament (isn't this the Old
    .Testament God according to you?)
    
    I'm not clear if this is actually said, but I don't remember it being a
    'killing' as such, unless you're referring to Revelations.
    
    .- the greatest commandments contained in the Old Testament:  love  God
    .and love your neighbor (isn't this the New Testament God according  to
    .you?)
    
    Yes, a striking contrast to the OT, no? The OT has god wiping out
    nations, the NT he says love god, love your neighbour. The OT is full
    of 'do this', 'do that', 'don't do this' and 'stone them'. The NT
    there's a change of mind.

    -I think you find it very easy to believe that a God could not possibly
    -be as Scripture tells us.
    
    I might say that you find it very easy to believe god is how you've
    interpreted him to be. I thought this way once, and until I started
    looking at the alternatives, it seemed reasonable.
    
    -Possibly it does.  However, there's no prophet to tell us that it is
    -God's hand that causes it.
    
    Why aren't there any prophets now? Why were there some then? Doesn't it
    strike you as strange that we have documented flying scrolls which are
    taken with great seriousness and zilcho now? I don't know of anywhere
    where great miracles are happening.
    
    -In either event, raising the question is no proof whatsoever that God
    -is not God as revealed by Scripture.  You need to logically prove that
    -God's attributes are inconsistent with God's standards - not with
    -*your* standards, but with *God's* standards.  God can still be a
    -perfect and holy God without living up to your standards as long as He
    -lives up to His standards - assuming His standards are as He proclaims
    -them to be:  perfect.
    
    You've missed an essential step. Before you leap in and prove god's
    consistancy you must first prove the reliability of your interpretation
    of the bible. I once thought it was inerrant, now I think otherwise.
    
    Pete.

    Re: .46
    
    I'm puzzled, why should you be sorry I believe that not all suicides
    are resulting from illness? Seems perfectly logical to me!
    
    -I don't know why I, as a loving person, would want to open those doors
    -you  allude  to  if,  by  doing  so, it means I then have no reason to
    -forgive the victim of a suicide.  And please forgive me, but it  seems
    -to  me  that you're not looking at this logically.  If despair results
    -from an illness, then why can't you see that the actions  that  result
    -from that despair are also the result of the illness?
    
    Yes, as I said, if despair results from illness, then a suicide
    because of despair results from illness too. But what I said was I
    don't believe that ALL suicides result from illness (indirectly or
    otherwise).
    
    The 'door' I'm alluding to is that you refuse to allow the possibility
    that suicide was a rational choice. Instead, you insist there must be
    an illness, where there might not be one. I'm not explaining this very
    well, but you might seek for something that isn't present.
    
    I'm sorry, but why do you feel the need to forgive? Forgive what?
    Forgive the person who suicided for commiting suicide? They're dead,
    they won't care either way. If you're talking about forgiving them for
    causing you pain... ah, your pain is your's not theirs.
    
    -But why shouldn't I have assumed you'd never  experienced  this  first
    -hand?   Or  did  you  come  away from the experience so angry that you
    -haven't been able to forgive that person yet?   If  that's  so,  then,
    -please  consider  that  you  may  need to give this some more thought.
    -Please let me offer the following.
    
    I felt you were saying "you don't know what you're talking about, Pete,
    I've had this happen first hand". I may have been reading something
    into what you wrote... if it wasn't the case, them I'm sorry for
    misunderstanding.
    
    As for the two people who committed suicide... anger? I don't feel
    anger. Powerless, yes, but it was their life to take. They are
    ultimately who it affects the most!
    
    -But  what  about when the chemistry is so out of balance that our will
    -can no longer override it?  This  is  how  I  think  and  believe  all
    -suicides  happen.   This  is  how  I can forgive those I know who have
    -committed suicide and how I come to the conclusion that suicide cannot
    -be thought of as murder.
    
    Ah, so you're saying that:
    
    I cannot forgive someone who takes their life for no good reason -
    therefore there must be a good reason - some kind of chemical one.
    
    But, I allow the possibility that people DO take their lives for no
    good reason. Can you forgive them? Is it that you can't forgive them,
    that you believe I'm wrong?
    
    Pete.

>    As for the two people who committed suicide... anger? I don't feel
>    anger. Powerless, yes, but it was their life to take. They are
>    ultimately who it affects the most!

The Christian Perspective is that suicide is wrong because all life
belongs to God.

Yet we are called not to be angry, but to forgive.

/john

Re:  519.48

  >I'm not clear if this is actually said, but I don't remember it being a
  >'killing' as such, unless you're referring to Revelations.

Exaxctly.  New Testament God.  Killing.
    
      >>the greatest commandments contained in the Old Testament:  love  God
      >>love your neighbor...
    
  >Yes, a striking contrast to the OT, no? 

No, this *is* the Old Testament God.  Loving.

  >Why aren't there any prophets now? 

Why weren't there any prophets in 200 B.C.?  I can give you
possible explanations, but they are only theories.  God never
promised there would be a prophet in 1992 A.D.  Neither did He
promise a prophet in 200 B.C.

  >Doesn't it strike you as strange that we have documented flying scrolls 
  >which are taken with great seriousness and zilcho now? 

Miracles are happening every day.  Many get written down.  Many
get documented.  Many people choose not to believe them just like
they choose not to believe the miracles of 2000 years ago.  In fact,
a miracle was posted in CHRISTIAN just over the weekend (man being
brought back to life).

Collis    

    Well, Revelations refers to the day of judgment, which I've heard some
    christians call the 2nd death. I don't remember the word 'killing'
    being used.
    
    I think the difference between the OT god and the NT god still stands;
    in the OT god wiped out entire tribes. In the NT he only killed one or
    two. In the OT, there's precious little talk of love, in the NT much
    more. Why the change?
    
    One possible theory that theren't aren't any prophets now is that there
    were never any in the first place. Oh, I've seen the TV prophets you
    have in America. I've never seen someone twist things as much as they
    did!
    
    As for miracles, what might have seemed a miracle 2000 years ago, is
    old hat nowadays...
    
    Pete.

>Revelations

Revelation.  Just one.

Re:  .52

Are you acknowledging then that God has the same
attributes in both the Old and New Testaments, that
the difference is not God's attributes but rather the
emphasis that is placed on them?  If so, we have
certainly made some progress.  If not, you have not
adequately addressed the counter-examples (in my
opinion) which show those attributes.  BTW, Revelation
discusses Jesus return and God wiping out millions of
people during the battle.  Think war.

Re:  prophets

If you wish to believe that Moses and Jesus (to name
two) were not prophets, that is certainly your right.
Personally, I don't think holding such beliefs will lead
you toward the truth that God has revealed.

Re:  miracles

Indeed you standards are high.  Ever since Jesus was raised
from the dead, someone coming back to life is old hat and
no longer a miracle.  You'll need to define for us what is
acceptable to you as a miracle so I'll be careful not to
include such outdated examples in the future.  :-)

Collis

    Nope, I don't acknowledge that god has the same attributes in both the
    OT and NT. I can see that the emphasis is different, but I question the
    change. They look to me like two different people - consistant with a
    god made up by humans.
    
    I don't trust Revalation. It's too cosmic, man. You can place all
    manner of interpretations on that book.
    
    As for your miracle of someone coming back to life, what am I supposed
    to believe? You don't supply any details, so I guessed it was something
    that could probably be explained in less emotional terms than
    'miracle'. After all, doctors do miracles all day long... until they
    help a patient die to put them out of suffering, then they're
    persecuted by the law and the religious Right (see the news in the UK).
    
    Pete.

re Note 519.55 by METSYS::GOODWIN:

>     I don't trust Revalation. It's too cosmic, man. You can place all
>     manner of interpretations on that book.
      
        Pete,

        Is it the book you don't trust, or is it human interpretation
        of the book?  (I certainly would agree with the latter.)  Or
        do you view this as a distinction without a difference?

        Bob

    Re: .56
    
    Both.
    
    Pete

    Is killing in defense of one's life or the lives of one's immediate
    family an immoral act?  How about in the defense of one's extended
    family?  One's community?  Nation? 
    
    Where are the lines drawn here?
    
    Or is all willful killing immoral, no matter what the provocation?
    
    Frankly, I understood the 10 commandments to outlaw *unlawful*
    killing, which is, of course, the real definition of murder.  This
    would certainly justify a God who was willing to kill whole
    populations of people whom He did not like.  

    Mike 

>    Frankly, I understood the 10 commandments to outlaw *unlawful*
>    killing, which is, of course, the real definition of murder.

Your understanding is correct.

    Then can I assume that the Bible does not proscribe the *lawful*
    killing of a human being?  Also assuming that in the creation of the
    law which allows such a killing, due regard is paid the other rules
    of behavior as set forth in the Bible, I suppose.  Yes?
    
    If so, then there are no Biblical proscriptions against waging a
    defensive war, or against the just imposition of capital punishment,
    to cite two examples.  Correct?
    
    Not that this is to say that those who oppose such acts on moral
    grounds are somehow being "non-Biblical".
    
    Mike

    It would also mean that state-sponsored genocide would not be
    inconsistent with the commandment against murder, as long as that
    government's decision to carry out such genocide is in accordance with
    its own legal system.  Hitler's final solution, Pol Pot's killing
    fields. and Stalin's purges would not count as mass murder if those
    acts are deemed "legal".  The fact that none of those governments are
    democratic isn't really the point, since the monarchies that ruled
    ancient Israel were not democratic either.  And if someone wants to
    quibble that none of those instances of genocide were legal, for one
    reason or another, that still doesn't change the fact that it is
    conceivably possible for a government to conduct mass killings that are
    permissible within its legal system, simply by defining its laws such
    that these acts become legal.

    If we are concerned strictly with adherence to what is legal rather
    than what is morally right, then we relinquish our responsibility to
    interpret and shape public policy and private behavior in accordance
    with what we think *should* be acceptable  based on our understanding
    of higher moral standards.

    -- Mike

Re:  .55

  >Nope, I don't acknowledge that god has the same attributes in both
  >the OT and NT.

I would certainly appreciate an explanation as to why the OT
attribute of killing is found on an even grander scale in the
NT and the NT principle of love is derived from the OT (Jesus
was quoting the OT in Mark 12:28-31 when He said that to love
god and your neighbor were the two greatest commandments).

Collis

You are quite right, Mike.  Governments pass immoral laws
(just as Supreme Courts make immoral rulings).  None of
which justifies immorality.

Collis

>    It would also mean that state-sponsored genocide would not be
>    inconsistent with the commandment against murder, as long as that
>    government's decision to carry out such genocide is in accordance with
>    its own legal system.

God's law, not man's.

re Note 519.59 by COVERT::COVERT:

> >    Frankly, I understood the 10 commandments to outlaw *unlawful*
> >    killing, which is, of course, the real definition of murder.
> 
> Your understanding is correct.

        Why would there need to be a law to outlaw killing that is
        already outlawed?  Sounds redundant, even circular.  That'd
        be like a law that said it was illegal to park where it was
        illegal.

        I get the impression that the conservative interpretation of
        this commandment is "no killing unless ordered by your
        government."  Didn't the world go through some legal
        proceedings almost 50 years ago during which this was
        rejected?

        Or is it "no killing unless ordered by God?"

        Bob

It's no killing unless permitted or ordered by God.

Only self-defense and violations of God's laws (under due authority) are
permitted.

/john

    I see you people missed that part I wrote wherein I asked if the
    Bible permits legal killing, providing the civil laws also comport
    themselves to the other desired behaviors mentioned in the Bible.
    Since mass capital punishment ordered by God has a prominent place in
    the Bible, and since Christian-based societies have permitted war and
    capital punishment in the name of God ever since such societies were
    formed, and since Christianity places so much emphasis on tradition,
    I'd say my supposition and John Covert's response is quite correct.  

    Now then, that is not a good reason why the concept of Biblically
    authorized killing shouldn't be re-examined.  If only because while
    the Bible seems to permit legal killing, it doesn't seem to mandate
    it.  Except, as I recall, in certain sections of the OT which have
    long since been rejected by modern society.

    Mike
                                                                         

    .66
    
    From where did you get that notion, pray tell?
    
    Richard

    According to "Understanding the Old Testament," which was written 
    collaboratively by scholars, the laws of the OT were generally thought
    of as "for internal use only."  That is to say, such rules were not
    binding outside one's clan or community.
    
    "Thou shalt not kill" really meant "Thou shalt not kill your own kind."
    
    Of course, you have to realize that this was written by scholars, which
    means they probably don't possess the breadth of knowledge and insight
    we possess right here among the participants of this conference.
    <tongue-inserted-firmly-in-cheek>
    
    Richard

>    From where did you get that notion, pray tell?

From study of the Bible and the interpretations of qualified theologians.

re the Old Testament and one's clan:

But Jesus expanded "neighbor" to include everyone in the world.

/john

    Richard,
    
    What scholars have written that "Thou shalt not kill you own kind"?
    
    It seems like a license to kill those "not your own kind".  It also
    contradicts "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" which
    is found both in the OT and NT.
    
    I agree with John that the only permitted killing is that directed by
    God himself and self-defense.

Note 519.70

>But Jesus expanded "neighbor" to include everyone in the world.

Oh so true!  Even in the context of killing.

Peace,
Richard

    Re: .71

    Jesus said not to retaliate; in effect, not to defend oneself.
    Of course, since this doesn't fit what most of us would agree is
    rational, we tend to "spiritualize" those particular teachings.
    
    Don't bother to ask about the scholars.  You would not acknowledge
    their authority, their expertise, their qualifications, unless you
    agreed with what they had to say.

>    I agree with John

    This comes as no surprise, you know.  Come to think of it, I've never seen
    you and John in the same note at the same time.  Hmmmm....

>    that the only permitted killing is that directed by
>    God himself and self-defense.

     When was the last time God directed a killing??

     Richard

>    Jesus said not to retaliate; in effect, not to defend oneself.

"in effect" NOT!

There is an obvious distinction between retaliating (revenge) and protecting
your own life.
    
>     When was the last time God directed a killing??

BC

/john

    Re: .62
    
    Because the 'attribute of killing... on a even grander scale' simply
    does not exist in the NT. Sure, it exists in a very strangely worded
    prophesy, but not as historical events.
    
    As for love, it seemed absent in the OT, merely there as a commandment,
    but more prominent in the NT. It tells me the bible is a collection of
    books, written by a collection of authors with different perspectives.
    To say that there's a divine glue holding it together is wishful
    thinking.
    
    Pete.

    While there are no instances of divinely-inspired killing in the NT, I
    am also unaware that the NT constituted an over-ride of the 10
    commandments, specifically the one that said not to murder.  That is to
    say, legalised killing was okay by Christ.
    
    Mike

re Note 519.73 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

>     Don't bother to ask about the scholars.  You would not acknowledge
>     their authority, their expertise, their qualifications, unless you
>     agreed with what they had to say.
  
        Richard,

        I'd advise anyone to avoid a discussion based upon "my
        experts are better (or more numerous, or cover a longer time
        span) than your experts".

        Say what you mean.  Defend your position using specific named
        and quoted sources.

        Bob

Re:  Richard's scholars  :-)

Indeed, I expect what Richard is saying is that these are
scholars who do not accept the inerrancy of the Bible.

I think the scholar's theory is interesting.  I think it
even finds support in the Jewish oral and written
tradition.  I also think it is a misinterpretation of
God's original meaning - which Jesus *clarified*, not
changed.

Collis

    >    Say what you mean.  Defend your position using specific named
    >    and quoted sources.
    
    Conservatives discount scholars who do not start with the assumption
    that the Bible is inerrant (or whatever other standard they want as
    part of the starting assumption) and liberals discount scholars who
    *do* start with such an assumption.
    
    "Using specific named and quoted sources" would not prevent a followup
    argument over credentials.

re Note 519.79 by LJOHUB::NSMITH:

>     "Using specific named and quoted sources" would not prevent a followup
>     argument over credentials.

        Oh, certainly!

        I am not for suppressing argument, only content-free
        arguments! :-)

        Bob

    I'm asking "what scholars" because I genuinely want to know.

    If each question I raise is going to get a response of the form "you
    wouldn't agree" then so what?  In any case, is the new dialog
    suppression tactic for CP to doubt the sincerity of people one
    disagrees with?

    You're own position is supported by citing your references and
    diminished when don't.

    I do not care to argue the credentials or qualifications of any particular
    biblical scholars.  Therefore, I shall not pursue it.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

Note 519.74

>"in effect" NOT!

>There is an obvious distinction between retaliating (revenge) and protecting
>your own life.

Upon this we're unlikely to ever agree.  Why?  Because it doesn't fit what
most of us would agree is rational and so we tend to "spiritualize" Jesus'
teachings concerning self-defense.  Jesus also provided us with his living
example which can hardly be ignored, but somehow people manage to that.
It's a form of "picking and choosing."
    
>>     When was the last time God directed a killing??

>BC

Agreed (if even then).

Richard

    Richard, are you saying that Jesus advocated not protecting one's self
    from a murderous attack against one's self or one's family?  That it is
    preferable that one die rather than kill in self defense?  If so, you
    certainly have me at a loss as to understand.
    
    Mike

    Mike .84,
    
    	Truly, it is not an easy thing to understand.  And I'm not prepared
    to condemn anyone who defends oneself.
    
    Richard
    
    PS  I paid for my son's karate lessons.  He is more likely now to take
    evasive action when confronted with violence than ever before.
    

    Re: .81
    
    The comment you got, was in reference to a style of noting thats
    present in this conference by a couple of noters.
    
    Marc H.

    Can I resurrect (appropriate word for this conference) this topic for a
    while?

    I haven't read each and every reply in this string, so if this has been
    addressed just point me to the response.

    I was reading Ecclesiastes tonight and Chapter 3 verse 3 says:

    		"...a time to kill and a time to heal ...
                      ------------

    How does one reconcile this with "thou shall not kill"?

    When is the "time to kill"?

    I'd really like to understand this and any insight would be
    appreciated.

    Bubba

    PS - yes, Bubba DOES read the Bible.  I do some decent cross stitch and
    am designing a rather large piece with some of my favorite verses on
    it.

>    I was reading Ecclesiastes tonight and Chapter 3 verse 3 says:
>
>    		"...a time to kill and a time to heal ...
>                      ------------
>
>    How does one reconcile this with "thou shall not kill"?

    I don't know if the same word was used in the original language for
    both verses. My understanding has long been that the word used in the
    commandment was more accurately translated "murder". God did of course
    order His people do do some killing (making war) if one is to believe 
    the Bible. I believe that there are allowable times to kill. Self
    defense and defending ones family to name two. Others disagree.

    		Alfred

>	I do some decent cross stitch and

    	"Decent" is hardly the word I'd use. Extraordinary is what I'd use.
    I've never seen better. And there are some serious cross stitchers
    showing their work at the Danville Grange Fair so I've seen decent
    cross stitch.

Merely because the poem says that there is a time for killing does not
mean that killing is good.

This must be understood in the context of verses 16-17: "Moreover I saw
under the sun that in the place of justice, wickedness was there, and in
the place of rigteousness, wickedness was there as well.  I said in my
heart, God will judge the righteous and the wicked for he has appointed
a time for every matter, and for every work."

From "The New Jerome Biblical Commentary":

  The meaning of the poem as a self-contained unit appears to be that
  the joys and sorrows of life come from contructive/destructive actions
  and from separations and unions caused by love and hate on the individual
  and larger social levels.

BTW, "scatter [or throw away] stones" is an euphemism for sexual intercourse,
according the Midrash on Qoheleth (the Hebrew name of this book).
  
/john

re Note 519.88 by CVG::THOMPSON:

> >    How does one reconcile this with "thou shall not kill"?
> 
>     I don't know if the same word was used in the original language for
>     both verses. My understanding has long been that the word used in the
>     commandment was more accurately translated "murder". 

        Of course, IF the correct reading of the commandment is "thou
        shall not murder", with "murder" meaning "unlawful killing",
        then the commandment means:

        	"unlawful killing is unlawful"

        which says nothing new but begs the question: "well, what IS
        unlawful killing."

        This makes me suspect that since "thou shall not murder" is a
        useless reading, it probably is an incorrect reading.

        Bob

    I think that Mosaic Law (including the ten commandments) was meant for
    the Israelites which, of course, were Gods chosen people.  In light of
    that I'd say that "thou shall not kill" meant that one Israeli should
    not kill another Israeli.  I don't think the law applied to conduct
    with individuals outside the Israeli community.

    Just my opinion.

    Eric

>        Of course, IF the correct reading of the commandment is "thou
>        shall not murder", with "murder" meaning "unlawful killing",
    
    On the other hand if the word meant not so much "murder" meaning 
    "unlawful killing" but "something like murder" meaning "killing without
    good justification" it sounds more logical.
    
    			Alfred

    Bubba,
    
    	I'll speak from my usual unorthodox Christian perspective.  In
    the context of Ecclesiates, I take it to mean to kill as in to kill
    a thought, a childish or selfish desire; to heal a relationship, to
    heal wounds which are invisible to the eye.
    
    	The whole poem seems to speak of a broad overview of life, rather
    than of specifics.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    .91,
    
    There is an enormous amount of truth in what you have said.
    
    Richard
    

As Richard points out, killing doesn't necessarily apply just
to humans.

Although I wouldn't endorse the interpretation Richard uses,
I think that killing non-humans (I've been reading roach-killing
stories in home-work :-) ) could well be within the framework
of this verse.

Of course I accept that there are legitimate reasons to kill
people as well.

Collis

Note 519.95

>Of course I accept that there are legitimate reasons to kill
>people as well.

Betcha Satan does, too! ;-)

Richard

Indeed, Satan and God agree on a lot of things.

    9.840
    
    When is killing not murder?  When it's war?  When it's self-defense?
    When it's capital punishment?  When it's euthanasia?
    
    There are many ways to tap dance around this issue.  Pat Robertson
    has been doing it for years.
    
    Richard
    

    
>    When is killing not murder?  When it's war?  When it's self-defense?
>    When it's capital punishment?  When it's euthanasia?
    
    When it's abortion?
    
>    There are many ways to tap dance around this issue.  Pat Robertson
>    has been doing it for years.
    
    Hey, if it's good enough for you it's good enough for Pat. :-)
    
    			Alfred

>    There are many ways to tap dance around this issue.  Pat Robertson
>    has been doing it for years.

I'm surprised you say that Pat Roberson "tap dances" around this
issue.  I rarely watch him, but I had the impression that he is
quite forthright in his beliefs in areas such as abortion,
euthanasia, and capital punishment to name a few.

Perhaps he's not tap dancing at all?

Collis

    Forthright tap dancing.
    
    Richard
    

I'm confused about what forthright tap dancing means
since I defined tap dancing as skirting around the edges
of an issue because you didn't want to deal with it.
Obviously, you have some other definition in your mind.

Collis

    Considering the title of the topic, I see Robertson dance around
    his inconsistencies regarding the morality of killing with ease.
    Call it the Rhumba, if you like.
    
    Richard
    

Re:  .103

I think I understand what you're saying.

I don't think I agree, since I expect Pat Robertson is pretty
clear in distinguishing lawful killing from unlawful murder,
but I think I can see why you believe he is being inconsistent.

In any case, I would not call it dancing around the issue.

Collis