Focus on the Family - Tim Tebow

That is true about the two hebrew words. One of the big ones they taught us in hebrew. (just like the multiple context words for "create" and "life" and "time")

King James was a politician for one thing and in providing a simplified text translation he knew he could not only unify a divided body of believers he could garner the favor of the common man.  In turn he also was very manipulative to the men he had translating the greek, latin and hebrew texts that were being taught from the pulpits.

I heard it said before that God hits a straight ball with a crooked stick and many have used the KJV as an example of this. That in the twisted errors of the KJV and the less than righteous motive in its commission the truth is still delivered and the divinity of God and Christ are not compromised in the story.
That being said, minor things have been molded to fit the readers' own agendas.
Though I have a feeling that even in the earliest more pure versions of any text, there was someone interpreting these words to support their own politics, ideals or dogmas.

I feel I may have stirred the nest in mentioning the preacher who stated God was pro choice.
I left it vague on purpose as he did as well.
It created dialogue and debate. It prompted research and study.
We were on a campus and were primed for such things. Not a website about commercials.
Perhaps I was hasty but I also have much faith in my fellow man and so far I have been impressed in the level of tact I am seeing. I commend both Richard and Jimbo for their unintentional truce on this common ground and for such a "hot button issue" there is little mud slinging and name calling.

The gentleman who said this at my chapel abhorred abortion, and even thought it was wrong and sinful on most accounts (he clarified later that week)
but he stands by his assessment that he  serves a God who allows the choices of His creation to govern the world we live in.
Hence the "bad things in a world made by a loving God" argument.

Death is in our hands.
We exact revenge, justice and judgment up on our fellow man on a daily basis.
On a biological basis we carry out various forms of genocide in order to better or own existence. Whether it is through murder, death penalty, war, or murder.

Abortion can be a moment where we as humans decide,  "this isn't for me, it is a mere cluster, a blastocyst or cellular division that can not live outside of me"
or, "this fetus is going to die up on birth or it can not live a normal , healthy life outside of me"
"this baby will kill me" (a rarer one nowadays)
Within those are variations and the mindsets of the parents are also as variable.

To some it is murder, a killing of an innocent life. But how can one truly argue about the "life" of a child that is only able to be alive through the life of the host mother?
What of the late term abortion, when does that become viable and "ok" to carry out?
Perhaps when the child is highly deformed, or dangerous to the mother?
Again, that is rarer and rarer due to genetic pretesting and more in depth ultrasound and other tests.
We catch things early on nowadays.

I've made statements before on here and show where I stand.
It is a wordy and as rambling as this post if not more.

in the end, we humans wipe one another out on a regular basis. We decide who lives and dies.
When Christ died on the cross, the Christians believe< he in turn handed the reins to us. No longer was there the need for the pomp and circumstance of the Old Testament with Holy of Holies, and the burning sacrifice. No more flames from Heaven and rumbling voice of God from a mountain I guess.
His wrath, focused on him as a man incarnate, was now in our hands.
Sadly some have taken a murderous tone with such power whereas most show grace and mercy.

I myself choose the latter. But acknowledge the former.

Jimbo wrote: Thor wrote: So, do you think that Jesus meant that if someone wants to murder your kid, you should let him...maybe give him your other child to kill, too?  I highly doubt it.  Jesus wasn't about supporting evil, as far as I know.  I think he was about countering it. This is why I don't think "turn the other cheek" is a call to let people do whatever they want to you.   No, I think Jesus was referring it more as a standard of righteousness to be strived for, albeit one that most humans could never attain.   That of course, being the whole purpose of the forgiveness thing.   I think that you should do everything you can to protect your kids short of killing the attacker & if killing the attacker becomes necessary, then I suppose it would be forgiven if you repented, prayed, confessed your sin & were truly remorseful about it.   That having been said, going back to what I was originally talking about, your interpretation of "Thou shalt not kill" being interpreted by NRA nuts as meaning "except for in certain situations".... I think many of the "nuts" I was referring to wouldn't need their kids' lives being threatened to trigger the "certain situation" interpretation. I think that liberal interpretation of "Tsnk" would kick in if someone was coming in their house at night, or stealing their car. I think a lot of pro-war types would find nothing wrong with waging war against a country based on questionable reasons (Iraq for instance) & if innocent men, women & children are killed, they would still not only consider it justified, but take a "who cares?" attitude towards those innocents' deaths, all while claiming to be "good Christians".   IOW.... the "Tsnk" commandment would be interpreted by them in a similar way as you described, for the purpose of assuaging their guilt, be it for killing an intruder into their home when they conceivably could have taken other action, or be it for their participation in or support for a war, no matter how questionable the reason for waging that war was to begin with.

Yes.  War is supposed to be avoided as much as possible.  And peace is something that must be strived for.  And war must be waged to combat evil.  And innocent deaths must be avoided as much as possible.  In fact, this is what Thomas Aquinas' writings re war were all about.

Thor wrote: Pro-life is quite compatible with both the death penalty and participation in a just war, as they all uphold the value of life.  Now, whether a particular war is "just" is something that can be argued.

If an innocent person is killed, it is murder. Plain and simple. Regardless of the "justness" of a war.

Thor wrote: What about those weapons inspections?  Not that I want to get into the Iraq war (and who did or didn't support it), but part of what St. Thomas said was that other options must be tried first.  The UN weapons inspections might qualify.  Iraq hadn't complied as the UN decreed, yet the UN wouldn't allow the use of force to make them comply, so Bush did what he did.  Anyway, whether that fits in with what St. Thomas said, is up to interpretation.   In fact, it's all up to interpretation, and each war is different.

Thor wrote: For the death of an innocent to be considered murder, the intent to kill them must be present.  No one wants to kill innocents or purposely target them.  Well, some do, I guess. Oh...the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been considered by many Christians to be immoral and unjustified.

Jimbo wrote:   War is a last resort Thor. To be resorted to when the enemy's troops are amassed on your border, their Navy has blockaded your ports or their Air Force has dropped bombs on your soil.

Jimbo wrote: Thor wrote: Oh...the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been considered by many Christians to be immoral and unjustified.   Yes, but in those cases it can also be argued that dropping those bombs ended the war & saved untold numbers of lives.   That is certainly a grey area if there ever was one, but there are much more blatant examples.

I hate that argument. Especially when you realize the horrible details of those events. Read Barefoot Gen and also this book about a girl who got  cancer after those bombings. That would be One Thousand Cranes? Not so sure.

I'll have to read that, but I still hate that argument, because folks have no way of knowing if killing those folks in that horrible way saved millions of lives.

Jimbo wrote: Thor wrote: Jimbo wrote:   War is a last resort Thor. To be resorted to when the enemy's troops are amassed on your border, their Navy has blockaded your ports or their Air Force has dropped bombs on your soil.     That's not what the Catholic Church says.  It's what you say.  And that qualifies it as---guess what?---an interpretation!       Oh please tell us what the Catholic Church says about justification for war.   And keep in mind, I'm not claiming I'm a Christian while I use some loose interpretation of what is a credible justification for war.   So it doesn't really matter much what my interpretation is.

OH MY GOD

RichardCranium wrote: OH MY GOD   All that typing, cutting and pasting, and all the other ridiculous church ordered bull$hit.......   And yet THOR makes NO SENSE!!!!!!   LMFAO!!!!!!   LOSER!