Leslie Bell writes:

Subject: "Thou Shalt Not Kill" had an addendum

The author fails to point out that the ten commandments had an addendum, or rather, were completely rendered moot by what Christ, as God, said was the greatest commandment of all, and indeed, the one that explained the rationale for all the others:

"Love your enemies." And because He knew we wouldn't understand, He provided the following illustration: If someone demands your cloak, give him your shirt also. If a soldier forces you to carry his gear a mile, carry it for him two miles.

In otherwards, give your enemy what he wants and he will cease to be your enemy; indeed, over time and trust, he will become your greatest ally and friend.

That kind of Truth is not only the kind of Truth that will get you killed, it's the kind of Truth than when people, even non- Christians like Ghandi follow it, get the results of peace.

Why peace will get you killed is because there is far too many earthly riches to be made of starting, promoting, and profiting from war. Obscene amounts, impossible to resist for those that do not believe in an afterlife or consequences or karma or simply that "What goes around comes around."

But no man can say he wasn't told The Answer, when his time comes. And every man's time comes.

Don Robertson writes:

Subject: Philosopher

As this is the Age of Empiricism, repleat with a an endless myriad of Empirical Wars, we all should consider, there is nothing empirical science has given us that humanity cannot live without, and there is a great deal given to humanity by empirical science that humanity cannot live with.

Ours are moral socialist nations, as we permit our governments to dictate to and incite the people with moral goals and judgements acted upon by these nationalist enterprises.

But we have no moral imperative, as the article here points out. The "thou shalts" simply are ideas often contravened with such impartiality, it often seems we are complicit in what we intuitively know are immoral acts.

It was Descartes who gave philsophy all we can know as human beings. This sure knowledge, the cogito states, "I think, there, I am." It is a very concise statement of all any individual can truly know without accepting some very tenuous "givens" to reach a higher plateau of real knowledge.

As a philosopher I can state unequivocally, empirical science is a conundrum, as empirical science does not meet the test of truth empirical science holds out for its own test of truth.

Even so empirical science has been handed the mantle of truth in the West. When we say, "That doesn't make sense," we mean, that doesn't make sense empirically. It can be proved, empiricism is not truth on either empirical grounds, and even more so, empirical science can be proved not to be truth on human grounds.

Empiricial science is not human truth. Empirical science instead is much more akin to witchcraft. It gives humanity results, but they are clearly immoral results, this despite the claims of empirical scientists that science is "amoral".

The cogito has been long held to be a seemingly insurmountable philosophic barrier to knowledge.

I have shattered the barrier of the cogito by providing a proof leading to the moral imperative sought by philosophers for millenia.

It's a bold boast, and one yet to be tested by time, but I think I have done it.

The moral imperative of life is, to live a life that detracts not at all from the experience others will have when they come into this world to replace us. Diversity is part of our experience. This philosophic moral imperative can be directly derived from the cogito.

During a previous era when empiricism did not rule as truth, we must consider:

Once it was written, even no doubt more than once, that the world will be destroyed, and true believers will be given a second chance. Some seek to hasten this test, while others intuitively grasp it is a gamble with near zero odds.

It would be nice to be given a second chance after destroying the world for us, as well as for so many others, but to consider a second chance even remotely possible seems to contravene that which we can know, the cogito and the moral imperative.

I'm confident, this is an end of an era, as philosophy is that powerful, that iresistible.

So read, agree or dissent, but pass it on into the world, a world that is about to be conquered and saved by philosophy again.

Don Robertson, The American Philosopher Limestone, Maine

An Illustrated Philosophy Primer for Young Readers Precious Life - Empirical Knowledge The Grand Unifying Theory & The Theory of Time http://www.geocities.com/donaldwrobertson/index.html Art Auctions: http://www.artbyus.com/auctions.php?a=6&b=4807

Billy g writes:

Subject: The Key is Red

What do you expect. By the time Moses showed up with those very laws they had managed to not only break every one, they didn't even waste any time doing so. And when God gave them Jesus..well you know what happened there.

I think that a very famous director knew, "The Chosen One" would need compassion in order to fulfill prophecy, because without it they will only meet the same fate as the one behind it all and is so prominent in America "details."

John writes:

Subject: Mr.

The Hebrew word "ratsach" (Strong's 7523) in Exodus 20:13 is more accurately translated "murder."

Drew Bowers writes:

Subject: Poor Reasoning

This article takes the unwritten assumption that religious types are the most violent.

Left unwritten, of course, is the fact that the most people ever killed by people were killed by atheistic totatlitarian regimes in the 20th Century.

Jeffrey Irving writes:

Subject: Mr.

I trust this web equivalent of dead silence following such an illuminating article is because the logic of Mr. Diehl's presentation has made you readers realize your world view is so seriously flawed that you have abandoned your computers and sought council in order to organize a response.

Steve writes:

Subject: Thanks

Great article.

Kim writes:

Subject: Hey Drew!

One of the totalitarian regimes you are referring to was headed by a Christian. Hitler believed he was doing God's work by killing millions of Jews and drew his inspiration from 1900 years of Christian Anti-Semitism.

Dennis Diehl writes:

Subject: kill vs murder

Thank you all for you comments. Tough subject with all the various backgrounds and perspectives. When a pastor, I knew that "kill' was rendered "murder" as if somehow this was a big difference. Kill implied something ok, while murder was not. So we would have to think from the OT example that when God says to kill, it is not murder but people murder when it is not with Godly permission or command. When humans kill a woman and smash the child's head against the wall, it is murder, but when God commands it, it is ok killing. Don't think so.

Mary writes:

Subject: Much to think about

This is a great article. I liked reading Leslie Bell's comment in tandem with it, simply for the equally interesting counterpoint. Thank you both for the provocative thoughts.

Tyrone Keels writes:

Subject: Are You Really Sure ?

Hi there, friends. I read your opinion Dennis. It seems as if there are some details left out of your comments about the Bible. What was the quality of life like for the people that did not worship God ? Did they live in such a way that they could help each other develop beautiful characters ? Or did they worship the sun and sacrifice their children to their gods on altars of fire ? Did they love each other or did they brutally beat and rape each other ? What kind of life were they living Dennis ? Was their power in their lives to live in harmony with a pure conscience or were they slaves to habits that degraded them to the level of brute beasts without the power of reason ?

Did a merciful God see fit to deliver them from a living death of imprisonment to selfishness and all that it brings in its train ?

Surely, we do not condemn earthly judges for sentencing criminals to punishment or in extreme cases death. Will puny man presume to condemn His Creator because he chooses to cut short the earthly existence of those who are chained to a self-destructive course of life that impacts the lives of others as well ? God gives freedom of choice but when that freedom endangers the very existence of others He has a perfect right to take it away.

Perhaps there is some misunderstanding here. Many believe that God will burn everyone in h*** who rebels against Him . This is not what the Bible teaches. Evidently someone has not really studied their Bible. If you honestly and sincerely want to know about this or other subjects in the Bible, let me know.

Christian

Cindy writes:

Subject: Educator

i will use this article in my world cultures class to initiate some critical thinking, regardless of religious affiliation or not.

Isaac writes:

Subject: John's comment

Yes, the commandment really says you shall do no murder, not kill in a general sense. Presumably this excludes killing in battle, killing convicted criminals and so on.

I can guarantee that you will find more passages like this that mistranslate the original meaning. We know that the english translations we use aren't perfect.

Also, not all of us think Christianity is a pacifist religion.

Tyrone Keels writes:

Subject: Whole Truth or Character Misrepresentation

Hi there, friends. I read your opinion Dennis. It seems that there are some details in the Bible which were left out of your comments. What was the quality of life like for the people who chose not to worship God ? Did they live in such a way that they could help each other develop beautiful characters ? Or did they worship the sun and sacrifice their children on altars of fire in dedication to their sun god ? Did they love each other or did they brutally beat, rape and abuse each other during campaigns of conquest ? Was there power in their lives to live in harmony with a pure conscience or were they slaves to habits that degraded them to the level of brute beasts without reasoning ability ?

Did a merciful God see fit to deliver them from a living death of captivity to the tyrant of selfishness ? How can society embrace the idea of euthanasia and yet condemn God for cutting short the mental and emotional pain of self-destructive, self-centered individuals living a self imposed miserable existence ?

Surely, we do not condemn earthly judges for sentencing criminals to punishment or in extreme cases even death. Will puny man condemn His Creator because He chooses to abbreviate the earthly existence of those who are chained to a self-destructive course of life by their own choice impacting the lives of others as well ? God gives freedom of choice but when that freedom endangers the the very existence of others or their prospects for eternity, He has a perfect right to take that freedom away.

Dennis, I sure hope you are not one of those shallow, surface Bible readers who believe that God is going to take everyone who rebels against Him and burn them in h*** for eternity. If you believe this then it is evident that you don't really understand the Bible. This is not what the Bible teaches.

I will be glad to help you gain a real understanding of the Bible, if you sincerely and honestly are not just trying to misrepresent the character of God and want to understand the subjects you have discussed as well as many other things in the Bible.

Christian

Dennis Diehl writes:

Subject: thanks

I would not assume that the Israelite religion was free of all that one would think the "pagans" found themselves into. A good read of The History of God, by Karen Armstrong will alay that misconception. All religion and religious practices spring from Sun worship, including the Israelite variety if one is willing to do the homework. No religion springs from a vacuum. OT religion sprang from the pagan fertility customs around them and can be found in the design of their own temple. People are people and the idea that Israel was righteous and justified in genocide upon others is just wrong. There is a time to defend. No problem with that, but I challenge you to find a time in the OT where "come let us reason together' and "you be you and we be we" was ever an option. Big topic I know.

not all of us think Christianity is a pacifist religion.

Well if the Christian kingdom is of this world, they will fight, but someone said it was not of this world, but my kindgdom is not from here... So depends on which world one wants control in and why. One also has to ask why was God so powerless to have a chat with all the nations so that there would be no doubt about who was god and who was not. Even God in the OT was not prone to teach or talk, just smite.

Dennis Diehl writes:

Subject: PS

This topic does not address killing of evil criminal types, or defensive issues. It is pointing out the disconnect in the OT between "You shall not kill" and then filling the book, lives of Israelites and punishments of everyone for everything with nothing but senseless, lesson not learned, no one talked to killing. In the NT we have the story of Peter presiding over the death of annianias and saphira for not giving all the bucks to the church they had "pledged" It does not say why they had to draw back a bit. It shows no compassion or questioning or finding out why they may have over zealousy said one thing and then had to do another. They just get murdered in church by the Apostle, don't let the Holy Spirit thing fool ya. People die because of what other people do.

The great thing about this example is that it is written by Paul's apologist Luke who hated Peter and felt him totally unqualified and disqualifed from leading any part of the church. The story is a mocking of Peter, the big "apostle" for taking the lives of two church members who said one thing, but did another, when Peter said he'd follow Jesus to the ends of the earth and protect him and then fled, doing another. It's a parody on Peter and I doubt it ever happened literally. Roman law doesn't let you kill church memebers and just bury them as if it's no one's business. Family members might wish to know why mom and dad did not come home from church too.

Tyrone Keels writes:

Subject: Reasoning With God

Hi there friend. It is not necessary to claim that the Israelite religion was free of pagan practices. On the contrary, in every instance when the Israelites or any people have turned from God, they have turned to some form of pagan religion.

The Bible has more to say about His people turning away from HIm than it does about any other people turning away from Him. No need to read “The History of God” because the Bible is very plain about this. The degeneracy and weakness of human nature are not hidden in the Bible. This is intentional. But it is the narrow view that sees only the problems of human nature in the Bible yet deliberately or unwittingly fails to see the divine remedies and provision made for the transformation of human nature.

Notice that God pronounced judgments and curses upon Israel when they did turn to pagan religion instead of remaining faithful to the worship of God. Israel was subject to punishment and disaster whenever they turned from the worship of God to paganistic practices.

I agree with you concerning certain points but with a note of clarification. All religion and religious practices apart from God and without God spring from some form of self-worship. No religion springs from a vacuum but not every religion springs from God. In fact, only one religion comes from God. The religion that comes from God will lead to God and reflect the truth about His character. It appears that there is a lack of understanding about the religion that comes from God and a general ignorance of His character. Attributing every religion or everything religious to God is a blinding mistake.

The only time that Israel or any person is righteous is when God is empowering them to reflect His character as revealed through His Son Jesus Christ. Even then, that person or people will not claim to be righteous because of an increasing humility that comes with true self-knowledge. Israel had the same role as the one who administers the lethal dose in euthanasia or the veterinarian who puts the rabid dog to sleep. Both must be instructed and authorized to do so.

God meets people where they are in their understanding of things but offers something better than what they have. He stoops in order to lift. This is how God dealt with Israel and the nations around them in the Old Testament before Jesus Christ entered the world. He accomodates Himself to human thinking but does not change His character that the influence may be elevating.

Many false religions, religious ideas and false philosophies generally avoid the issue of inherent human selfishness and provide no solution to this problem. Either human nature is either exalted, gratified or used as an excuse for sin. Only the religion of God both bluntly states the problem and more than adequately remedies it.

The question is not whether Israel was righteous but whether or not God as Creator was righteous.

Does God ever reason with human beings in the Old Testament ? Does He ever allow the "you be you" or "we be we" option in the old testament ?

Notice in the Old Testament how God talked to and reasoned with Cain before He killed his brother Abel and even tried to encourage him to do well instead of sinning by killing his brother.

Notice that, after Cain killed his brother that God set a mark upon Cain to prevent anyone from killing Cain. Why Didn't God kill Cain ?

Notice how God let "Cain be Cain" and "God was still God" Read it all in Genesis 4:6-16

This is just one of many examples in the Old Testament where "come let us reason together" and "you be you and we be we" was an option. Would you like to see more ?

God did not kill Cain because as a part of His plan for the salvation of mankind, the character of Cain and all whose characters would ever belike his must be given time to develop and be revealed for what they really are.

God provides the opportunity, time, power and incentive for daily transformation of character before death and helps individuals recognize their need of moral excellence to prepare for heaven.The Bible is a revelation of God's dealings with the problem of human selfishness (or sin) with its ultimate conclusion and the human response to God's intervention.

The only true Christianity is not what you or I or anyone else says or thinks it is. It is that which was demonstrated in the life of Jesus Christ.

Christianity as demonstrated in the life of Jesus Christ is both pacifist and activist. Opposed to violence of any kind or war with or without weapons against others but constantly at war with the evil tendencies of one's own human nature.

What about the other points you bring up ? Will continue later...

Christian

Billy G writes:

Subject: Hope Springs Eternal.

Jesus said that many would claim to do Gods work and stand before him saying they are "christians." But Jesus tells us in the bible that there is no place in heaven for those who say they are christians and did not follow Christs teachings which were to respect and care for one another.

Satans negative energy is nearing it's peak and it know it has but a short time to take away that which God gave us, our free will. Fear is evil's greatest asset and the darkness, hatred, intolerance and selfishness that go along with it are driving America from the light of hope and into the darkness of despair.

Tyrone Keels writes:

Subject: Kingdom and Killing

Hi there, friend. the kingdom of which Jesus Christ spoke as not being in this world is the only true Christian kingdom. There is no Christian kingdom of this world. In Christ's kingdom there is control but that control is self-control, control over oneself by the power of God.

Only in the kingdoms of this world do we discover major control issues because self (selfishness) is more often in control than love. A label with the word Christian on it does not mean that anything or anyone is Christian. It is a Christ like character that designates one a Christian.

How could God be considered powerless to "chat with all the nations" when the Bible has so many verses that show Him not only reasoning with nations, (Isaiah 41:21,1:18) but pleading with and weeping over them. Jeremiah 2:9, 9:1-3, 48:29-32, Isaiah 16:6-11, etc. Many more if you like...

The Bible shows God making Himself known as God to the nations in many different verses. Isaiah 52:10, 66:18, Ezekiel 5:5-8, Daniel 2, etc. There are many more of these also if you want to see them...

God also spoke or talked in the Old Testament well over 100 times. I can provide a list of these too if you like... He also did some teaching in the Old Testament according to Deuteronomy 4, Exodus 4 and several other places. God's plan was to develop beautiful characters in the people of Israel and allow them to reveal His character to the nations around them. They would teach others what they had been taught.

What becomes apparent once again in addressing the issues that are raised by those who slander the character of God as revealed in the Bible is that many people not only don't understand the Bible but are not sincerely or really trying to understand as evidenced by the incomplete and hasty judgments made about God with their consequent faulty conclusions.

What about the disconnect in the OT between "you shall not kill" and then filling the lives of Israelites with killing ? Let's talk about it.

Christian

Dennis Diehl writes:

Subject: OT

Just because the Bible quotes a human being as saying "And the Lord said," does not mean that's a valid communication with humans. We are asked to believe that what someone else heard in their head is "God." People are on meds for that kind of behavior today. The further back in history a "thus saith the Lord" is, the more likely humans are to believe it. If it was said by someone quoting God last week, we would not think so much of it.

The History of God explains the pagan origins and polytheism of the Israelite origins and uses the text to show the evolution of the concepts through time. It really should be read by a critical thinker and of course won't be by those that either fear new information or think that the OT explains this all accurately in one self contained place

Dennis Diehl writes:

Subject: ps

The fact is that even in the Bible, "You shall not kill" had no meaning in practice as God, Himself is reported to have commanded ongoing killing of all that got between the chosen people and the goodies. The Bible saying the Bible is true no more valid a proof than saying that "God said" or "wept" or "pleaded" in some way that was not direct but merely said to have been so by some human. Speaking through humans is iffy. That's called channeling in New Age Circles. Personally all the tales in the first 11 Chapters of Genesis are mythology and retold tales from the cultures that came before the Penteteuch was written. See my article on Cain and Abel and others along this line. We can agree to disagree. I am merely pointing out that You shall not kill, especially in the OT and in parts of the New, had no meaning nor did it stop GOD from ordering killing thru a human priesthood and prophets whose own declarations were suspect and many did not come true.

John Farfields writes:

Subject: Overseer

It must be understood that "Thou shalt not kill" and rest of the commandments were ONLY meant for Jews. (Diamond, God, Jews and History) Gentiles were fair game since the god Jahweh considered them abominations on the level of beasts in the field. It is also interesting to note that the principles of the laws had long formed the basis of Egyptian society. But then again, Moses was an Egyptian.

Tyrone Keels writes:

Subject: Commandments Only For Jews ?

Interesting... Commandments only for the Jews ? If the commandments were only for the Jews, why was it wrong for Cain to kill his brother Abel ? Cain was not Jewish. Neither was Abel or Adam or Eve. The commandments were in existence before the first j** or Hebrew appeared. Is doing what is right (living according to the 10 commandments) and refraining from doing wrong only a good idea for just Jewish people ? Not according to the Bible.

Again, if one believes "thou shalt not kill had no meaning" in the Bible, it is not likely that the individual will believe "God is love" has any meaning in the Bible. Since Jesus Christ came to reveal the character of God, it follows that misunderstanding and misinterpretation of God and His words in the Bible stems from failure to comprehend the beauty of Christ's character. The application of "thou shalt not kill" is being misunderstood because of a faulty concept of God.

The Bible explains itself when scripture is compared with scripture unless someone wants it to have a different meaning. If that is the case, a person will use other books first to try and explain the words of the Bible or will choose certain verses out of context to make a point.

Christian

Dennis Diehl writes:

Subject: hi

I know you would not agree, but the story of Cain and Able, while informative, is not literally true and did not happen in space and time, nor is the story of Adam and Eve how we came to be. I understand you would not see it that way. Also, when one compares the "Ten" commandments in various locations in the Penteteuch, there are many more than ten and they don't match each other, but again, that's another long story. The article is not about law, it is about the example in the OT of getting rules and then hundreds of years of slaughter by the people of the Book who are supposed to not do such things according to the Book.

Tyrone Keels writes:

Subject: Killing and Circles

Hi there friend. I think this pretty much concludes my point. We have a classic case of selective belief.

If you believe the verses in the Bible about Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel are not literally true, then what is it that makes you so sure that the verses about the people of the book getting rules and engaging in hundreds of years of slaughter are indeed, literally true ?

Are we to believe the verses that show the supposed people of God killing and slaughtering even though they had received the 10 commandments and then utterly, refuse not to believe the verses that would explain the apparent contradiction ?

Why just choose to believe the verses that show an apparent contradiction and refuse to believe the verses that would explain the contradiction ? The unwillingness to consider all the evidence before rendering an opinion makes manifest a predisposition against God and the Bible.

God loves you friend. I hope you do not persist in misrepresenting His character to your eternal loss. Take care. Please read article #333464.

Christian

Tyrone Keels writes:

Subject: Killing and Circles

Hi there friend. This is a classic case of selective belief. If a person chooses not to believe the Bible is literally true about Cain and Abel or Adam and Eve, how can that person be so absolutely sure the Bible is literally true when he or she reads that the supposed people of God slaughtered and killed people ?

Cain and Abel and Adam and Eve not literally true. Slaughtering and killing in the OT for hundreds of years by the people of the book literally true.

If you have evidence that part of the Bible is not literally true, where is your evidence that another part is literally true ?

Why choose to believe the apparent contradictions in the Bible and yet refuse to believe the verses that explain these apparent contradictions ?

This reveals a predisposition against God and His word in the Bible; not an attitude to understand the Bible but to condemn it. My friend, God loves you. I hope that you will not persist in misrepresenting His character to your eternal ruin.

Christian

Dennis Diehl writes:

Subject: um

Thank you for your concern for me.

Rev Michael Bresciani writes:

Subject: Use your craft don't waste it

In my last comment I failed to mention that you are good writer with a meticulous eye for detail. Keep writing.

Also perhaps you should stick to the New Testament for a while. There you will see the love of God revealed. Jesus goes beyond "thou shalt not kill." In fact if we hate our brothers in our hearts we have already killed them in our hearts. Christ has brought in new and far deeper requirements than the "thou shalt nots" I don't make light of any of Gods words but to see the real picture look at Christ.

Once again thanks for your writing.

Dennis Diehl writes:

Subject: thank

Thank you. I appreciate your comments and of course the NT is generally more clear of killing amongst the brethren, save for Peter and the Annianias and Saphira incident which I believe was really a parody against Peter by the writer of Luke. Here we have a story of two church members, killed by the HS for saying one thing and doing another, overseen and administered by Peter, who said he'd do one thing, never leave Jesus, and then did another by denying him. It's a message in Acts from Paul that Peter is NOT to lead the church and is disqualified. I doubt it happened. Revelation is a killing book by the cosmic Jesus much like the OT but only worldwide, but it's a rather difficult book to pin down in origins and intent.

Rudy writes:

Subject: Intrigued

I think John's reply, "The Hebrew word "ratsach" (Strong's 7523) in Exodus 20:13 is more accurately translated "murder."" is very important in understanding this Commandment. Murder and killing in general are quite different in the contexts of the Bible when one has read through the Bible. Lord Krishna in the Bhagavad-Gita tells Arhuna that killing another when one is acting in the role of soldier is not the same equivalent of murdering another. When Jesus was asked by his disciples what the most important Commandments were he replied, "First that there is but one God this was the most important Commandment of all. Second that one should love thy brother as thyself." Something we all must look at in addition to these Commandments is the argument of the afterlife. For those who chose to believe in this life as their only existence than any negative karmic deeds or murders on their part could not possibly carry with them in another existence because they cannot conceive of an existence beyond the current one. For those of us who choose to believe in an afterlife, our personal actions good and bad throughout our existence will be that which we will be held accountable to in the afterlife. We all will come to an end no matter what our beliefs. I believe that only with a truly open mind and strong knowledge of world belief systems can one come to the understanding of the universal truth and then and only then can one understand the importance of the Commandments. It's almost relative to comprehending the majority of civil laws put in place and then later observing the breaking of said laws and their ramifications. In witnessing the effects of the law breakers upon the victims is one able to rationalize the reason our forefathers felt the need to implement civil laws.