Bible Prophecy

[DaGip]

I agree I am hippocriticacle at times, but 1.75 Billion Can't all be wrong.

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
So, 2.1 billion Christians can't all be wrong. But 1.5 billion Muslims, 1.1 Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheists, 900 million Hindu's, ect. ect. can? Makes total sense...

That's not my call. It's Gods. You either choose to beileve or you don't. It's that simple. Also, Muslims believe in one god also. They just have different ways of worship, and believe in different prophets. so thats over half the World Population. To each their own. Like I said if you don't Believe so be it. That whole thing called Free Will still applies.

That's not what I'm arguing. You said 1.75 billion can't be wrong, but there's that other 4.25 billion saying that you are. What makes you guys so special that you're right, despite what 4.25 billion people are saying?

As for the Muslim religion, it developed off of Christianity. As for the rest, I don't know.

Well, if you have ever studied Islam, you would know that the Muslim religion never branched off of anything. Islam is the natural state of all God's creations...Submission to the will of God (Allah).

Muslims believe that Adam (peace be upon him) was the first Muslim and worshiped Allah in accordance to His will. And each prophet (peace be upon them all) acted similiarly and brought forth each their own book of Allah's laws. Some of these books still exist, but some have completely disappeared. Some are direct dictation, while others are dictated by the prophets and then later on transcribed by followers.

Muslims believed that their particular way of worship was tarnished by pagans that stole Christianity and transformed it to suit their pagan ritualistic needs (praying to a son of god, eating his flesh symbolized with bread, etc.) During this time, many forgot about how to worship Allah the way that He commanded, so Allah sent his final prophet and warning to the world. Muhammad (PBUH) was trusted with the Recitation given to him through the angel Gabriel. His followers wrote it down as he recited it to them, and not a letter has been changed from its original Arabic text.

Therefore, the Muslims hold the Quran to be the most pure and accurate law of commands from Allah from the time of Adam until the present.

All I am saying is that a Muslim would tell you that Islam did not branch off of anything...it is the Straight Path taught by all the prophets including Jesus the son of Mary. And Muhammad was Allah's last messenger.

[comic boy]

I agree I am hippocriticacle at times, but 1.75 Billion Can't all be wrong.

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
So, 2.1 billion Christians can't all be wrong. But 1.5 billion Muslims, 1.1 Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheists, 900 million Hindu's, ect. ect. can? Makes total sense...

That's not my call. It's Gods. You either choose to beileve or you don't. It's that simple. Also, Muslims believe in one god also. They just have different ways of worship, and believe in different prophets. so thats over half the World Population. To each their own. Like I said if you don't Believe so be it. That whole thing called Free Will still applies.

That's not what I'm arguing. You said 1.75 billion can't be wrong, but there's that other 4.25 billion saying that you are. What makes you guys so special that you're right, despite what 4.25 billion people are saying?

All I can say is remember this thread when the world does come to an end. We will see who is laughing last. Also I see that Unriggable has nothing to say.

If the World comes to an end nobody will be laughing my friend

[svtoflord]

I agree I am hippocriticacle at times, but 1.75 Billion Can't all be wrong.

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
So, 2.1 billion Christians can't all be wrong. But 1.5 billion Muslims, 1.1 Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheists, 900 million Hindu's, ect. ect. can? Makes total sense...

That's not my call. It's Gods. You either choose to beileve or you don't. It's that simple. Also, Muslims believe in one god also. They just have different ways of worship, and believe in different prophets. so thats over half the World Population. To each their own. Like I said if you don't Believe so be it. That whole thing called Free Will still applies.

That's not what I'm arguing. You said 1.75 billion can't be wrong, but there's that other 4.25 billion saying that you are. What makes you guys so special that you're right, despite what 4.25 billion people are saying?

As for the Muslim religion, it developed off of Christianity. As for the rest, I don't know.

Well, if you have ever studied Islam, you would know that the Muslim religion never branched off of anything. Islam is the natural state of all God's creations...Submission to the will of God (Allah).

Muslims believe that Adam (peace be upon him) was the first Muslim and worshiped Allah in accordance to His will. And each prophet (peace be upon them all) acted similiarly and brought forth each their own book of Allah's laws. Some of these books still exist, but some have completely disappeared. Some are direct dictation, while others are dictated by the prophets and then later on transcribed by followers.

Muslims believed that their particular way of worship was tarnished by pagans that stole Christianity and transformed it to suit their pagan ritualistic needs (praying to a son of god, eating his flesh symbolized with bread, etc.) During this time, many forgot about how to worship Allah the way that He commanded, so Allah sent his final prophet and warning to the world. Muhammad (PBUH) was trusted with the Recitation given to him through the angel Gabriel. His followers wrote it down as he recited it to them, and not a letter has been changed from its original Arabic text.

Therefore, the Muslims hold the Quran to be the most pure and accurate law of commands from Allah from the time of Adam until the present.

All I am saying is that a Muslim would tell you that Islam did not branch off of anything...it is the Straight Path taught by all the prophets including Jesus the son of Mary. And Muhammad was Allah's last messenger.

Well, I've heard different but whatever.

[Senfive]

If the World comes to an end nobody will be laughing my friend

You know what I mean.

[Neutrino]

How can you ask such a stupid question? Its like asking to prove the Dinosaurs existed, but you must ignore all documented and skeletal evidence. Unriggable you are the biggest Douche bag on CC. If you don't believe in God or the bible don't post aobut it.

The parting of the Red Sea was a pretty major event... you're telling me no-one else decided to record it?


P.S. Just because it's a swear word, doesn't mean it needs to be capitalised. It makes you seem pretentious.

I happen to be one of those 1.75 Billion Fuckers, you miserable cocksucker. I believe miracles happen. I have something you lack. The Self confidence to have Faith.

Ahh, the ol' personal attack. Fallback of those lacking firm ground to stand on and basic common sense everywhere.

Faith:
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing
2. belief that is not based on proof

Here's a statement for you: I am God.

According your rule no. 2, you don't require any proof to randomly believe. Therefore you must believe what some stranger over the internet said and praise me as your almighty leader.
Don't believe me? I wonder why...

Claiming that unthinking belief is somehow superior is just untrue. Questioning lead to medicine, cars and planes. Unthinking obedience led to religious wars.

If you're so sure unthinking obedience is the way to success, drop your computer down a hole; it's the product of the enemy.

I agree I am hippocriticacle at times, but 1.75 Billion Can't all be wrong.

Number of people is not directly proportional to accuracy. As many people have said so far, all bar one of the myriad of religious (or lack of such) is wrong; what evidence makes you so sure that yours is it? (Bible doesn't count. Many religions will have holy texts of similar or superior age. None of them provide exceptional evidence for their own accuracy, so they are all excluded).

Sure there are Radical Christains, example that inbread church that hates the Military, but thats less than 1/10000 of a percent.

What, all 1750 of them?
It's good that you know all and see all to such a degree of accuracy, or humanity might actually have to start thinking for itself once in a while.

You claim the Bible isn't accurate cause you weren't there to see it.

You wern't there to see it either; how can you claim that it is true? Standard practice is to assume something doesn't exist until proven otherwise. Unless you'd like to start worshiping at the altar of Circular Logic, you can't prove God. (and please don't. It's almost painful watching someone try to prove God using the Bible)

So are you saying the holocaust didn't happen either cause you didn't see it?

The Holocaust was well documented; there is proof for it's existence. If you can prove something to me to a reasonable degree, then I will believe it.

Your Argument is Mute.

You mean my argument is moot.

Please, for the love of God. I don't usually correct other people's spelling, but can you stop randomly capitalizing things, or at least use the right words...?

[Neutrino]

If the World comes to an end nobody will be laughing my friend

"This is the way I think the world will end: with general giggling from all the witty heads, who think it's a joke"
-(and just as I finished typing, I forgot the name of the guy who said it. Ahh well)

[Senfive]

How can you ask such a stupid question? Its like asking to prove the Dinosaurs existed, but you must ignore all documented and skeletal evidence. Unriggable you are the biggest Douche bag on CC. If you don't believe in God or the bible don't post aobut it.

The parting of the Red Sea was a pretty major event... you're telling me no-one else decided to record it?

No-one else was around. The only people who saw it, either drowned, or lived to write about it. Hence, it's in the bible. Who else could have wrote about it?

P.S. Just because it's a swear word, doesn't mean it needs to be capitalised. It makes you seem pretentious.

I happen to be one of those 1.75 Billion Fuckers, you miserable cocksucker. I believe miracles happen. I have something you lack. The Self confidence to have Faith.

Ahh, the ol' personal attack. Fallback of those lacking firm ground to stand on and basic common sense everywhere.

Unriggable used the word, due to your observation. So he has no common sense either? Am i wrong? I thought not.

Faith:
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing
2. belief that is not based on proof

Here's a statement for you: I am God.

According your rule no. 2, you don't require any proof to randomly believe. Therefore you must believe what some stranger over the internet said and praise me as your almighty leader.
Don't believe me? I wonder why...

Claiming that unthinking belief is somehow superior is just untrue. Questioning lead to medicine, cars and planes. Unthinking obedience led to religious wars.

If you're so sure unthinking obedience is the way to success, drop your computer down a hole; it's the product of the enemy.

You are really showing your hipocrisy and ignorance.

I agree I am hippocriticacle at times, but 1.75 Billion Can't all be wrong.

Number of people is not directly proportional to accuracy. As many people have said so far, all bar one of the myriad of religious (or lack of such) is wrong; what evidence makes you so sure that yours is it? (Bible doesn't count. Many religions will have holy texts of similar or superior age. None of them provide exceptional evidence for their own accuracy, so they are all excluded).

Again you are asking to Prove something without using the bible. Thats the most ludicris thing you can say. First Post on page 12 says it all casue you are wasting my time.

Sure there are Radical Christains, example that inbread church that hates the Military, but thats less than 1/10000 of a percent.

What, all 1750 of them?
It's good that you know all and see all to such a degree of accuracy, or humanity might actually have to start thinking for itself once in a while.

You claim the Bible isn't accurate cause you weren't there to see it.

You wern't there to see it either; how can you claim that it is true? Standard practice is to assume something doesn't exist until proven otherwise. Unless you'd like to start worshiping at the altar of Circular Logic, you can't prove God. (and please don't. It's almost painful watching someone try to prove God using the Bible)

I already defined Faith.

So are you saying the holocaust didn't happen either cause you didn't see it?

The Holocaust was well documented; there is proof for it's existence. If you can prove something to me to a reasonable degree, then I will believe it.

Not an accurate quote at all. Here let me post the real quote.

So are you saying the holocaust didn't happen either cause you didn't see it? How would you know it happened if it wasn't documented?

I like how you ignored the question.

Your Argument is Mute.

You mean my argument is moot.

Please, for the love of God. I don't usually correct other people's spelling, but can you stop randomly capitalizing things, or at least use the right words...?

Again another attack by you. You are really showing your hipocrisy.

[DaGip]

If the World comes to an end nobody will be laughing my friend

"This is the way I think the world will end: with general giggling from all the witty heads, who think it's a joke"
-(and just as I finished typing, I forgot the name of the guy who said it. Ahh well)

I plan on laughing as much as possible at the end of times.

[comic boy]

If the World comes to an end nobody will be laughing my friend

"This is the way I think the world will end: with general giggling from all the witty heads, who think it's a joke"
-(and just as I finished typing, I forgot the name of the guy who said it. Ahh well)

I plan on laughing as much as possible at the end of times.

Oh so its gonna happen in your lifetime....care to elaborate ?

[Neutrino]

No-one else was around. The only people who saw it, either drowned, or lived to write about it. Hence, it's in the bible. Who else could have wrote about it?

Don't you think they Egyptians would have been a little concerned when a large portion of their slave force disappears via supernatural means? Shouldn't someone independant of the Bible have recorded rains of frogs and a river of blood?
I find it hard to believe that no-one had a quill and parapus handy to record the fact that a large percentage of the population spontaneously died.
If you show me a non-Biblical record of these very noticable events, I'll drop it, but until then...

Unriggable used the word, due to your observation. So he has no common sense either? Am i wrong? I thought not.

Mine was a general statement; it was directed at everyone. You've got a complaint, complain to Unriggable.

You are really showing your hipocrisy and ignorance.

How? It may have been patronising, but it certainly wasn't a personal attack.
As for ignorance; it was perfectly accurate, according to what you had said. You said you ddin't need evidence to believe. I gave you a situation where you didn't need evidence to believe and therefore, according to your own rules, you should have believed it.

Again you are asking to Prove something without using the bible. Thats the most ludicris thing you can say. First Post on page 12 says it all casue you are wasting my time.

Let's pretend only two religions can exist: Christianity and Islam. Both have their respective holy books as their main source of evidence for their own accuracy. Therefore, effectively, both books can be discarded, as neither offer larger proof for their own accuracy than their opponent. They both advance their respective argument by exactly the same amount and so effectively cancel eachother out.

I already defined Faith.

So? How does this make faith superior to science? In essentially all other aspects of your life you presumably fravor to question your environment (you won't believe me if I say there are a thousand elephants directly behind you unless you see them) yet in this aspect, you chose throw out quite a major evolutionary advantage.
I find the idea that there is an infinitely large and very arbitrary god as ludicrous as you would find the suggestion that there are 1000 elephants behind you. Show me the proof! You can't see the thousand elephants and I can't see god. There is absolutely no evidence for god, much in the same way there is none for the elephants. Merely writing, from people you have no idea the credibility of.

Not an accurate quote at all. Here let me post the real quote.

So are you saying the holocaust didn't happen either cause you didn't see it? How would you know it happened if it wasn't documented?

I like how you ignored the question.

I already answered the first part. The documentation provided by a myriad of history textbooks and various other sources is enough to convince me that it occurred.
I didn't quote or respond to the second part because I didn't know what the hell you were on about. If it wasn't documented; no-one recorded it, then I never would have known about it. End of story. What's your point?

Again another attack by you. You are really showing your hipocrisy.

Again; patronising. Probably some degree of personal attack in there, true, but random capitalization and incorrect word usage really irritate me. Especially 'cause you were being more than a little pretentious throught the entire thing. If you're going to be pretentious, at least do it right.

[hecter]

While you're at it, it's hypocrisy.

[Senfive]

Don't you think they Egyptians would have been a little concerned when a large portion of their slave force disappears via supernatural means? Shouldn't someone independant of the Bible have recorded rains of frogs and a river of blood?
I find it hard to believe that no-one had a quill and parapus handy to record the fact that a large percentage of the population spontaneously died.
If you show me a non-Biblical record of these very noticable events, I'll drop it, but until then...

My point is this. How long does a piece of paper last if not properly cared for? Who is to says it wasn't recorded by others? If I am not mistaken, in the last decade, numberous stories in the bible have been proven fact by newly discovered artifacts and texts, found in lost caves in jars sealed from the elements.

Not an accurate quote at all. Here let me post the real quote.

So are you saying the holocaust didn't happen either cause you didn't see it? How would you know it happened if it wasn't documented?

I like how you ignored the question.

I already answered the first part. The documentation provided by a myriad of history textbooks and various other sources is enough to convince me that it occurred.
I didn't quote or respond to the second part because I didn't know what the hell you were on about. If it wasn't documented; no-one recorded it, then I never would have known about it. End of story. What's your point?

This is what I meant to write.

You want me to claim that the Bible isn't accurate cause I wasn't there to see it. So using your logic you don't believe that the holocaust happened either cause you weren't there, as you put, to see it. You claim it was documented, so was every story in the bible. I truly apologize if it isn't cited by as many people as you like.

Like I stated earlier it is not my job to convince anyone. To each their own. If you don't like it, don't read it, and live your life the way you want to. No one said you had to believe any of it. Cause honestly your arguments aren't going to make us Believers lose any Faith we have in our God.

[Neutrino]

This is what I meant to write.

You want me to claim that the Bible isn't accurate cause I wasn't there to see it. So using your logic you don't believe that the holocaust happened either cause you weren't there, as you put, to see it. You claim it was documented, so was every story in the bible. I truly apologize if it isn't cited by as many people as you like.

Please, show me a source that validates every story in the Bible, as you claim. And not just the mundane facts either, like the names of kings or the dates of battles, or that a pretty charismatic guy names Jesus existed.
I want the ones confirming the river of blood, the rain of frogs and the wholesale murder of 5-10% of the Egyptian population.
As a history text-book, the Bible is pretty good. When you get into the supernatural, it's credibility starts to break down.

Like I stated earlier it is not my job to convince anyone. To each their own. If you don't like it, don't read it, and live your life the way you want to. No one said you had to believe any of it. Cause honestly your arguments aren't going to make us Believers lose any Faith we have in our God.

I never expected anything different. This is an internet Risk forum; the chances of convincing anyone of anything important are pretty marginal. If you're not incredibly naive, you argue for fun, not to convince people of the validity of your point of view.

[Senfive]

If you're not incredibly naive, you argue for fun, not to convince people of the validity of your point of view.

Calling the kettle black, are you not?

[Neutrino]

If you're not incredibly naive, you argue for fun, not to convince people of the validity of your point of view.

Calling the kettle black, are you not?

No...
I wasn't calling anyone anything (except the naive people naive, which really isn't that big a stretch). I was saying that I, personally, argue for fun, since you would have to be naive to expect to change anyone's mind in an internet debate.

[Senfive]

If you're not incredibly naive, you argue for fun, not to convince people of the validity of your point of view.

Calling the kettle black, are you not?

No...
I wasn't calling anyone anything (except the naive people naive, which really isn't that big a stretch). I was saying that I, personally, argue for fun, since you would have to be naive to expect to change anyone's mind in an internet debate.

Whaaa??? I don't argue for fun, and I certainly don't want to change anyones mind about anything. I argue when people like you and Unriggable, who have nothing better to do then patronize others because of their beliefs. If this debate isn't going to change your mind cause you already have it in your head that the Bible is Moot. Why continue?

[Neutrino]

Whaaa??? I don't argue for fun, and I certainly don't want to change anyones mind about anything. I argue when people like you and Unriggable, who have nothing better to do then patronize others because of their beliefs. If this debate isn't going to change your mind cause you already have it in your head that the Bible is Moot. Why continue?

'Cause it's fun...

I wouldn't even come to these forums if they didn't entertain me.
I would also like to point out that these people don't have to listen to their beliefs being patronised. Simply avoid the religous threads or the entire forum if you want to. They're fully welcome to patronise my beliefs, provided they can find something to patronise in a sane manner.
The Christians patronise the Athiests with their holier-than-thou attitude and the Athiests patronise the Christians with their smarter-than-thou attitude. Sometimes both groups manage to be adult enough to have a decent discussion about it, but these are few and far between.
If you think I'm wrong and the Bible actually contains all you need to live happily for all eternity (provided you follow some wierd and arbitrary rules, of course. Sorry, just had to get that dig in) then go ahead. Prove it.

[Neoteny]

Whaaa??? I don't argue for fun, and I certainly don't want to change anyones mind about anything. I argue when people like you and Unriggable, who have nothing better to do then patronize others because of their beliefs. If this debate isn't going to change your mind cause you already have it in your head that the Bible is Moot. Why continue?

'Cause it's fun...

I wouldn't even come to these forums if they didn't entertain me.
I would also like to point out that these people don't have to listen to their beliefs being patronised. Simply avoid the religous threads or the entire forum if you want to. They're fully welcome to patronise my beliefs, provided they can find something to patronise in a sane manner.
The Christians patronise the Athiests with their holier-than-thou attitude and the Athiests patronise the Christians with their smarter-than-thou attitude. Sometimes both groups manage to be adult enough to have a decent discussion about it, but these are few and far between.
If you think I'm wrong and the Bible actually contains all you need to live happily for all eternity (provided you follow some wierd and arbitrary rules, of course. Sorry, just had to get that dig in) then go ahead. Prove it.

Sonny Perdue prayed for rain. And it rained. I'm sorry, I had to get that in. I'm one of the patronizing atheists who acts like a child. And I'm sick of people talking about it in my newspaper. You'd think people never heard of a warm front...

[Jenos Ridan]

As for the Muslim religion, it developed off of Christianity.

No, it didn't. If you've read the Koran you'd know that. Heck, if you knew who Mohammad was and what he did you'd know the difference.

Mohammad:

Orders the death of rivals by sycophantic followers

Marries the widow of a man he had executed, by same group of cultists noless, against her will I might add.

Marries the wife of his nephew, basically using the "It is the Holy thing to do" agrument, since he would know being the Prophet of Allah and all

Says to one group of followers one thing, returns to Mecca and says something else, then when group A shows up, he turns about-face again, claiming Shaitan (Satan) deceived him (the Satanic Verses, which are in the Koran).

Koran say a man may have up to but no more than four wifes. Mohammad violated this law, which he put in there!

Suffered from depression and suicidal tendices, even after he claimed to had seen "Allah" (who was covered so 'He' could not be seen. If Moses, who is proportedly a lesser prophet, like Jesus (Isa in the Koran), actually saw God in all of His manifest glory on Sinai, then why not Mohammed, if he is indeed who he claims to be?).

Contrasted with Christ Jesus:

Committed no sins nor broke any law, Mosiac or Roman.

Never advocated killing unbelievers (admittedly, some have done so in His name, but that it not condoned by anything He or any of the apostles said or did).

He was in every other way the polar opposite of Mohammed. The Bible is nothing like the Koran, which contains over 100 verses that repeat the theme of "kill the Infidel, JIHAD!!!!", allows Jews and Christians, in the status of Dhirmitude (I think I spelled that wrong?) to be married to muslim men againt their will even if they are already married and by the nature of the related Hadith and Shar'ia laws stands opposed to democratic rule if follows in the manner in which Mohammed intended.

Tell me again how this two are similar?

[Jenos Ridan]

Ah, ever heard of a bridge?

Yeah, but its one card game I never learned to play.


(Oh, and a bridge isn't "dry ground")

Considering the number of quite major passages in the Bible that are open to interpretation (Thou Shalt Not Kill is actually Thou Shalt Kill If Thou Can Get The Government To Declare That It's Ok, apparently) I don't see how you get to declare this one to be completely literal.

Nope. Thou shall not kill means, thou shall not kill.

What about war?
I can't remember if it was you or not, but one of the Christian debaters here declared that war gave you a free pass.

Ecclesiastes 3: there is a time for all things, included a time to kill (war)

I'm sure that if the country in which you lived where invaded at by extention your life where threatened, you'd fight and possibly kill those trying to kill you. Also, killing in self-defense against murder (the murderer would be breaking the "thou shalt not kill" part) is acceptable. Remember, even the Devil can quote Scripture.

[Neutrino]

As for the Muslim religion, it developed off of Christianity.

No, it didn't. If you've read the Koran you'd know that. Heck, if you knew who Mohammad was and what he did you'd know the difference.

Mohammad:

Orders the death of rivals by sycophantic followers

Marries the widow of a man he had executed, by same group of cultists noless, against her will I might add.

Marries the wife of his nephew, basically using the "It is the Holy thing to do" agrument, since he would know being the Prophet of Allah and all

Says to one group of followers one thing, returns to Mecca and says something else, then when group A shows up, he turns about-face again, claiming Shaitan (Satan) deceived him (the Satanic Verses, which are in the Koran).

Koran say a man may have up to but no more than four wifes. Mohammad violated this law, which he put in there!

Suffered from depression and suicidal tendices, even after he claimed to had seen "Allah" (who was covered so 'He' could not be seen. If Moses, who is proportedly a lesser prophet, like Jesus (Isa in the Koran), actually saw God in all of His manifest glory on Sinai, then why not Mohammed, if he is indeed who he claims to be?).

Contrasted with Christ Jesus:

Committed no sins nor broke any law, Mosiac or Roman.

Never advocated killing unbelievers (admittedly, some have done so in His name, but that it not condoned by anything He or any of the apostles said or did).

He was in every other way the polar opposite of Mohammed. The Bible is nothing like the Koran, which contains over 100 verses that repeat the theme of "kill the Infidel, JIHAD!!!!", allows Jews and Christians, in the status of Dhirmitude (I think I spelled that wrong?) to be married to muslim men againt their will even if they are already married and by the nature of the related Hadith and Shar'ia laws stands opposed to democratic rule if follows in the manner in which Mohammed intended.

Tell me again how this two are similar?

Someone forgot to take their Anti-Anti-Islamic pill again today...

I think all this just shows that the writers of the Koran were more honest in their depiction of the actual person behing the holy veil than the writers of the Bible. Also, I would imagine the era in which the Bible was writtem was more stable and less violent (Roman occupation) than the one in which the Koran was written (Distinct lack of Roman occupation). Of course, this is all conjecture and is sure to be ripped to pieces by someone who actually studied the period. Ahh well.

[Neutrino]

Ecclesiastes 3: there is a time for all things, included a time to kill (war)

I'm sure that if the country in which you lived where invaded at by extention your life where threatened, you'd fight and possibly kill those trying to kill you. Also, killing in self-defense against murder (the murderer would be breaking the "thou shalt not kill" part) is acceptable. Remember, even the Devil can quote Scripture.

As I said: 'Thou Shalt Kill If Thou Can Get The Government To Declare That It's Ok'. Being invaded probably generally constitutes self defence, but what about when it is your country doing the invading? Politicians regularly declare wars for greed, land and power. Does God sanction all of these?

[DaGip]

Ecclesiastes 3: there is a time for all things, included a time to kill (war)

I'm sure that if the country in which you lived where invaded at by extention your life where threatened, you'd fight and possibly kill those trying to kill you. Also, killing in self-defense against murder (the murderer would be breaking the "thou shalt not kill" part) is acceptable. Remember, even the Devil can quote Scripture.

As I said: 'Thou Shalt Kill If Thou Can Get The Government To Declare That It's Ok'. Being invaded probably generally constitutes self defence, but what about when it is your country doing the invading? Politicians regularly declare wars for greed, land and power. Does God sanction all of these?

I believe the verse you are trying to qoute is Exodus 20:13 "You must not commit murder." or in the King James Version "Thou Shalt not commit murder."

There is a difference in committing murder and killing in defense. That is my opinion, anyway.

[Neutrino]

Ecclesiastes 3: there is a time for all things, included a time to kill (war)

I'm sure that if the country in which you lived where invaded at by extention your life where threatened, you'd fight and possibly kill those trying to kill you. Also, killing in self-defense against murder (the murderer would be breaking the "thou shalt not kill" part) is acceptable. Remember, even the Devil can quote Scripture.

As I said: 'Thou Shalt Kill If Thou Can Get The Government To Declare That It's Ok'. Being invaded probably generally constitutes self defence, but what about when it is your country doing the invading? Politicians regularly declare wars for greed, land and power. Does God sanction all of these?

I believe the verse you are trying to qoute is Exodus 20:13 "You must not commit murder." or in the King James Version "Thou Shalt not commit murder."

There is a difference in committing murder and killing in defense. That is my opinion, anyway.

That's what I said. Most wars aren't about self defence, however, they're about greed, power, wealth or land. Wars are started by governments for often quite selfish reasons. Yet, according to Janos' quote, God waives it's normal rules for ALL wars, just or not.

[Snorri1234]

Ecclesiastes 3: there is a time for all things, included a time to kill (war)

I'm sure that if the country in which you lived where invaded at by extention your life where threatened, you'd fight and possibly kill those trying to kill you. Also, killing in self-defense against murder (the murderer would be breaking the "thou shalt not kill" part) is acceptable. Remember, even the Devil can quote Scripture.

As I said: 'Thou Shalt Kill If Thou Can Get The Government To Declare That It's Ok'. Being invaded probably generally constitutes self defence, but what about when it is your country doing the invading? Politicians regularly declare wars for greed, land and power. Does God sanction all of these?

I believe the verse you are trying to qoute is Exodus 20:13 "You must not commit murder." or in the King James Version "Thou Shalt not commit murder."

There is a difference in committing murder and killing in defense. That is my opinion, anyway.

Executing criminals is not self defense.