Joan of Bark

Okay, so why are there more than a thousand Christian sects out there, almost all of whom claim to be following the Bible? Why can't Catholics and Protestants agree on the books of the old testament, or even on the Ten Commandments? And most especially, why can't they agree on the sixth commandment (in the Protestant Bibles). Is it murder or kill? (See my thread on this question). If God's revelation is so clear, why do some Christians believe that capital punishment and war are OK with the Big Guy, while others swear they're not? If the Bible were going to be clear on any issue, surely it would be crystal on the subject of the taking of a human life ... yet anyone who has read the Bible (including me) can make a good case for either interpretation.

llamaluvr

I think the part of my post that you quoted explains that pretty well. We're fallen people. We hold grudges, argue over minutae, misinterpret things to suit our own needs, and in general just screw things up. I find it odd that people are so surprised these things have happened when the Bible contends that these things have happened and will continue to happen.

The command is obviously talking about murder, because we go into other parts of the law that was supposedly revealed at about the same time and find instances where there is just reason to take somebody's life. Just because somebody can defend a position doesn't mean that their defense doesn't suck. People defend baseless claims every day. Concluding that every instance of a man taking another man's life is a sin is so blatantly contradictory with the rest of the Bible that it's ridiculous to even try to defend such a notion.

Diogenes the Cynic

That's exactly the point. Many things in the Bible are blatantly contradictory with other things. "Thou shalt not kill," is contradicted at every turn by capricious and ridiculous justifications to bash people to death with rocks. Saying only applies to "murder" is begging the question since any number of killings which the Bible justifies would be "murder" in my book. The slaughter of Amelakite children and infants, for instance or the psychotic list of "crimes" which are to be punished by stoning (working on the Sabbath, for women who have sex before marriage, etc). Leviticus says that prostitutes should be burned alive. All those things are indistinguishible from plain old murder by my lights.

exile

Hear hear.

I'm with Thomas Paine on this -

There are matters in that book, said to be done by the express command of God, that are as shocking to humanity and to every idea we have of moral justice as anything done by Robespierre, by Carrier, by Joseph le Bon, in France, by the English government in the East Indies, or by any other assassin in modern times. When we read in the books ascribed to Moses, Joshua, etc., that they (the Israelites) came by stealth upon whole nations of people, who, as history itself shows, had given them no offence; that they put all those nations to the sword; that they spared neither age nor infancy; that they utterly destroyed men, women, and children; that they left not a soul to breathe — expressions that are repeated over and over again in those books, and that, too, with exulting ferocity — are we sure these things are facts? are we sure that the Creator of man commissioned these things to be done? and are we sure that the books that tell us so were written by his authority?

Joan of Bark

Are you referring to war as minutae?
Yet many Christians hold this to be true ... and they use the teachings of Jesus to justify their position. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", "Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one srikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also...", "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you".
So is war permissible? In the case of Iraq, the Pope and George W. Bush could both cite the Bible to support their viewpoints. They would both be correct ... because the Bible is not clear! (Which was my original point).

llamaluvr

"Saying only applies to "murder" is begging the question since any number of killings which the Bible justifies would be "murder" in my book." - that's exactly the point. "Your book" can't be used in a test of the logical consistency of the Bible. That's like saying you contradict yourself because I disagree with you.

No, I'm saying that many of the things which bring about quarrels and disagreements, which may or may not lead to wars, are minutae. You were originally speaking of doctinal differences, and I happen to think that most of those sorts of issues that are argued over today are much closer to being unimportant rather than important.

Pope JP's objection to war in Iraq should not be mistaken for an outright objection to war in all instances, and it should not be mistaken for an objection to all killing. Last I heard, John Paul II was a pretty devout Catholic. He probably employs Just War Doctrine (paragraphs 2302-2317 in the Catechism).

ArchAngel

I just bought a biography of Thomas Paine called "Apostle of Freedom". What a great man!

Joan of Bark

Yes, I'm familiar with the Catholic concept of a Just War. But that doesn't answer the question in this particular situation. Is a war with Iraq justified? Both sides of the debate (and there are Christians on both sides) can use the Bible to justify their positions. If the Bible were clear, there would be no debate.
Also, there are many Christian pacificists who believe Jesus' comments mean that war is NEVER justified. Are you willing to tell them they're wrong? Can you dismiss JC's remarks on the subject of violence? You probably can, but it would require a certain interpretation, which disagrees with another Christian's interpretation. My point remains, one person sees black, another sees white.
Which brings me back to the original issue: if, as you say, all Bibles are valid, how do we read the sixth commandment? Is it murder or kill? If it is murder, as you claim, then how can those Bibles (like the KJV) that translate as 'kill' be equally valid? Incidentally, I'm sure you are in the minority in the belief that all Bibles are valid, since every major Christian demonination (such as Catholicism, which acknowledges more books in the OT) follows one particular Bible as the 'correct' version.
Perhaps you should be arguing with your fellow Christians more, so you can reach a consensus and present a united front against us skeptics.

llamaluvr

I think the bigger problem is that the circumstances surrounding the war in Iraq are unclear. And even when they are, it's not like every single person who has ever commented on it has a clear picture of even what is known. But, heck, there's probably people who try to use the Bible to argue that US involvement World War II was unjust. Never discount that these are people interpretting the Bible and the information about a war to support a case. They're not going to do it perfectly.

"Hell, yeah!" to the first question. "Hell, no!" to the second. And another "hell, yeah!" to your point which remains, except that in my faith we expand it a bit: "One sees black, another sees white, and Jesus sees right."

Not all Bibles could be valid. You could stay up late and write your own translation tonight, and intentionally fill it with errors. Would it really be valid just because you wrote "Holy Bible" on the cover?

Most churches don't treat one translation as the "correct" version. A lot of them standardize on one for consistency. It gets complicated if you're going on the pulpit every week, and one week you're reading out of the KJV, and another you're doing the NIV.

Anyway, we must first realize that a great many people view those two words as basically interchangable, and one, in the 17th century, might have meant more of what the other means now, AND that a completely different word was used back when it was originally written. That's why you read the rest of that book, and not just the single verse. Context makes it obvious.

But whenever we organize into groups you guys make fun of us!

Joan of Bark

And if the Bible (whichever one you care to use) was consistent, we would see right also ... instead of black for some and white for others.

The Catholics would be surprised to hear this.

Yes, language is incredibly clumsy. Words have different meanings, and change over time (as you pointed out). If God really wanted us to have a clear picture of His laws, he would simply communicate with all of us directly, using his omnipotence to ensure we understood perfectly (notice this would not violate free will).

I stand by my original statement: the Bible is vague, ambiguous, and contradictory, and the proof is in the fact that Jews and Christians of many colours cannot agree on any practical matter, from capital punishment to playing golf on the sabbath (And yes, I have read it).