Sorry it too so long to reply, but my life got in the way and I had to do some stuff :DQuote:
Originally posted by gnu-ehacks
There is a difference between murder and killing.
The men were killed because of the things they had done. It is like when a man commits a terrible crime, you kill him. When you murder someone, it is not within the bounds of the law, and it is totally against what the word of God says.
The 10 commandments say Thou shalt not MURDER, not thou shalt not kill.
Also, I haven't read through all the posts (I know tsk tsk) but its late (for me) and I need to be at work by 0630 so I should be in bed by now but I wanted to check back on this thread.
Anyway, back to the discussion at hand:
How can there be a difference if both acts (murder and killing) when they reach the same end result - the death of another by another's hand.
I see your point that it was justified killing because the were isrealites, yadda yadda yadda. It just seems to me that what the bible says is that as long as you kill in the lords name, you are justified. And this I disagree with.
So just because the isrealites were worshipping an idol, and this so offeneded Mo, he orders brother to pick up sword and slay brother, and it is justified becuase it is in the lords name. I don't think so, it just doesn't sit right with me. Its as if it's okay if a person spits another so long as the person spitting has blonde hair, if the person does not have blonde hair than the act may constitute assault (I know bad example, but I'm tired and can't think of much else :p ), again, it doesn't sit right with me.
That's all for now. Tomorrow, during one of my marathon breaks I'll come back and read through the responses again and see if I made any sense! :D
A bid of scriptrue humor:
You can Deuter on yourself, but don't you dare Deuteronomy!
(spelling may be a bit off)