Have we forgotten about Bush’s faith-based initiatives program already?
No, we haven’t - what exactly does this have to do with war?
Regards,
Shodan
Just pointing out that the Bush Administration isn’t as “strictly non-religious” as McDuff suggested.
Considering that God of the Old Testament was a “war” God, and that the second coming of Christ would be a grand final battle against the forces of evil, war is very much in line with Christian beliefs.
The commandment should be correctly translate as,
“Thou shalt not Murder.”
I don’t think the Methodists have really been as pacifist as the Quakers since WWI. This article suggests that the UMC’s pacifism “faded” after 1917. But the United Methodist Student Movement, for example, were major players in the protest movement against the Vietnam War. Not all Methodists feel that way, of course, but I do remember being taught about it.
Yes, and in researching this post I was surprised to find that she still defines herself as such. Bill wasn’t, of course.
There may be few Methodists around today like your great-grandparents, but the temperance movement is still visible. When I was living in England a couple years ago, there was a great furor within the Methodist ranks at the suggestion of introducing wine at communion.
I always say that I heard the pastor wrong…I thought he said “Don’t drink and gamble.” So, when I’m in the casino, I always just drink water. 
You are correct on that point. Mrs. Bush is a graduate of Southern Methodist University and a life-long Methodist.
Well, I can’t say that, lest my dissertation on the early English Bible be rendered even more irrelevant. 
'Case anyone’s still interested in the OP, this question posed by Russell Mokhiber to Ari Fleischer may be of value. (One should note that it doesn’t completely match up with the verbatim official transcript, and I’m more than a little skeptical of the editorializing comments at the bottom.)
Perhaps President Bush has read the book of Obadiah, where God rebukes the people of Edom for not coming to the aid of Isreal in her time of need. Many Christians interpret this as illustrating a principle for military intervention in a good cause. I know I do.
OK, so, who would Jesus murder?
Does anyone believe Jesus would be sending bombs long-distance to places in Iraq that might well kill people?
IANATheologian, but while the Old Testament God was the God that Jesus personally belived in, the ideals he represents don’t seem to include war, to me.
As an aside, do Christians believe that the final war of good versus evil involves people killing other people?
Does it involve making value judgements of which side you should be on?
Ok, for one thing, Jesus being God has jurisdiction over mens lives so he can kill whomever he likes. Check out Jericho, Sodom, Gamorrah, the whole nation of Philistines. It can never be murder as long as God does it (but that was debated in another thread)
Wa is all about killing other people. Armageddon (the final war) is all about choosing sides and yes it is a value judgment. Good versus Evil.
But Gulf War II is not armageddon. We are not saying we are the good and the Iraqi people are the evil. This war is now about getting rid of Saddam and his sons and all who support them. This is about liberation not conquest. This is about removing a future threat before it can fully utilize their capabilities.
I checked every version of the bible at the local Cornerstone Bookstore and not one, not one had “Thou Shalt Not Murder” among the Ten Commandments. Interesting that some folks will do no less than rewrite The Bible in order to justify their political positions. Disgusting.
Oh, the answer to the thread title is simple:
He can’t.
Thanks for educating me. I had some notion it was a big allegorical/spritiual thing not involving living humans.
So what Christian morals ought to govern a religious man as president right now? Do you agree with Shodan that it’s OK because the cost of not killing the innocent Iraqis is higher than the cost of killing them? Or that killing the innocent in the name of ‘order’ as Shodan suggests ‘Pauline doctrine’ would advise?
IANAChristian, let alone a biblical scholar, but these concepts are troubling to me in followers of the good teachings of Jesus as I understand them.
“Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s. Render unto God what is God’s.”
As George W Bush, what he has to do is reconciled with his pastor. It is a personal thing. As President of the United States, he must not allow his personal feelings and religious beliefs to conflict with the oath of office he took. As president, he is obligated to do what is right for the American people and if he cannot do that because it conflicts with his religion, then he must step down.
No offense, but I don’t think you looked very hard. The New International Version quite clearly states,
The NIV is, by far, the most popular of the modern translations. It is also extremely common in both Christian and secular bookstores. I find it difficult to understand how you could have missed it.
Furthermore, the New American Standard Bible, the New Living Translation, the New King James Version and the Amplified Bible all render Exodus 20:13 as “You shall not murder,” or words to that effect. These are all very popular translations, and exceedingly common. Once again, I fail to understand you could claim to have canvassed every single translation at your local store, without encountering even a single one of these.
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~werdna/contradictions/cindex.html
a list of biblical contradictions.
Excuse me, but did you even read the page in question? The links on that page cite both the alleged contradictions, and explanations of how these so-called contradictions are nothing of the sort!
Moreover, this subject is beyond the scope of this thread. If you wish to debate the matter, I suggest starting another one.
Yeah, it’s disgusting how the committee of scholars working under King James back in the early 1600’s translated something different from the correct sense of the original Hebrew.
JT,
So I went back this afternoon based on your post. I could find no copies of the NIV (probably a testament to its popularity - I’ll demure on that issue totally because I have heard of it) or the Amplified Bible (which I have not heard of). Granted, I didn’t ask the clerk for help (lunch only lasts so long, ya know).
The others list “Thou Shalt Not Murder” as an alternative translation of the sixth. So, yes, its in there but its dubious to say “Thou Shalt Not Murder” is a part of Christianity’s Top Ten List.
I stand by my sentiments that the commandment is “Thou Shalt Not Kill” and “Thou Shalt Not Murder” is a rewrite based on politics. By the way, every source I’ve found via Google says the original Hebrew says “kill,” not “murder.”
Although the site looks a bit questionable, **check this out**.
Thanks for the civilized discourse! I ain’t used to it around these here parts!
Well, did you check the link which I provided? It lists the NIV translation explicitly, and allows you to examine multiple other translations, including the ones which I cited.
I think it is very questionable. Note how it avoids citing the actual phrasing used in the original Hebrew, for example. In fact, in previous threads, some of the native SDMB Hebrew speakers themselves pointed out that Exodus 20:13 speaks of murder, not killing in general.
Again, that’s very odd. I conducted a Google search on the keyphrases “shall not murder,” “original” and “Hebrew.” My search immediately yielded several sites which attest that it does indeed mean “not murder.”
There is a discrepancy.
While the vegetarian site (which I just re-read while eating my second Double Cheese Krystal burger of the night - natch) is way off in its politics, I think the theology is fairly sound.
I Googled again and couldn’t find the sites you referred to. Sorry. Maybe its the words I’m plugging in.
I get the feeling I’m not going to convince you and you’re not going to convince me. (Not that convincing anyone to believe anything is my goal!) Thanks again for keeping this civil!
**
As has already been pointed out, the subject has been talked to death. I would WAG that most nonchristians around here would readily agree that the Bible has three kinds of contradictions: contradictions with itself, contradictions with reality, and contradictions with Christian belief.
If you have interest in the details, there are two courses you can take:
1.) Look up one of the many old threads on the subject, or google for one of the countless websites on Biblical errancy. I particularly recommend “The Skeptical Review,” available at www.infidels.org. If you want to start a thread critiquing the errantist position in one of TSR’s debates, I would read it with interest. If you want one of my threads, then go to the thread on Paine’s “Examination of the Prophecies” and put in your two cents.
2.) Start your own thread, declaring that the Bible is free of contradiction and that you as a Christian agree 100% with what it says.
Go right ahead and start your own thread on “the moral code Christianity teaches.” Make sure you mention homosexuality and divorce. Just make sure that you are discussing the “real Christian” ™ moral code, instead of one person’s pick-and-choose moral code which they just claim is Christian.