What’s wrong with John Gill? And I assume you mean Matthew Henry?
And in the cases of trespassers to your home, how is one supposed to be certain that he is merely threatening your property or planning to murder you or your loved ones? Should I politely ask and wait for a reply before blasting an intruder’s head off?
Que?
[QUOTE=Colorado Revised Statutes]
§18-6-501
Any sexual intercourse by a married person other than with that person’s spouse is adultery, which is prohibited.
[/QUOTE]
First one that comes to mind is the Pew one from 2010: http://www.pewforum.org/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey-Who-Knows-What-About-Religion.aspx
The bible questions are particularly relevant, and the only one on which the average Christian significantly beats the average atheist is “name the four Gospels”.
He deliberately strains texts past the breaking point when he finds things that Jesus or an apostle said that he doesn’t agree with, the same as nearly any other commentator on the Bible.
Not being a Christian, I am happy to justify my use of force on intruders in my home on purely utilitarian and risk-analytic terms, without having to fold, spindle, and mutilate Jesus’ words to try to make it fit around “Thou shalt not kill”.
That’s a faulty translation. A more accurate translation of the Biblical Hebrew would be “thou shalt not murder.”
Alternative cites here and here.
In addition, I’m not one of those people who think the Bible is wholly consistent, but it would certainly be an odd inconsistency if the Bible said, “You’re not allowed to kill under any circumstances,” and also provided for criminals to be put to death for so many crimes (murder, kidnapping, etc.). See, e.g., Exodus 21:12-18.
So there’s no need to twist anything. The Bible doesn’t condemn justified killing, such as self defense.
Also, thanks for the cite to the study you referenced before. I’ll check it out. 
Do you have any evidence that Christians are the ones who demanded that legislation? Or to more properly support your case, can you demonstrate that such a demand reflects the views of Christians at large with regard to legislative fiat?
If not, then I think this is a case of making too many assumptions.
As noted above “Thou shalt not murder”=/=“Thou shalt not kill”.
A lot of Christians are hypocrites, but a lot of them aren’t. For example, the Catholic Church is opposed to abortion and the death penalty.
In regards to the passage cited in the OP, that’s one of the hardest teachings in Christianity. And one largely abandoned and creatively reinterpreted. The problem is that Christianity was never meant to be a state religion, nor were Christians foreseen to run states. Christian morality is not compatible with the necessities of governing. It requires people with guns to go and get the bad guys.
There was a survey couple of years ago and it showed Atheists know the Bible more than most Christians. Christians seem to just know or pay attention to the passages they like. Of course there are many Christians who do but some do not stop and think about what chapters they follow.
I suspect that knowing the Bible well is more likely to make you an atheist.
Oh, I’m aware that “kill” isn’t quite the right word–I don’t think any of it changes the handwaving over Jesus’s fairly clear statements about turning the other cheek.
One can certainly argue about Luke 22:36, but note Jesus also says later in that chapter that two swords is enough and in that section he mentions fulfilling prophesy–given that just about every time Jesus refers to swords, he’s using them as a metaphor, and also given that when one of the disciples USES one of those swords (in Matthew 26) Jesus rebukes him with one of the sternest anti-violence comments in the Bible (“all they who take up the sword shall perish by the sword”–not even “live by” or “use”, all who “take up” the sword.) , it seems more likely that Jesus wants the disciples to be just barely armed enough that they can be legitimately seen as insurrectionists, ensuring his arrest by the Roman soldiers–Jesus even riffs on this in Luke 22:52-53, paraphrased as “You never arrested me in the temple preaching, am I an insurrectionist now?”
First, you obviously know the Bible. I appreciate that you at least took the time to get to know what you’re talking about. But again, I disagree with that interpretation.
For one, as you point out, Jesus had just told his disciples to get swords. It would be somewhat inconsistent to suggest that Jesus would then turn around and say, “Hey, remember when I told you to buy swords? Yeah, I was just kidding about that. Because violence is bad. You should get rid of those swords I told you to buy.”
Again, the situation is key to understanding what Jesus was talking about. A bunch of soldiers had just entered the garden with swords and clubs. One of Jesus’s followers drew his sword and cut off a soldier’s ear.
And then Jesus tells his follower, “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."
Here, Jesus is pointing out a couple of things. He’s pointing out that there are a lot of soldiers there with swords and clubs, a force large enough to overwhelm the 2 swords Jesus and his followers have. He’s saying, “Put your swords away. You’re going to get yourself killed.” In Matthew, it even says,
In other words, he’s saying, “Settle down, cowboy. If I wanted to stop this from happening, I could do so on my own. You’re not actually protecting me.”
He’s also pointing out that getting taken by the soldiers is part of his plan. The recurring theme is that this whole escapade – in fact, Jesus’s whole life – is about defeating death. Not just in terms of a resurrection, but because the wages of sin are death, and Jesus’s death is going to wipe the slate clean for everyone. Jesus is saying, “Hey, dummy. Stop that. Don’t you want me to succeed here? Don’t you want to live forever in Heaven? Then why are you trying to stop these guys from taking me?” This point is especially evident in John 18:10-11, in which what Jesus says is a little bit different:
Nothing there about “violence is bad.” Just “Hey, dummy, are you trying to sour the plan?” Similarly, Matthew says:
Again, he’s saying, “Stop that, dummy. This is part of my plan to defeat death.”
I’d also point out that Jesus’s rebuke against the High Priests who came to take him is not inherently anti-violence. Here’s what Luke says:
So far from suggesting swords and clubs should never be used, Jesus is implying that they might be justified in using swords and clubs against a robber.
Similarly, Jesus had plenty of occasions in which he met or spoke with soldiers. And yet he never rebuked them for their jobs. He waited until this moment to say, “Put away your sword.” I think that’s important.
The key, for me, is that you can take individual passages and use them to mean anything. Christians are absolutely guilty of that. But I have a hard time reading the Bible and coming away with the conclusion that God thinks all violence is wrong. The examples of justified violence are legion. (Some could definitely argue that the examples of unjustified violence are legion.) And the verses suggesting that Jesus – or the Bible generally – said that violence is inherently and always bad only make sense when pulled out of context.
You want a cite for the proposition that the Colorado legislature is dominated by Christians? What next? A cite for water being wet, perhaps?
Wait a minute. As an atheist who got all the questions right, this is far from supporting your point. There were merely seven Bible questions, and naming the Gospels was one of just two on the New Testament. On this, only 39% of atheists and agnostics could name all four, as opposed to 71% of evangelical Christians. Indeed, atheists and agnostics lagged behind at least some religious groups on all seven questions. Doubtless some atheists know more about the Bible than most Christians. But it’s nonsense to say we, as a group, have any special insight.
The colorado statute was passed in 1861. Some states still have unenforced laws against adultery, but I am not aware of any that were passed since the ascendancy of the religous right. In my post I was referencing the 10th commandment and not the 6th.
So, the Bible says it is okay to sell thieves into slavery, but you dismiss that without comment. Then you go on to explain how you think the Bible justifies violence, and you accept that.
Ok, got it.
I’m not sure what your point is. This thread isn’t about what the Bible says on selling thieves into slavery, so I didn’t discuss it. This thread is about what the Bible says on self defense and defense of property, so I did discuss that.
If you’d like to discuss what the Bible says about selling thieves into slavery, feel free to start another thread.
Well I don’t really want to rattle your cage about it. My point is my ongoing sense of mystery regarding how Christians decide what to accept and what to discard from the Bible. Selling thieves into slavery? Nope. Keeping gays in a state of second-class citizenship? Of course. Mixing wool and linen? No problem. Just some examples.
I’ve enjoyed the discussion on the topic at hand though. Can’t say I can decide what the Bible really wants wrt violence- it seems to take both sides. Interesting nonetheless.
For clarity, by ‘take both sides’ (and maybe it is your argument and not the Bible, or me) it seems one may resort to violence to protect their pile of goods, yet Jesus tells people to just give their stuff away, so how could a Jesus imitator get into a position of using violence to defend their stuff? And how many conservative Christians, or any kind of Christians, actually give away their stuff? Practically none. So how do they decide which parts of the Bible to ignore and which to campaign to push into public policy or one’s personal life or what-have-you?
The Bible and christianity offers guidelines and precepts which are used to find out what is right in each situation. Christianity is not a list of rules but an ongoing relationship with God. Thus each Christian seeks to live according to their own conscience which is shaped both by the scripture and the ongoing teaching of the Holy Spirit. Christ only told one person in scripture to sell everything he had and give it away. He dealt with each person as an individual according to what that person needed. Every person is different in terms of who they are and what they do. So the rules for what to eat and what to wear were appropriate for Israel when they a nation that had to be kept seperate and holy, but after the resurrection and pentecost it was no longer appropriate and those rules were discarded. Each Christian has to deal with God on their own and find out what is right and what is wrong. On some issues it is very easy and most Christians agree. I don’t know of any Christians who think it is okay to steal or commit adultery. On other issues it is harder to know what is right such as self defense or how much to give away. A walk with God is not a pebble on a beach that you can just bend down, pick up and put in your pocket. It is an ongoing relationship that is unique to every person who has it.