[NatCh]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

And, um, "go forth into this land and slaughter the people who live there so you can live there instead" is not murder?

Or it's not murder when a deity orders it? (And it's not theft, to take their property?)

I'd tend to call what you're describing "war," which you'll probably agree is in a different category from both "kill" and "murder."

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I can grok "not kill" doesn't mean "don't kill cattle so you can eat them." Doesn't mean "don't cut down grain; don't fish; don't swat mosquitos." But saying it just means "don't kill people that your own laws make it illegal to kill" makes it utterly useless as a moral guideline.

Well, since it was the beginning of a set of laws (which go on to elaborate in mind-numbing detail), it's more of a law. Clearly, they had some sort of concept of what "murder" would be, which maps more or less to what our modern one would be ... setting PETA aside for the nonce.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Granted. However, Jesus did claim he was only sent to the Jews, and that his message should not be squandered on less-worthy people, although they might be allowed some benefit from it.

These kinds of contradictory messages are all over the bible. The claims by "true believers" that the "real message" is obvious seems like verbal sophistry to prove whatever point they've already decided on; no reading of the bare text makes one passage more important or more currently relevant than another.

Couldn't have said it better myself: you have to consider all the passages on a matter to get a balanced, accurate view of what the Bible teaches on it.

Jesus was only sent to the Jews, and every indication is that if the Jews had accepted him he would have remained only for the Jews -- but Judaism has always allowed for conversion, which would necessarily allow Gentiles into the same promise.

As it worked out, the Jews rejected Jesus, and his message was opened up to Gentiles directly. Personally, I suspect that if the former case had applied, Judaism itself would have converted to Christianity, but that's really getting esoteric, so I won't go there.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

My favorite bible verse is Matthew 22:14. (Many called; few chosen.) I'm amazed that while many Christians understand it to mean "not everyone who thinks they're getting in, are getting in," very few of them are willing to accept it also means "not everyone is invited."

If that verse stood in a vacuum, then you'd probably have a point, but 2 Peter 3:9 (among other verses) has something to say on the matter as well: "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." And of course John 3:16 would seem somewhat relevant: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

I don't pretend to understand everything in the Bible. I've reached the conclusion that just like everything else in the world, there are some parts of it we'll probably never understand ... at least not in this life. That being said, I think -- and this is my interpretation -- that all who answer are definitely called.