Hasn't this horse already recieved enough beating?

I will not argue on this last point, but the Bible says nowhere that Daniel was wealthy. You are imagining that. We have no way of either proving it, nor disproving it. It is, therefore, irrelevant to this discussion, and it is unsafe ground for proving your point.



Well, I've already presented scriptures which show wealth as being below the standard. You may accept or reject them on your own free will. However, on this point of killing, I think that for the record we should clarify this.

The Bible does not teach that it is wrong to kill. Such is not a Biblical concept. It is a Buddhist concept. Buddhists believe it is wrong to kill. I've watched my Buddhist friends just let the mosquito bite them, or maybe try to wave it away...but smash it? That would be unthinkable to them, for it is killing!

In the Ten Commandments, the King James Version (which I happen to use most and like best) has mistranslated the "killing" commandment. It should read "Thou shalt not murder." I simply cannot imagine anyone going very far astray on this point. Considering that God sometimes ordered killing, and blessed those, like David, who killed for His honor, this would seem like a huge contradiction for a God who says "I am the LORD, I change not!" You will not find any of the other Ten Commandments where God ever gave commandment that they be broken...but if you understand "Thou shalt not kill" in the light which it appears, then it would be the exception.

Based on my firm belief that God does not contradict Himself in this fashion, I would have to say of a certainty that the seventh commandment and "polygamy" are, in like manner, treating separate topics. The seventh commandment does not address polygamy, just as the sixth commandment does not address killing as required by justice, war, or self defense. (Remember, it was a law given by God from Mt. Sinai that a thief could be killed in self defense, without penalty--Ex. 22:2. Are they any others of the Ten Commandments which could be broken in any circumstance without penalty?)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Daniel was third in rank of the most powerful kingdom on earth. How could such an individual possibly not be wealthy?

He was certainly powerful. The same argument you made against wealth could be made against power, couldn't it?



You rejected Daniel, because the Bible didn't specifically say he was wealthy (although, again, I would wonder how the third in rank of the most powerful kingdom on earth could possibly not be very wealthy), but what of the others on the list? Was it not God who made Abraham and the others wealthy by blessing them? How was Abraham being "below the standard"?



When you were talking about killing, I thought you were talking about killing human beings.

You said that "The sinfulness of wealth is implied, but not expressly stated, just as with that of meat-eating, killing." How is the sinfulness of killing implied? What do you have in mind in saying this? It seems you were giving examples to show it's not a sin at all. So why did you write that the sinfulness of killing is implied?

To say, "Thou shalt not kill" is not the same as "Thou shalt not kill any man, woman, or child." It is a very broad, categorical statement which must, if taken to the extreme literal, include any form of killing--and it is exactly such a belief that the Buddhists adhere to, which is why I used the example I did.

As for Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, two of the three had four wives each. This was a part of their "wealth," and gave them more "wealth" in the form of children as well. Isaac, you may recall, though the child of promise was not an only son, and had seven brothers. No mention is ever made, in the Bible, of any rebuke from God for their multiple wives, and God spoke directly with both Abraham and Jacob (face to face).

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Tom, are you saying it was God's will to fight His enemies for the COI? How would He have done it? Send hornets to sting them to death? Send hornets to drive them out of Canaan? Where does it say it wasn't God's will for the COI to destroy the Canaanites with the edge of the sword?

If God originally intended to simply use hornets to drive the Canaanites into other territories and not to sting them to death, why did He command the COI to utterly kill every Canaanite, every baby, every child, every man, every woman, every grandparent, and every great grandparent? Why didn't He simply command the COI to chase the Canaanites into other territories?

No. The 7th commandment prohibits adultery, it does not prohibit having more than one wife at a time. Adultery is a married person having sexual relations with someone other than their spouse. In cases involving polygamy they are having sexual relations with their spouses.

Earlier on this thread I explained which commandments are broken in cases involving unlawful polygamy.

Why would God want to use the edge of the sword to gain the victory? That goes against all we know of God as revealed by Jesus Christ in His life and teachings. Jesus taught, "He who lives by the sword will die by the sword." Not even once did Jesus Christ advocate violence as a means of achieving God's will. He clearly taught the reverse.

How did the Israelites get their swords? From the Egyptians. God did not instruct them to do so. He said He would fight their battles for them.

We have several examples of how God fought for the Israelites when they trusted in Him. For example:

Tom, did God ever command the COI *not* to use swords against their enemies in battle? If so, please cite references. Please don't piece together several unrelated quotes and conclude with a personal observation. Just post a quote where God specifically forbade or commanded the COI not to use swords in battle because it is contrary to His will to for His people to kill their enemies. Thank you.

Now, in light of the following passages, who commanded the COI to utterly kill every Canaanite, every baby, every child, every man, every woman, every grandparent, and every great grandparent? Who commanded David to cut down his enemies with the sword? Who commanded the "angel of the Lord" to unsheathe his sword and kill 70,000 Israelites?

Exodus
32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, [and] go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. 32:28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

Deuteronomy
20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:

Numbers
22:31 Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face.

Joshua
11:12 And all the cities of those kings, and all the kings of them, did Joshua take, and smote them with the edge of the sword, [and] he utterly destroyed them, as Moses the servant of the LORD commanded.

1 Samuel
15:33 And Samuel said, As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.

2 Samuel
23:10 He arose, and smote the Philistines until his hand was weary, and his hand clave unto the sword: and the LORD wrought a great victory that day; and the people returned after him only to spoil.

1 Chronicles
21:14 So the LORD sent pestilence upon Israel: and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men.
21:15 And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.

We've already got a thread for this. Let's discuss this (killing) on that thread. Sorry if this was my bad.

This doesn't work, MM. The problem is that if your logic here were true, then clearly one who is divorced would not be committing adultery. Yet Jesus says that unless one has legitimate grounds for divorce, if one remarries, one commits adultery. He also said that if the divorced one remarries, that person is committing adultery. The problem is that just became man performs a marriage, does not mean that the two being married by man are married in God's site.

The same problem occurs with polygamy. Jesus taught that *one* man in joined to *one* woman. That was the whole point in referring back to Adam and Eve.



You said the first three, right? Why did you choose those?