Smert Hawt Chick
- Thread starter APRIL
- Start date
Your momma's so stupid, when the weatherman said it was going to be chilly she ran outside with a bowl and spoon.
You still grouped an entire religion based off of a few fanatics. And don't even get me started on pro-life fanatics who do stuff in the name of God.
King James Bible:
Thou shalt not kill.
New American Standard Bible:
You shall not murder.
English Standard Version:
You shall not murder
American Standard Version:
Thou shall not kill
If you're going to try to fix what I say, you can try saying it right, or disprove that what I mentioned wasn't actually written.
GG. Good night.
Im sorta Catholic, we dont read the Bible.
"The direct killing of an innocent person is, of course, to be reckoned among the most grievous of sins. It is said to happen directly when the death of the person is viewed either as an end attractive in itself, or at any rate is chosen as a means to an end. The malice discernible in the sin is primarily chargeable to the violation of the supreme ownership of God over the lives of His creatures. It arises as well from the manifest outrage upon one of the most conspicuous and cherished rights enjoyed by man, namely the right to life. For the scope contemplated here, a person is regarded as innocent so long as he has not by any responsible act brought any hurt to the community or to an individual comparable with the loss of life. Homicide is said to be indirect when it is no part of the agent's plan to bring about the death which occurs, so that this latter is not intended as an end nor is it selected as a means to further any purpose. In this hypothesis it is, at most, permitted on account of a reason commensurate with so great an evil as is the destruction of human life. Thus, for instance, a military commander may train his guns upon a fortified place, even though in the bombardment which follows heknows perfectly well that many non-combatants will perish. The sufficient cause in the case is consideration of the highest public good to be subserved by the defeat of the enemy. When, however, the untoward death of a person is the outcome of an action which is prohibited precisely because of the founded likelihood of its having this fatal result, then in the court of conscience the doer is held to be guilty in spite of his disclaimer of all intention in the matter. Hence, for example, one who fires a shotgun into the public thoroughfare, whilst protesting that he has no wish to work any mischief, is, nevertheless, obviously to be reproached as a murderer if perchance his bullet has killed anybody. . .
For the protection of one's own or another's life, limb, chastity, or valuables of some moment, it is agreed on all sides that it is lawful for anyone to repel violence with violence, even to the point of taking away the life of the unjust assailant, provided always that in so doing the limits of a blameless defence be not exceeded."
- The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII
Non occides
- Exodus 5:21
Is called agnosticism.
Religion is such a vague term anyway. Technically it's just an ordered set of beliefs. I could argue that any one set of interlocking beliefs or opinions is a religion. You know this stuff.