Regarding Original Sin and Morality

I’m looking for some clarification on this topic from the people here who follow any of the Abrahamic religions. I am wondering how much discernment people feel they are able to use or perceive themselves to be using when it comes to ethics specifically.

For instance, “Thou shalt not kill”. I understand that God communicated this law to Moses who then communicated it to the group, and a Christian would accept this law because it came from God. But I’m wondering if this Christian person discerns murder to be wrong based on their own feelings either independent from or in addition to the command being from God, would they perceive themselves as committing the original sin?

Treasure Hunter said:

I’m looking for some clarification on this topic from the people here who follow any of the Abrahamic religions. I am wondering how much discernment people feel they are able to use or perceive themselves to be using when it comes to ethics specifically.

Click to expand...

Of course we have to use our own discernments. To have someone dictate to them something, and they you simply obey that without question or personal examination, means that you have not yet integrated it into yourself. It's not personally owned by you. In other words, you are not taking responsibility. For instance, "It's not my idea this is wrong, it's God's idea. He says so in his book."

That is not understanding ethics as an adult. It's not true morality at that point. A mature morality or ethic, comes from inside oneself, which guides their choices. You can't go run to a book and try to determine the ethical choice, when you have no internal moral compass of your own.

This illustration perfectly captures this:

Treasure Hunter said:

For instance, “Thou shalt not kill”. I understand that God communicated this law to Moses who then communicated it to the group, and a Christian would accept this law because it came from God. But I’m wondering if this Christian person discerns murder to be wrong based on their own feelings either independent from or in addition to the command being from God, would they perceive themselves as committing the original sin?

Click to expand...

If they did, then they have no idea what the doctrine of original sin is about. Original sin, simply has to do with our propensity to try to avoid God, really. It has to do with the fallen state we experience as humans where we are disconnected from ourselves, from others, and from nature and God itself. It's the existential angst, wanting transcendence, yet not willing to surrender to the divine.

What they should view instead, is probably that they are actually fulfilling the higher spiritual path. "In that day my words shall be written on the tablets of their hearts". In other words, you don't need a book. You naturally do the will of the divine in all you do.

Treasure Hunter said:

I’m looking for some clarification on this topic from the people here who follow any of the Abrahamic religions. I am wondering how much discernment people feel they are able to use or perceive themselves to be using when it comes to ethics specifically.
For instance, “Thou shalt not kill”. I understand that God communicated this law to Moses who then communicated it to the group, and a Christian would accept this law because it came from God. But I’m wondering if this Christian person discerns murder to be wrong based on their own feelings either independent from or in addition to the command being from God, would they perceive themselves as committing the original sin?

Click to expand...

First, I find the King James ' thou shalt not kill' should read ' not murder '
There is a difference between killing, murder and an execution for the sake of the righteous.
Christians are Not under the Constitution of the Mosaic Law which ended with Christ for them - Romans 10:4
However, murder is still considered a high crime in God's eyes.
It was Adam who committed the original ( or first ) sin when Adam disobeyed his God and ate from the forbidden tree.
A consequence of that first or original sin carried with it the death penalty, thus through inherited Adamic sin we also die for our own sins.

Windwalker said:

Of course we have to use our own discernments. To have someone dictate to them something, and they you simply obey that without question or personal examination, means that you have not yet integrated it into yourself. It's not personally owned by you. In other words, you are not taking responsibility. For instance, "It's not my idea this is wrong, it's God's idea. He says so in his book."

That is not understanding ethics as an adult. It's not true morality at that point. A mature morality or ethic, comes from inside oneself, which guides their choices. You can't go run to a book and try to determine the ethical choice, when you have no internal moral compass of your own.

This illustration perfectly captures this:

View attachment 44453


If they did, then they have no idea what the doctrine of original sin is about. Original sin, simply has to do with our propensity to try to avoid God, really. It has to do with the fallen state we experience as humans where we are disconnected from ourselves, from others, and from nature and God itself. It's the existential angst, wanting transcendence, yet not willing to surrender to the divine.

What they should view instead, is probably that they are actually fulfilling the higher spiritual path. "In that day my words shall be written on the tablets of their hearts". In other words, you don't need a book. You naturally do the will of the divine in all you do.

Click to expand...

I support what you are saying. I am not trying to promote a more restrictive, top-down, externally derived morality.

I think you are fudging the story though by disconnecting discernment from eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But again, I am supportive of your fudging. I am just trying to get a better sense of how many followers of Abrahamic religions have accepted this fudging.

I will say that I see it as a serious mistake to think we have moved past this Genesis story and that we don’t need to return to it, especially for Christians. The Christ story sits on top of the Adam story.

Treasure Hunter said:

I’m looking for some clarification on this topic from the people here who follow any of the Abrahamic religions. I am wondering how much discernment people feel they are able to use or perceive themselves to be using when it comes to ethics specifically.

For instance, “Thou shalt not kill”. I understand that God communicated this law to Moses who then communicated it to the group, and a Christian would accept this law because it came from God. But I’m wondering if this Christian person discerns murder to be wrong based on their own feelings either independent from or in addition to the command being from God, would they perceive themselves as committing the original sin?

Click to expand...

The actual reference is not to "kill" but to "murder", as under some circumstances one may legally kill another. Thus "murder" is a legal term.

The issue of "original sin" is highly conjectural within Christian circles, thus with no universal agreement. Many feel it is not a personal sin but a general propensity to do our "own thing" that might be in violation of God's teachings. Some others go all the way to believing it causes hurricanes, earthquakes, droughts, etc.

Windwalker said:

Of course we have to use our own discernments. To have someone dictate to them something, and they you simply obey that without question or personal examination, means that you have not yet integrated it into yourself. It's not personally owned by you. In other words, you are not taking responsibility. For instance, "It's not my idea this is wrong, it's God's idea. He says so in his book."
That is not understanding ethics as an adult. It's not true morality at that point. A mature morality or ethic, comes from inside oneself, which guides their choices. You can't go run to a book and try to determine the ethical choice, when you have no internal moral compass of your own.
This illustration perfectly captures this:
If they did, then they have no idea what the doctrine of original sin is about. Original sin, simply has to do with our propensity to try to avoid God, really. It has to do with the fallen state we experience as humans where we are disconnected from ourselves, from others, and from nature and God itself. It's the existential angst, wanting transcendence, yet not willing to surrender to the divine.
What they should view instead, is probably that they are actually fulfilling the higher spiritual path. "In that day my words shall be written on the tablets of their hearts". In other words, you don't need a book. You naturally do the will of the divine in all you do.

Click to expand...

Jesus believed in a book because Jesus taught that Scripture is religious truth at John 17:17.
Scripture teaches that the heart is treacherous - Jeremiah 17:9; 10:23.
Thus, the imperfect heart is a traitor within us.
First, the imperfect heart urges us to do something, and after we have done it then the heart gives us all the reasons why we should Not have done what we did in the first place.

The ' tablet of the heart ' is in connection to Jesus' New commandment as found at John 13:34-35.
We are to have the same self-sacrificing love for others as Jesus has.
In other words, we are to now love neighbor MORE than self, MORE than the Golden Rule - Leviticus 19:18.
Such a Christ-like self-sacrificing love is written on hearts of those who practice what Jesus taught.
Jesus' internal moral compass came from what he taught from Scripture.

Treasure Hunter said:

................ The Christ story sits on top of the Adam story.

Click to expand...

The ^ above ^ I find is an interesting way to express about the Christ story.
Right from the first prophecy of Genesis 3:15 it would be Jesus who would prove to be Messiah or Christ, the promised seed.
Adam started out sinless and none of us can undo sin's damage that Adam brought upon humanity.
Pre-human heavenly Jesus also started out sinless, so a sinless person was needed in order to balance the Scales of Justice for us.
On one side of the balancing scale Adam failed in what was small.
On the other side of the balancing scale Jesus remained faithful in what was much.
Thus showing that Adam too could have remained faithful to God.
So, yes, in that sense the Christ story sits on top of the Adam story. Even tops off the Adam story.

Treasure Hunter said:

I think you are fudging the story though by disconnecting discernment from eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But again, I am supportive of your fudging. I am just trying to get a better sense of how many followers of Abrahamic religions have accepted this fudging.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not sure how discernment is connected with it. In the allegory, God lays out a choice, to eat of the trees of the garden and remain in bliss, or eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or self-knowledge, and wake up to pain and suffering. The interesting thing is they were compelled to eat of that tree, as a path to their own awakening. They made the choice to leave the womb and enter into life. In a true sense, it was a noble act, yet with a great price.

I don't see where discernment fits into this, other than to say that perhaps, intuitively, they discerned that they should eat of that tree, as it meant the birth of our human evolution, Awakening to the divine. To simply be asleep to God in our biological natures, was something humans rebelled against. In reality, humans were not kicked out of the Garden of Eden. They got up and walked out on two legs. They chose the path of divine awakening, through our deaths and sufferings, rather than blissful slumber.

Treasure Hunter said:

I will say that I see it as a serious mistake to think we have moved past this Genesis story and that we don’t need to return to it, especially for Christians. The Christ story sits on top of the Adam story.

Click to expand...

As you can see, I think it is a centerpiece story. Where Christ comes in, is to show that human can be fully Awakened to the Divine in themselves. Being "Sons of God", mean something more than just believers. It means being Awakened to the Divine in ourselves. Jesus teaches the Way of that in ourselves to follow. "Follow me", is following that discernment that comes from within. "Written on the tablets of the heart".

Regarding discernment, I am saying that eating from the tree of knowledge = discernment. If I am making a value judgment, then I am actively eating from the tree. We are modernists, so it is difficult for us to view the story as anything other than a type of historical account, even if figurative. The way to view the story is that we are Adam and the story is revealing perennial patterns of and truths about human consciousness. Not that we are descendants of Adam, rather we ARE Adam.

Windwalker said:

The interesting thing is they were compelled to eat of that tree, as a path to their own awakening. They made the choice to leave the womb and enter into life. In a true sense, it was a noble act, yet with a great price.

I don't see where discernment fits into this, other than to say that perhaps, intuitively, they discerned that they should eat of that tree, as it meant the birth of our human evolution, Awakening to the divine. To simply be asleep to God in our biological natures, was something humans rebelled against. In reality, humans were not kicked out of the Garden of Eden. They got up and walked out on two legs. They chose the path of divine awakening, through our deaths and sufferings, rather than blissful slumber.


As you can see, I think it is a centerpiece story. Where Christ comes in, is to show that human can be fully Awakened to the Divine in themselves. Being "Sons of God", mean something more than just believers. It means being Awakened to the Divine in ourselves. Jesus teaches the Way of that in ourselves to follow. "Follow me", is following that discernment that comes from within. "Written on the tablets of the heart".

Click to expand...

This is all well said.

Treasure Hunter said:

I’m looking for some clarification on this topic from the people here who follow any of the Abrahamic religions. I am wondering how much discernment people feel they are able to use or perceive themselves to be using when it comes to ethics specifically.

For instance, “Thou shalt not kill”. I understand that God communicated this law to Moses who then communicated it to the group, and a Christian would accept this law because it came from God. But I’m wondering if this Christian person discerns murder to be wrong based on their own feelings either independent from or in addition to the command being from God, would they perceive themselves as committing the original sin?

Click to expand...

Haha, a tricky question. It's perfectly true that the Genesis allegory says that Man disobeyed God by eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil - which gave him moral awareness. I suppose one could read that as implying that the possession of independent moral awareness is sinful! A paradox.

But the doctrine of Original Sin is not put forward as such in Genesis. It is a theological concept developed by St Augustine of Hippo who lived around 300AD and based on the allegory taken in conjunction with other ideas from St Paul (I think?). As @metis says, it refers to Man's moral weakness or predisposition to do wrong, which is a hereditary condition of Man.

In the story, Adam and Eve were punished for their disobedience by being banished from the garden of Eden and having instead to struggle to survive and endure the hardships of life. But this can be read as an allegory for loss of innocence and the taking on of responsibility. When we grow up, we lose our childlike innocence and have to learn to take on the hard responsibility for our lives with all its pain and suffering. So it is a coming of age story, that shows that acquiring moral responsibility, while in some ways a gift, also opens up vistas of unwanted choice and consequences. Such is human life. And sometimes we all yearn for the simpler time when we were still children and did not need to worry about such things. We wish we could go back to the Garden of Eden, but the gates are locked against us.

Treasure Hunter said:

I’m looking for some clarification on this topic from the people here who follow any of the Abrahamic religions. I am wondering how much discernment people feel they are able to use or perceive themselves to be using when it comes to ethics specifically.

For instance, “Thou shalt not kill”. I understand that God communicated this law to Moses who then communicated it to the group, and a Christian would accept this law because it came from God. But I’m wondering if this Christian person discerns murder to be wrong based on their own feelings either independent from or in addition to the command being from God, would they perceive themselves as committing the original sin?

Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure exactly what your questions is.

I think the basic laws are already placed in humans by G-d Himself. But man has the capacity to harden their hearts until it doesn't matter (Prisons have people who have murdered multiple people and have no sorrow)

I don't think murder classifies as "an original sin" although Cain was the first one committed murder.

But the Law does help clarify the finer points about taking a life and when it is classified as murder and when it is not.

Treasure Hunter said:

I support what you are saying. I am not trying to promote a more restrictive, top-down, externally derived morality.

I think you are fudging the story though by disconnecting discernment from eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But again, I am supportive of your fudging. I am just trying to get a better sense of how many followers of Abrahamic religions have accepted this fudging.

I will say that I see it as a serious mistake to think we have moved past this Genesis story and that we don’t need to return to it, especially for Christians. The Christ story sits on top of the Adam story.

Click to expand...

I reject the idea that the story of Adam and his wife are mere allegory as some have suggested. Christ did not come into the world to pay for the sin of Adam if he was not a real entity. The "ransom" or "redemption" offered by Jesus is a one on one exchange....."a life for a life", that was part of God's law. (Deuteronomy 19:21)

Paul wrote at Romans 5:17-19.....

"For if by the offense of the one, death reigned through the one, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

18 So then, as through one offense the result was condemnation to all mankind, so also through one act of righteousness the result was justification of life to all mankind. 19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous." (NASB)

Christ's death is meaningless if the first Adam did not bring physical sin into the world. (Romans 5:12) Jesus was "the last Adam" (1 Corinthians 15:45) whose death undid what satan had led the first humans to do....sin against God. We cannot be forced into sin...but we can be tempted to practice it. Free will means that every action we make is our own choice.

Jesus came into the world sinless, like Adam was at first, so he too had free will, which is why satan tempted him. He got other perfect humans to sin, so why not Jesus?
But Jesus stood firm and refused to be tempted into self interest, proving that Adam and his wife could have obeyed God too, so there was no excuse for what they did.

Treasure Hunter said:

For instance, “Thou shalt not kill”. I understand that God communicated this law to Moses who then communicated it to the group, and a Christian would accept this law because it came from God. But I’m wondering if this Christian person discerns murder to be wrong based on their own feelings either independent from or in addition to the command being from God, would they perceive themselves as committing the original sin?

Click to expand...

When it comes to murder, I believe the answer is simple.....if God does not sanction it, its not lawful and if its not lawful, its murder.

The Jews had God's sanction to defend their God-given homeland, but they no longer occupied their homeland when Jesus walked the earth, and Christians are no longer under that law.
Jesus gave us principles however to guide us in what can be an emotional minefield when it comes to matters relating to patriotism.
When does patriotic sentiment override the teachings of Christ?

e.g. Matthew 5:43-45...
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may prove yourselves to be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."

How is it possible for a Christian to 'love their enemy' with a weapon? Can patriotic sentiment lead to a Christian to killing their own 'brother or sister' in the faith just because human governments declare war on one another?

1 John 4:20-21...
" If someone says, “I love God,” and yet he hates his brother or sister, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother and sister whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. 21 And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God must also love his brother and sister."

There is no ambiguity there......for true Christians, there can be no crossing of the line....there can be no justification for ignoring what Christ taught in anything.

Deeje said:

But Jesus stood firm and refused to be tempted into self interest, proving that Adam and his wife could have obeyed God too, so there was no excuse for what they did.

Click to expand...

In the story, Adam does not become self conscious until after he eats the forbidden fruit. My question is: how is it possible to have free will without a sense of self? Would you agree that a baby does not have a sense of self and has no free will?

URAVIP2ME said:

First, I find the King James ' thou shalt not kill' should read ' not murder '
There is a difference between killing, murder and an execution for the sake of the righteous.
Christians are Not under the Constitution of the Mosaic Law which ended with Christ for them - Romans 10:4
However, murder is still considered a high crime in God's eyes.
It was Adam who committed the original ( or first ) sin when Adam disobeyed his God and ate from the forbidden tree.
A consequence of that first or original sin carried with it the death penalty, thus through inherited Adamic sin we also die for our own sins.

Click to expand...

But the bible clearly states "Thou shall not kill". So isn't there a penalty for changing the alleged "word" of the Christian "god" to make it mean whatever someone wants it to mean?

Revelation XXII

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things written in this book.

And this:

(2 Peter 1:20)

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

URAVIP2ME said:

Jesus believed in a book because Jesus taught that Scripture is religious truth at John 17:17.

Click to expand...

There is a difference between saying there is truth in scripture, and "believing in a book". That last statement, is idolatry. One believes in God, not a book. God is not a book.

URAVIP2ME said:

Scripture teaches that the heart is treacherous - Jeremiah 17:9; 10:23.

Click to expand...

It also teaches that the heart speaks the truth when we listen to that still small voice within it. I guess it really has more to do with being deceived by the lusts of the heart, as opposed to hearing its voice that speaks love. You know, the heart also knows love? It's not your logical mind that tells you your mother loves you. It's your heart. You feel it.

URAVIP2ME said:

Thus, the imperfect heart is a traitor within us.

Click to expand...

It is also a guide to truth. So it's important to have a perfected heart then, don't you think?

URAVIP2ME said:

First, the imperfect heart urges us to do something, and after we have done it then the heart gives us all the reasons why we should Not have done what we did in the first place.

Click to expand...

No. It's the reasoning mind that rationalizes not listening to the voice of love and moral conscience in your heart, and instead listening to its lusts, and then justifying yourself with bad reason.

URAVIP2ME said:

The ' tablet of the heart ' is in connection to Jesus' New commandment as found at John 13:34-35.

Click to expand...

Indeed yes. That is the heart you should listen to, instead of trying to disparage it citing scripture that calls it wicked. I think you must not being handling scripture with the heart of love, but the heart of fear?

URAVIP2ME said:

We are to have the same self-sacrificing love for others as Jesus has.
In other words, we are to now love neighbor MORE than self, MORE than the Golden Rule - Leviticus 19:18.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry. No. That is not what scripture teaches. It never says to love others MORE than yourself. It says to love your neighbor AS yourself. That means, love others as an extension of your own being, which is loved by God. To love your neighbor MORE than yourself, is not only not biblical, it's irrational. You can't. If you can't love yourself, you can't love another. It's that simple. You have to be able to love yourself first, which is what forgiveness and Grace is all about. Sorry, you've got this wrong.

Treasure Hunter said:

I’m looking for some clarification on this topic from the people here who follow any of the Abrahamic religions. I am wondering how much discernment people feel they are able to use or perceive themselves to be using when it comes to ethics specifically.

For instance, “Thou shalt not kill”. I understand that God communicated this law to Moses who then communicated it to the group, and a Christian would accept this law because it came from God. But I’m wondering if this Christian person discerns murder to be wrong based on their own feelings either independent from or in addition to the command being from God, would they perceive themselves as committing the original sin?

Click to expand...

From all of my years on Internet forums I would say that the vast majority of Christians only make, at best, a token attempt at following the "moral" commandments in their bible. Easily throwing them to the wayside if they get in the way of their desires.

Not sure how the alleged "original sin" fits into this.

Treasure Hunter said:

In the story, Adam does not become self conscious until after he eats the forbidden fruit. My question is: how is it possible to have free will without a sense of self?

Click to expand...

Self conscious? I believe it was more a case of unleashing sinful thoughts, especially regarding their reproductive organs, since the first thing they did, was cover these up. It was not self consciousness as much as the ability to know what sin is in connection with their reproductive bits. Sex has been a problem for humans ever since. Interestingly God did not permit them to just cover their loins, but he provided long garments of skin before evicting them from their paradise home. (Genesis 3:21) These would have served a two fold purpose....1) it would restore modesty...and 2) The garments would protect them from the harsh conditions that would exist outside the garden....cursed ground would be riddled with thorns and thistles. (Genesis 3:17-19)

We don't see inhibitions about sex in the animal kingdom, because it is simply a means to perpetuate their species. They have no moral sense.

Humans OTOH were created in God's image, and that was reflected in their having God's moral qualities. Reproduction for humans was only to be practiced within a committed marital relationship between a man and a woman, which ensured that children were raised families would be produced and operated in accord with God's specific instructions.

There was so much more to their response to sin than most people realize. The power of sin saw the first murderer within one generation.....any wonder God put such a high penalty in front of eating the fruit that would give them knowledge that God would have kept to himself. They showed that they did not trust their Creator to make that decision for them because satan implied that this knowledge would make them like God.....did it? Just the opposite.

Why does evil even exist? Because everything God creates is in perfect balance....equal opposites are found in everything. God kept nothing of benefit from them....but a knowledge of good and evil was better left to the Creator who, as any good parent would keep the bad away, and allow his children to enjoy only the good.

Can we see what this knowledge unleashed? Is there any benefit in knowing evil except to avoid it? And if because of free will some do not avoid it, harm will result when the abuse of someone's free will takes away the freedom of others. This is what this whole object lesson is about....humans chose to obey another god and ruler, so he allowed that one to dominate over them to show us all why he wanted to keep a knowledge of evil to himself.
Haven't we proven beyond a shadow of doubt that living with sin is never beneficial for anyone?
Once God has finished with the lesson, there will never be an excuse to ignore God's commands ever again. We have seen where doing that takes us.

Would you agree that a baby does not have a sense of self and has no free will?

Click to expand...

Of course....that is why parents were to teach their children until they reached an age of accountability. Adam and his wife would have instructed their children as God instructed them......passing knowledge and wisdom on to succeeding generations. Unlike the animals, who operate mainly by instinct, we humans learn from one another.
We teach our little ones to behave in an acceptable manner and hopefully to respect the life that they have been gifted with. (not seen too much these days unfortunately)

There are two kinds of sin in the Bible. One is in our DNA...the sin we inherited from Adam...the one Jesus came to remove and to provide forgiveness for.....the one that causes physical aging, sickness and death. The other is the wilful and deliberate act of wrongdoing, in spite of the fact that we know its wrong before we commit it. There is no forgiveness for that kind of sin unless genuine repentance is displayed.

Does that open up some possibilities for you?

Treasure Hunter said:

...But I’m wondering if this Christian person discerns murder to be wrong based on their own feelings either independent from or in addition to the command being from God, would they perceive themselves as committing the original sin?

Click to expand...

I have understood sin means that person rejects God, or is part from God. Original sin was that Adam and Eve rejected God and were expelled to this first death where we are also now. If person doesn’t reject God, he has no sin. Thinking that murder is wrong because it feels bad does not necessarily mean person rejects God.

Ancient Soul said:

But the bible clearly states "Thou shall not kill". So isn't there a penalty for changing the alleged "word" of the Christian "god" to make it mean whatever someone wants it to mean?.................

Click to expand...

I think we need to keep in mind that the Bible was Not originally written in English.
The OT ( Hebrew Scriptures ) were written in Hebrew.
In the Hebrew it is: Not to ' murder '.
They were allowed to kill animals which was Not considered as murder.
The ' cities of refuge ' were set up for the un-intentional manslayer. - Numbers 35:6,19
There is a BIG difference between killing, murder and an execution for the sake of righteous judgement.

URAVIP2ME said:

I think we need to keep in mind that the Bible was Not originally written in English.
The OT ( Hebrew Scriptures ) were written in Hebrew.
In the Hebrew it is: Not to ' murder '.
They were allowed to kill animals which was Not considered as murder.
The ' cities of refuge ' were set up for the un-intentional manslayer. - Numbers 35:6,19
There is a BIG difference between killing, murder and an execution for the sake of righteous judgement.

Click to expand...

Who told you that?

The oldest bible in known existence states "kill".

And don't get me started on this false "righteous judgement" claim.

For the Christian "god" has an evil and horrifically cruel idea of what "righteous judgement" is.