Does the Bible allow christians to kill and rape while fighitng

>>2304053
>muh "thou shall not kill" commandment
It's a mistranslation meaning you can't kill out of malice, like murder your own kin just because.

God had no problem commanding the Israelites to go to war and kill his enemies. Like 1 Samuel 15:3
>3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

>>2304053
Killing during war is not forbidden. Raping is. If you'd took war booty in form of females you must take care of them for month iirc, then marry them and they are free to leave anytime they want. It's in Leviticus chapter 18 or somewhere in rest of purity laws. Or in Deuteronomy. Anyway, it's very diffrent and much more humanitarian than Islam or any war laws of epoch.

>>2304214

Are Christians not free to ignore anything from the Old Testament though? I was under the impression that the coming of Jesus wiped out any need to follow Old Testament laws

File: IMG_0296.jpg (3MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4032x3024px

>>2304053

Not in the christian bible. (New Testament)

The jewish bible has some very nice sections that cover rape, killing, and sacrificing.


This book expands on it a bit, saves you time from going and scanning the bible.

>>2304217
No, Christians are not free to ignore the Old Testament. The Law is not required for salvation, but it is still the standard that God expects from us.

>muslims are allowed to rape

thinly veiled bait

>>2304053
>rape
No

>>2305028
Not necessarily true, read up on Supersessionism. Through Christ and His sacrifice on the Cross, the Mosaic Covenant was replaced/fulfilled through the New Covenant which is why Christians don't need to get circumcised, can eat shellfish etc.
Pius' XII Mystici corporis Christi expands on that.

>>2306516
>Supersessionism

Bullshit heresy. "Replacement Theory" that calls God an oathbreaker and liar.

>>2306539
Hard Supersessionism, maybe.
Soft, no.
It's not a replacement of the Old Covenant, but fulfillment.
>calling Pius XII a heretic

King James Bible
But God said unto me, Thou shalt not build an house for my name, because thou hast been a man of war, and hast shed blood.

King James Bible
Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

King James Bible
Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

"Live by the sword, die by the sword" is a proverb in the form of a parallel phrase, which can be traced back to Aeschylus's Agamemnon, line 1558, "By the sword you did your work, and by the sword you die."

>>2304053
Kill whoever you like; God knows which ones are loyal to Him.

>>2306547
Read Jeremiah better.

A New Covenant
“Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord.

New Covenant's nothing like the Old.

And the promise to Abraham regarding his descendants living in Israel ruled by the Messiah forever was 400 years BEFORE the Law was given and the Old Covenant instituted.

No, anyone teaching that God abandoned the Jews for Christians is a fool and does not know God. Or the reason for Daniel's 70th week. Or the end of the Revelation.

>>2306577
This one is actually biblical.

>>2306585
It's not about abandonment, according to the Catechism there's still corporate repentance for Jews coming (Rom 11:12, 25, cf Lk 21:24), there's a continuity between the Covenants, hence why I said "fulfillment". It doesn't exclude the Jews.