The Bible, The Koran, The Book of Mormon Contradictions

[CenterPointEX]

Sorry CP, you and I will debate this ad nasuem, there are contradictions in the bible, just asthere sre contradiction in the Quran. If you dont see them, look a little harder. Tell ya what, instead of listening to whoever you use to interpret the word, interpret it yourself.

You are the king of taking passages out of context.Again you make an untrue statement you can not back up OGB. Show me one example of a Bible passage I took out of context. You will not be able to do it. You made the inferance that the Bible teaches the indiscriminate killing of non-believers. The Bible never ever taught such a thing... quite the opposite... Yes, God did on one occasion give instructions for the Jews to kill all of clan that came out and attacked the Jews for no reason... Self Defence and Mercy.

I have looked at and studied every supposed contradiction... Believe you me OGB... if there were one single contradiction that held water it would make world headlines... So, I ask you OGB... back up what you say and show me one... I can show you thousands in the Book of Mormon or the Koran.

I have shown you the passages from the Koran that tell its followers point blank to kill infidels where ever they find them. You will; no matter how hard you search, not find such an instruction in the Bible OGB.

[Squizzy]

Matthew 3:13-17, Luke 3:21, 22
Jesus' *baptism

People had done wrong things. Some people were sorry for the wrong things. John *baptised those people. Jesus came to him, with other people, for *baptism. John tried to stop him (Matthew 3:13). Christ himself had done nothing wrong. He had no *sin to *repent of. But Jesus was going to begin his public work. This was the time. He wanted to show that he was a man. People should think that he was a man. He came to rescue people. He was like these people. Immediately the *Holy Spirit came down on Jesus like a bird. A voice spoke from *heaven, ‘You are my Son. I love you. I am very pleased with you’ (Matthew 3:17).

If Jesus wanted to show that he was an ordinary man wasn't he therefore admitting sin as you said before CP only one has been able to live life without sin. So why get baptised if you know you have commited no sin but knowing the whole purpose of being baptised is to wash away your sins? Always thought this one was a little suspect...

[Orgnizdlbr]

Chronicles 11:

11:11 And this is the number of the mighty men whom David had; Jashobeam, an Hachmonite, the chief of the captains: he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain by him at one time.

Samuel 23:

23:8 These be the names of the mighty men whom David had: The Tachmonite that sat in the seat, chief among the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite: he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time.

Lets start with an easy one...........

[PA BEN]

Matthew 3:13-17, Luke 3:21, 22
Jesus' *baptism

People had done wrong things. Some people were sorry for the wrong things. John *baptised those people. Jesus came to him, with other people, for *baptism. John tried to stop him (Matthew 3:13). Christ himself had done nothing wrong. He had no *sin to *repent of. But Jesus was going to begin his public work. This was the time. He wanted to show that he was a man. People should think that he was a man. He came to rescue people. He was like these people. Immediately the *Holy Spirit came down on Jesus like a bird. A voice spoke from *heaven, ‘You are my Son. I love you. I am very pleased with you’ (Matthew 3:17).

If Jesus wanted to show that he was an ordinary man wasn't he therefore admitting sin as you said before CP only one has been able to live life without sin. So why get baptised if you know you have commited no sin but knowing the whole purpose of being baptised is to wash away your sins? Always thought this one was a little suspect...

Passage Matthew 3:15
15But Jesus answering said to him, "Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he permitted Him.:cool:

[Squizzy]

Yes PA but the whole point was that he was baptised the fact he was given permission by the Almighty points to having something to "wash away".

[PA BEN]

Yes PA but the whole point was that he was baptised the fact he was given permission by the Almighty points to having something to "wash away".

Baptism is an outward expression of a inner heart change. Old self is gone.

[PA BEN]

So, can ya have an "inner heart" change, not be baptised, and still get to "Heaven"?
It's not a requirement. It's a personal choice to show the world that the old self is gone and all things are new. A new life in Jesus.
P.S. I'm not worried about the number on this post:eek:

[Orgnizdlbr]

It's not a requirement. It's a personal choice to show the world that the old self is gone and all things are new. A new life in Jesus.
P.S. I'm not worried about the number on this post:eek:


LMAO, post quick to get rid of that #!!!!:D

[Squizzy]

What about "Thou shalt not kill" except when the Pope sanctions you on one of the 8 crusades whats going on there:confused:

Quick PA you better add one post lol....

[CenterPointEX]

Chronicles 11:

11:11 And this is the number of the mighty men whom David had; Jashobeam, an Hachmonite, the chief of the captains: he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain by him at one time.

Samuel 23:8 These be the names of the mighty men whom David had: The Tachmonite that sat in the seat, chief among the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite: he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time.

Lets start with an easy one........... Bill Clinton had sex with Hillary cheif desire of his heart... Bill Clinton had sex with Monica cheif desire of his heart... Bill had sex with one woman... Bill had sex with two women... both are true statements. Bill had sex with only one woman while in office would be an untrue statement. But the statement Bill had sex with one woman while in office is not untrue...

Would it matter to the message, letitimacy and or legacy of Bill Clinton if Bill had sex with two women or three while he was president? NO! Two, Three or Four... depending on who observed what...

[CenterPointEX]

What about "Thou shalt not kill" except when the Pope sanctions you on one of the 8 crusades whats going on there:confused:

Quick PA you better add one post lol....

The Bible says thou shalt not MURDER... there is a difference between killing and MURDER

[CenterPointEX]

Passage Matthew 3:15
15But Jesus answering said to him, "Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he permitted Him.:cool: Jesus was a little bit Mormon in that he was babtized for the dead... No, not for the pysically dead... but for the spiritually dead... Jesus took on the Sin of the World... My Sin and Yours... just as the sins were put on the back of the "Scape Goat". Babtized... being made clean... Sins washed away... Is it wrong for a clean man to take a bath?... The answer to that question is no. Jesus was in no form or fashion Mormon... Jesus did take on my sin and was made sin for me... That I and my sin might die with him... He took my punishment... Tht the law might be fulfilled... But death could not hold him for there was no sin in Him... He died That I might be raised again in him and sin no more... on the last day.

Must a man be babtized to be saved?... NO!... Babtism is a response to faith... When a man comes to faith in Christ... He is babtized by the Holy Spirit... He is spiritually cleansed... He is made clean in the sight of God because he has put on Christ... Babtism is a response to and or symbol of that faith... Just as are Prayer and Communion. Is a man saved by prayer, babtism going to church or communion?... No!... Are Prayer, Babtism, going to church and receiving Communion evidence of Faith?... Yes! Are Prayer, Babtism, or the taking of Communion proof of faith... NO!

[Orgnizdlbr]

Bill Clinton had sex with Hillary cheif desire of his heart... Bill Clinton had sex with Monica cheif desire of his heart... Bill had sex with one woman... Bill had sex with two women... both are true statements. Bill had sex with only one woman while in office would be an untrue statement. But the statement Bill had sex with one woman while in office is not untrue...

Would it matter to the message, letitimacy and or legacy of Bill Clinton if Bill had sex with two women or three while he was president? NO! Two, Three or Four... depending on who observed what...

You know, you sound just like Clinton with this answer.....all double speak and play on words. I am surprised and a little disappointed cp, really! You're a man of faith, I respect that, give me an answer that I can respect.

[CenterPointEX]

Your CenterPoint in the verse you gave was that there were conflicting truths there... One account was written from the viewpoint of one man... and one form the viewpoint of another... both are True! There is no conflict in those two viewpoints. Because one saw or heard the number was three hundred and another six is of no consequence if both are true. In any event neither number has the effect of adding or taking away from the Truth and or message of Bible...

Clinton on the other hand with his semantics conspired to hide the fact that he was unfaithful to his Wife and the American People in getting a blow job in the oval office from various subordebutants.

[Orgnizdlbr]

Your CenterPoint in the verse you gave was that there were conflicting truths there... One account was written from the viewpoint of one man... and one form the viewpoint of another... both are True! There is no conflict in those two viewpoints. Because one saw or heard the number was three hundred and another six is of no consequence if both are true. In any event neither number has the effect of adding or taking away from the Truth and or message of Bible...

Clinton on the other hand with his semantics conspired to hide the fact that he was unfaithful to his Wife and the American People in getting a blow job in the oval office from various subordebutants.


You can do better than that, I am still disappointed. Please make another attempt, convince me......

[CenterPointEX]

Depending on which History Book you read... 50 million people died as a result of WWII or 70 Million people died as a result of WWII. Because of the 20 million person discrepancy we can therefor assume that WWII did not happen? Is this the Point you are trying to make?

[duckhunter]

Let's remeber that the books of the bible were likely written in Aremaic (spelling may be wrong) the converted to another langauge, Greek. From Greek to the King James English. We try to use our interpretations an ancient language.

By the way, can anyone quote me a scriptural reading that says we are to read and put all our faith on these words? Certainly not from Christ, the letters were written after his death. The only letter in the New Testament that the writer claims to be directed from God to write is John.

[PA BEN]

Let's remeber that the books of the bible were likely written in Aremaic (spelling may be wrong) the converted to another langauge, Greek. From Greek to the King James English. We try to use our interpretations an ancient language.

By the way, can anyone quote me a scriptural reading that says we are to read and put all our faith on these words? Certainly not from Christ, the letters were written after his death. The only letter in the New Testament that the writer claims to be directed from God to write is John.
2 Timothy 3:16 & 17

16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. :cool:

[duckhunter]

The Scripture he was referring to was what we call the Old Testament. There was no New Testament in Timothy's time. Many of those letters were still not written or at least published,.

[PA BEN]

The Scripture he was referring to was what we call the Old Testament. There was no New Testament in Timothy's time. Many of those letters were still not written or at least published,.

2 Timothy is from the new testament.

[Orgnizdlbr]

Depending on which History Book you read... 50 million people died as a result of WWII or 70 Million people died as a result of WWII. Because of the 20 million person discrepancy we can therefor assume that WWII did not happen? Is this the Point you are trying to make?


CP, respectfully, are you telling me that a history book can be equated to the Bible? Are you telling me that a history book has the same gravitas as the true innerrant word????:confused:

[Orgnizdlbr]

I am telling you that the Bible is more reliable than a History Book by any measure you want to use. If you do not believe me then put it to the test. Of course we don't have video or audio of the Biblcal events... But we do have history in our History books that is not supported by modern recording media. Somehow the Historicity of these events of record were determined to be truthful enough that we consider them gospel... What standard of rule was applied to quantify that which we call History OGB? Therefor I challenge you to research the methods used... Apply any of them you like to the Bible and see what you come up with... But know this OGB, you will not be the first to have done this. There is no historical document that has been microscopicly scrutinized like the Bible... Like I said OGB, if there were an ounce of evidence to discredit the Bible, it would be broadcast around the world on megaphones and billboards electronic or otherwise.
First off DH, we have extant copies of the New Testiment letters in the origional languages. Some of it was Aramaic but most of it was Greek. We have scholars who have become proficient enough in the languages to render to us their precepts. We have a God who created the Universe and thus is capable of preserving His words thru his children.

Jesus himslef Cannonized the Old Testiment portiion of the Bible available to him during his life time. We have autographs of those documents.

Luke 24:44 Jesus said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you. Everything written about me must happen. Everything written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms must come true."/Current Jewish Canon.


Once again you avoid directly answering my question by asking me a question. Scroll up, refresh your mind with my original query, it is not a difficult question, in fact I believe the answer is easy, so please, without going into a rant or typing the Magna Carta; just answer the question.

Tell ya what, so ya dont have to scroll up I'll make it easy on ya, I'll paste my question here:



CP, respectfully, are you telling me that a history book can be equated to the Bible? Are you telling me that a history book has the same gravitas as the true innerrant word????:confused:

[CenterPointEX]

Once again you avoid directly answering my question by asking me a question. Scroll up, refresh your mind with my original query, it is not a difficult question, in fact I believe the answer is easy, so please, without going into a rant or typing the Magna Carta; just answer the question... OGB, you pose a trick qeustion in that you pose two opposing questions that appear but are not the same... The obvious answer is NO! History books do not have the same gravititas as the Bible... The Bible has a greater gravititas... and Yes!... The methods of of determining the Truth of a History book when applied to the Bible give it the status of History with as much or more authenticity than any history book of record and in that light can be equated with a History book.

OGB...More than ask you a question, I challenged you to apply the formula you apply to determing the truth of a history book, to deteremining the authenticity to the Bible and see what you come up with...

I am telling you that the Bible is more reliable than a History Book by any measure you want to use. If you do not believe me then put it to the test. Of course we don't have video or audio of the Biblcal events... But we do have history in our History books that is not supported by modern recording media. Somehow the Historicity of these events of record were determined to be truthful enough that we consider them gospel... What standard of rule was applied to quantify that which we call History OGB? Therefor I challenge you to research the methods used... Apply any of them you like to the Bible and see what you come up with... But know this OGB, you will not be the first to have done this. There is no historical document that has been microscopicly scrutinized like the Bible... Like I said OGB, if there were an ounce of evidence to discredit the Bible, it would be broadcast around the world on megaphones and billboards electronic or otherwise.

Let's remeber that the books of the bible were likely written in Aremaic (spelling may be wrong) the converted to another langauge, Greek. From Greek to the King James English. We try to use our interpretations an ancient language.

By the way, can anyone quote me a scriptural reading that says we are to read and put all our faith on these words? Certainly not from Christ, the letters were written after his death. The only letter in the New Testament that the writer claims to be directed from God to write is John. First off DH, we have extant copies of the New Testiment letters in the origional languages. Some of it was Aramaic but most of it was Greek. We have historical documents from Jewish, Secular, and Christian authors proficient in the languages of the times who speak to the understandings we still have. We have scholars who have become proficient enough in the languages to render to us their precepts. We have a God who created the Universe and thus is capable of preserving His words thru his children.

Jesus himslef Cannonized the Old Testiment portiion of the Bible available to him during his life time. We have autographs of those documents.

Luke 24:44 Jesus said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you. Everything written about me must happen. Everything written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms must come true."/Current Jewish Canon.

God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.
Acts 5:32
We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him."
Acts 22:15
You will be his witness to all men of what you have seen and heard.
Acts 26:16
" 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,' the Lord replied. 'Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you.
Deuteronomy 31:26
"Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God. There it will remain as a witness against you."

Anyone who has been a Christian for any amount of time is a witness. A witness of the transformation that takes place when a person begins to live no longer for the things of this world… but for Christ and subsequently for the love that reigns in them from him.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 “All Scripture is GOD -Breathed and is useful for TEACHING, REBUKING, CORRECTING, and TRAINING in Righteousness.“
2Timothy 3:12-17 When you received the Word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the WORD of MEN, but rather as the WORD of GOD.


OGB, you are ignoring the possibility that both of the passages you presented can be true... 50 mil or 70 mil died in WWII. The 20 mil discrepancy does not affect the fact of WWII. If one person got the number 50 and another 70, neither reported wrongly if 70 mil died...by reason you can not deny that.
Your assertation that all History Books are written by folks who have an axe to grind is not true. Some folks just report news and or history as it unfolds unbiased.
Is it your contention that all men are sinners and therefor they are unable to report history unbiased?

I will at the end of day have to conceed OGB, there there are some copiest errors etc. in the manuscripts. Jehoiachin for example was either 8 or 18 when he became King... A study of the Scripture tells us 18 is the correct number. The problem had to do with one of the three ways of denoting numbers in Hebrew. A common mistake amongst Hebrew Copiests. But as the years go by the archeologist spade turns up manuscripts closer and closer to the authgraphs. So while I conceed the copiest errors... I maintian that the Bible we have is Non-Self Contradictory. The handfull of seeming contradictions have been or will be resolved. The Bible thus I maintain is True and Inerrant. The authographs were completely without error and what we have today is 99.9999% true to the authgraphs. That is remarkable considering it consists of 66 books by 40 authors over a period of three thousand years.

[Orgnizdlbr]

OGB, you pose a trick qeustion in that you pose two opposing questions that appear but are not the same... The obvious answer is NO! History books do not have the same gravititas as the Bible... The Bible has a greater gravititas... and Yes!... The methods of of determining the Truth of a History book when applied to the Bible give it the status of History with as much or more authenticity than any history book of record and in that light can be equated with a History book.

OGB...More than ask you a question, I challenged you to apply the formula you apply to determing the truth of a history book, to deteremining the authenticity to the Bible and see what you come up with...




For the sake of accuracy and fairness I have analyzed my question to you. My two part question, contrary to your assertion, is not at opposition to itself. The query was not posed as a "trick", I elicited an answer to the question.

You have provided the answer that I assumed you would. Therfore, your analogy was a poor one. History books are written by humans who have their own agenda or axe to grind, if you will.

So, that begs the question, why the contradiction in the two passages that I posted? Which passage is the true innerrant word, and which passage is not the true innerrant word?

[Orgnizdlbr]

OGB, you pose a trick qeustion in that you pose two opposing questions that appear but are not the same... The obvious answer is NO! History books do not have the same gravititas as the Bible... The Bible has a greater gravititas... and Yes!... The methods of of determining the Truth of a History book when applied to the Bible give it the status of History with as much or more authenticity than any history book of record and in that light can be equated with a History book.

OGB...More than ask you a question, I challenged you to apply the formula you apply to determing the truth of a history book, to deteremining the authenticity to the Bible and see what you come up with...

I am telling you that the Bible is more reliable than a History Book by any measure you want to use. If you do not believe me then put it to the test. Of course we don't have video or audio of the Biblcal events... But we do have history in our History books that is not supported by modern recording media. Somehow the Historicity of these events of record were determined to be truthful enough that we consider them gospel... What standard of rule was applied to quantify that which we call History OGB? Therefor I challenge you to research the methods used... Apply any of them you like to the Bible and see what you come up with... But know this OGB, you will not be the first to have done this. There is no historical document that has been microscopicly scrutinized like the Bible... Like I said OGB, if there were an ounce of evidence to discredit the Bible, it would be broadcast around the world on megaphones and billboards electronic or otherwise.
First off DH, we have extant copies of the New Testiment letters in the origional languages. Some of it was Aramaic but most of it was Greek. We have historical documents from Jewish, Secular, and Christian authors proficient in the languages of the times who speak to the understandings we still have. We have scholars who have become proficient enough in the languages to render to us their precepts. We have a God who created the Universe and thus is capable of preserving His words thru his children.

Jesus himslef Cannonized the Old Testiment portiion of the Bible available to him during his life time. We have autographs of those documents.

Luke 24:44 Jesus said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you. Everything written about me must happen. Everything written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms must come true."/Current Jewish Canon.

God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.
Acts 5:32
We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him."
Acts 22:15
You will be his witness to all men of what you have seen and heard.
Acts 26:16
" 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,' the Lord replied. 'Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you.
Deuteronomy 31:26
"Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God. There it will remain as a witness against you."

Anyone who has been a Christian for any amount of time is a witness. A witness of the transformation that takes place when a person begins to live no longer for the things of this world… but for Christ and subsequently for the love that reigns in them from him.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 “All Scripture is GOD -Breathed and is useful for TEACHING, REBUKING, CORRECTING, and TRAINING in Righteousness.“
2Timothy 3:12-17 When you received the Word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the WORD of MEN, but rather as the WORD of GOD.


OGB, you are ignoring the possibility that both of the passages you presented can be true... 50 mil or 70 mil died in WWII. The 20 mil discrepancy does not affect the fact of WWII. If one person got the number 50 and another 70, neither reported wrongly if 70 mil died...by reason you can not deny that.
Your assertation that all History Books are written by folks who have an axe to grind is not true. Some folks just report news and or history as it unfolds unbiased.
Is it your contention that all men are sinners and therefor they are unable to report history unbiased?

That's a cute trick, you edit your psot after I answer yours, you insert text which was not in the original......and you accuse me of attempting to "trick" you. Why dont you just post a reply the normal way, like everyone else, instead of trying to be so cutesy.......?

LOL, why must you interject your not so subtle innuendo into your replys? 50 million 70 Million, the fact is it is a history book, not the "True innerrant Word" Are you still equating a history book to the Bible?? Seems like you're stuck in the mud up to your axles on this one and you attempts to get unstuck are not quite successful. You can do better than that, I know you can, try a little harder. I gave you an easy one, so tell me, what of the two passages I gave is the "True Innerrant Word" ? The answer is easy.......


BTW, have you ever, I'm sure you have, heard the term Revisionist History? Some folks report news and history unbiased.....yeah, and I'm the effen tooth fairy!

[duckhunter]

The New Testament did not exist for the Apostles, they were Jews. They taught from existing scriptures we call the Old Testament.The "Christian Church" established by Christ existed before the New Testament. Peter converted 3000 to Christianity before the first word of the New Testament was put in writing. Paul had converted hundreds of Romans, Corinthians, Galatians and Thessalonians before he wrote his epistles to those congregations. All the Apostles were dead and millions had dies as martyrs, before St. John wrote the last part of the New Testament. Until the end of the first century the "Word of God" could have only been delivered by word of mouth. The only Apsotle to see the Gospel of John was him. He is the only one who lived long enough to have seen the whole series of writings that make up the New Testament, but there is no clear evidence that he ever did see them. The only clear reference made by one Apostle to another Apostle's writings is that of St. Peter who said in 2 Peter 3:16 that St. Pauls epistels were hard to understand and that some had wrested them to their own destruction.

[duckhunter]

2Timothy 3:12-17 When you received the Word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the WORD of MEN, but rather as the WORD of GOD.

These words were spoken to new believers of converts, they were not read to them. The letter 2 Timothy is referring to the spoken word.

[Squizzy]

The Bible says thou shalt not MURDER... there is a difference between killing and MURDER

Ok so if I go out and shoot a few people dead and say God told me to I can't get charged with murder. The problem is there is no murder without killing:D

[Stick-it]

Ok so if I go out and shoot a few people dead and say God told me to I can't get charged with murder. The problem is there is no murder without killing:D

The law of MAN is not always the law of GOD.

[Squizzy]

So if we kill in the name of God "for God" we will be forgiven? Sounds like something Osama would say, so in effect you are saying that we could draw roughly the same mandate from the Church as the Muslim extremists do and go out and terrorize,"murder"(but its not murder as God told me to),bomb and hijack and all is well just don't let the authorities catch you as God will forgive you but they won't?

Forgot to add does the Bible say how many virgins we are entitled to if we were to be killed while killing ( not murdering ) for God as well? I think the Muslims got a better deal there....

[Stick-it]

VERY nice spin Squizz. Are you saying you want to be a muslim?

Where in my one sentence reply did I say anything about killing in the name of god. My point is if you do something that is richeous and holy but does not agree with the laws of man does that make it a sin?

No this statement doesn't mean that I think murder is either richeous or holy. -- Thought I needed to clarify that for you.

[Squizzy]

It wasn't you , CP said there was a difference between killing and murdering as he said "thou shalt not murder" but implying killing in the name of God was ok in reguards to the crusades.So you could still as in the past get a mandate from the Church to go and have a sanctioned military incursion and not sin. It was you that said the law of God and Man can differ weather its a sin or not I suppose you could contemplate that each day and night that you spend locked in a cell for whatever richeuos or holy crime it was you were concicted of. As for wanting to be a Muslim nah their only draw card is becoming a Martyr and spending eternity with dozens of virgins you have to say its a pretty good draw card though. I will have to stick to paying pennance for just thinking about it as its a sin with all those women and the "coverting thy niegbours wife" thing ,but is it a sin as they are virgins, and therefore are they married? So should it be mentioned at my next confession?;)

[PA BEN]

Killing just to kill is murder. Defending yourself is not killing, ie; (murder). The same as with the military. If you couldn't kill at all why were the Apostles packing heat? Not a gun but a sword. Judas Betrays Jesus in the garden.
John 18

8Jesus answered, "I told you that I am He; so if you seek Me, let these go their way,"

9to fulfill the word which He spoke, "Of those whom You have given Me I lost not one."

10Simon Peter then, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's slave, and cut off his right ear; and the slave's name was Malchus.

11So Jesus said to Peter, "Put the sword into the sheath; the cup which the Father has given Me, shall I not drink it?"