I don't bother myself with such questions anymore.
Actually I only bothered myself about it when I was a Christian and shortly thereafter.
Of course not all killing is murder.
I was always more concerned with Christians accepting greed, being unforgiving and judgemental, often unmerciful... And I was always amazed by the Calvin-inspired reversal of the camel-needlehole analogy that seemed to make it much easier for the rich to accomplish this feat than the poor... The ideals of humility, self-sacrifice, and acting good toward other people seem to have left mainstream Christianity.
As did I. Can't say that I blame those virtues for leaving.

But I'll give what were my interpretations of the "justifying scripture" in my Christian days:
This is more an act of civil disobediance and of reaction against greed and the blasphemous use of religion for gain than an act of violence. Jesus hurt no one. He acted more like a protester than a warrior.
What I find interesting in today's world is that Christians seem to revere those who use religion as a money-maker as "leaders" and as great capitalists to boot. Shouldn't they be tossing them out of the temple?
In my opinion, this verse more sets up the tradition of protest and civil action that is common amongst evangelicals... though these days the evangelicals are far too married to political agents and stuck on less worthy causes than they once were. Thank Jerry Falwell for that (speaking of people using religion for gain).


I always took this to be a symbolic interpretation of something like karma. In other words, people get what's coming to them, if not in this life then in the next.

He was not talking about holy war. He was talking about the seperation of the "righteous" from the "wicked". A man and a wife would lie in the same bed and only one would be taken... that kind of stuff. Adherents to the cult were expected to give up their possessions and leave their families behind if necessary. They were to be hated and killed by those who found them disruptive... not the other way around.

But Jesus said to love your enemy. He said to turn the other cheek. The New Testament said that you are to let the wicked continue being wicked and let the righteous continue being righteous.


It's true. Not all killing is murder. But in context, it appears that Jesus took a much stronger stance on killing. The Cathars were true Christians. That's why they're dead.
The Amish are lucky to live in a country that tolerates and protects them.


He was talking about the afterlife punishment in this case.
Capital punishment is simply assumed in the bible, as it was the norm. The bible seems to claim it justified... but does not say that it is good... at least not in the New Testament.

I was always struck by the huge differences between the God of the Old and New Testaments. And even more struck by the varied interpretations of the scriptures.
It just goes to show, a well-written religion can justify anything and survive the times regardless of the stance of the people at any given time.
Christianity's survival was dependent on its adaptability. If it had not been adaptable it would have died a cult before becoming the Universal Roman religion. If not, it would have died when people tired of holy war and corruption. And if not, it would certainly be dead today.

Organized religion is an exercise in rationalization and perceptive gymnastics.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III