Christians: To kill or not to kill?-_--__-_

[Aqualung]

Argh...I can't type today. Sorry, wasn't trying to lie. Yes, true, I quoted that wrong. I meant to say "stoning girls for NOT yelling while being raped", which in MY moral opinion qualifies as injustice and thus murder.

Well, so, you take God's law (thou shalt not murder) and then take another of god's laws (that big thing you quoted). If god made that law, he obviously thinks it is deserving of a penalty, and therefore is not muerder. You can't use two different standards for those laws.

I'll repeat the quote: "do not resist an evil person". How do you interpret that? What is *not resisting* to you? Only resisting sometimes? Resisting when you feel like it? Jesus says do not resist evil, which undoubtly implies allowing evil to have it's way (or at least physically, judging by the context). He also models this kind of behavior personally by allowing himself to be tortured to death by people I would describe as (you guessed it) E-V-I-L.

You still haven't posted where that quote is, so how can I make even a half-way intelligent conclusion about it?!

 

[Deut 13:1]

Haha--oops, my bad--I totally thought you were some kind of old preacher citing all those passages.

Why do you associate anyone with biblical knowledge to be old?

No, that's how I read "ratsach" is translated.

Ratsach means murder. So I ask again, is this how you define murder? It is a yes, no, or I don't know answer.

Argh...I can't type today. Sorry, wasn't trying to lie. Yes, true, I quoted that wrong. I meant to say "stoning girls for NOT yelling while being raped", which in MY moral opinion qualifies as injustice and thus murder.

Okay, but as you're not G-d, I could really care less for what your opinion on if it's moral or not says.

What if the girl is too scared to scream?

What if she is unconscious? [/quote]If she is unconscious, how could she scream? She couldn't, and as such, wouldn't be killed.

In both cases she should be killed??

No.

Is that what God wants?

Did you read what I posted?

I'm glad you quoted these...they just back up my arguement that the courts' cause for killing back then were no more just than outright murder.

When the court was in doubt, (71 judges verse 1), they erred on the side of caution.

In each of these scenarios, the woman has done NOTHING to warrant death (there is also something to be said about forcing a girl to marry the man who raped her, but that's for another thread).

Sure she has. Read it again, she's in a city, and if she's screaming in a city, people would hear her. So obviously because shes not being heard, it was consentual sex, hence the death. Remember how cities were set up back then, your neighbor could hear you having dinner. He would certainly hear you if you were screaming.

Same difference. You were implying that what was permissable in the Torah is the model of how Christians should live their lives. I am pointing out that Jesus allegedly overturned many of those old rules. So your previous argument basically goes nowhere.

Nonsense, in fact, I purposely said ignoring Mr. J//Christianity...

And for the record, not one child has ever been killed for disrespct to his parents.

 

[dawny0826]

This is a debate in many ways...to kill means to MURDER...not self defense...but if in persecution where God is concerned...we are not to strike back and if necessary we can be killed without raising a hand if in that situation...If defending property...you do not kill for posessions...for life preservation it can be different...it's all in each circumstances on what you should actually do...in the Old Testament it says an eye for an eye...but not so in the New Testament...we are to turn away from those who are intent on causing us harm and if they smack you on the right cheek you are to offer the left. You just have to know each circumstance and weigh the outcome of such actions.

Well said.:clap

 

[Mike182]

and sometime after that to turn the other cheek if they are attacked.

just to add my two cents, when jesus said to turn the other cheek, it would have been an inflamatory jesture

when people were slapped as a sign of inferiority, it was with the back of the hand, so to turn the other cheek to be asking them to slap you again with the front of their hand, to symbolise equality - inflamatory to the social superiors of the day

 

[Aqualung]

just to add my two cents, when jesus said to turn the other cheek, it would have been an inflamatory jesture

when people were slapped as a sign of inferiority, it was with the back of the hand, so to turn the other cheek to be asking them to slap you again with the front of their hand, to symbolise equality - inflamatory to the social superiors of the day

Good point. I would frubal you, but I just did.

 

[Faint]

Well, so, you take God's law (thou shalt not murder) and then take another of god's laws (that big thing you quoted). If god made that law, he obviously thinks it is deserving of a penalty, and therefore is not muerder.

God obviously needs some basic junior college ethics lessons.

You still haven't posted where that quote is, so how can I make even a half-way intelligent conclusion about it?!

Matt. 5:39. I'm always happy to help Christians learn more about their own faith.

Ratsach means murder. So I ask again, is this how you define murder? It is a yes, no, or I don't know answer.

Okay, I'm not going to debate linguistics or Hebrew translation with you since neither of us are an expert on the language. To answer your question, no, I don't define murder this way.

Okay, but as you're not G-d, I could really care less for what your opinion on if it's moral or not says.

How do you know I'm not God? I could be testing your faith right now. Or I, the LORD, may have learned some new things about right and wrong. For instance, I, the LORD, have finally realized that it is poor judgment to instruct my followers to MURDER young women for 1) being raped and not yelling out (what if they were near/in a city but gagged, or too frightened to scream out), 2) having sex with someone "betrothed" to another before their wedding should never have been considered a crime worthy of death (obviously), 3) a girl should NOT be MURDERED by any (past or present) court of law for having consensual sex. But you seem to think otherwise....

Sure she has. Read it again, she's in a city, and if she's screaming in a city, people would hear her. So obviously because shes not being heard, it was consentual sex, hence the death.

In your opinion then, a girl should be put to death for having consentual sex? Sorry, but that's clearly twisted thinking. I, the LORD forbid such nonsense!

 

[Faint]

just to add my two cents, when jesus said to turn the other cheek, it would have been an inflamatory jesture

when people were slapped as a sign of inferiority, it was with the back of the hand, so to turn the other cheek to be asking them to slap you again with the front of their hand, to symbolise equality - inflamatory to the social superiors of the day

NOW we're getting somewhere! Good, so you're looking at this passage in more historical context. I want to know more about this--what is your source?

 

[Aqualung]

God obviously needs some basic junior college ethics lessons.
Matt. 5:39. I'm always happy to help Christians learn more about their own faith.

Why? Because you're that much better than he is? It's like, if you build a big tower out of blocks, you have the right to knock it down whenever you feel like it. You made the tower, and without you it would just be a bunch of blocks. Now that it's made, nobody has the right to tell you not to knock it down, because now it's more than that. The pot has no right to tell the potter what to do with his clay.

As to the quote, sorry, but I don't have entire Bible memorized as to what goes where. Memorization has nothing to do with my knowledge of my faith. I'm just not as cool as you are, obviously.

 

[michel]

You still haven't posted where that quote is, so how can I make even a half-way intelligent conclusion about it?!

It wasn't exactly hard to find, Aqualung.........
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/index.php?search=matthew%205&version=31

<H3>Matthew 5 (New International Version)</H3>"An Eye for an Eye"

38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
http://www.holybible.com/resources/KJV_DFND/index.php?Book=68&mode=4&BookTitle=Matthew&Chapter=5
King James Version

5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
​

 

[Mike182]

NOW we're getting somewhere! Good, so you're looking at this passage in more historical context. I want to know more about this--what is your source?

i thought it was just common knowledge, i will have to look for sources to back it up
with

i found this:
http://www.hccentral.com/gkeys/ccult.html

The passage does not say "Turn the other cheek" as if to say that the disciple should invite another blow of the same kind. The first blow was to the right cheek, which was the backhand slap that demonstrated the dominance of the powerful over the powerless. The slapper wants the slappee to slink away in shame. But when the slappee is a disciple, he/she is to hold his/her ground and offer the left cheek. This forces the man of power to either escalate his persecution to a blow in earnest or to himself back down and slink away in shame. The disciple reflects the evil back to its source, exposes the sin, and begs repentance.

i don't know who the author is though, so its still not really a valid source

but the article has some other verses and stuff in it to show how jesus was rebellious

 

[Aqualung]

It wasn't exactly hard to find, Aqualung.........

Seriously, dude, why the hate?!

 

[Faint]

Why? Because you're that much better than he is?

Certainly my morals and concern for humanity are superior to those of the god in question. So yeah, I guess I am a better role model.

It's like, if you build a big tower out of blocks, you have the right to knock it down whenever you feel like it. You made the tower, and without you it would just be a bunch of blocks. Now that it's made, nobody has the right to tell you not to knock it down, because now it's more than that. The pot has no right to tell the potter what to do with his clay.

So, by your logic, when you create something, it is morally ok to destroy it whenever you want? Does this also apply to a mother and father who want to kill their 5 year old kid (since they in essence created that kid)? Nope, I don't buy it. Humans are sentient--and for this point, it doesn't matter where we came from because we're here now, and any supernatural megalomaniac who wants to "knock" us "down" should be considered an enemy.

As to the quote, sorry, but I don't have entire Bible memorized as to what goes where. Memorization has nothing to do with my knowledge of my faith. I'm just not as cool as you are, obviously.

Try this: http://www.google.com/

i thought it was just common knowledge, i will have to look for sources to back it up
with

i found this:
http://www.hccentral.com/gkeys/ccult.html

That's very interesting--I'll have to investigate this further, as historical evidence is not always factual (or correctly applied), and that site does not provide it's sources. But meanwhile, how does this explain the "do not resist an evil person" line, since that line seems to be cancelling the old "eye for an eye" rule, which advocated a sort of aggressive punishment of those who wronged someone? This seems to go beyond simple inflamatory gestures.

 

[Mike182]

That's very interesting--I'll have to investigate this further, as historical evidence is not always factual (or correctly applied), and that site does not provide it's sources. But meanwhile, how does this explain the "do not resist an evil person" line, since that line seems to be cancelling the old "eye for an eye" rule, which advocated a sort of aggressive punishment of those who wronged someone? This seems to go beyond simple inflamatory gestures.

where are the "do not resist an evil person" and "an eye for an eye" lines come from? bear in mind that i personally am not a follower of the old testiment

 

[Faint]

where are the "do not resist an evil person" and "an eye for an eye" lines come from? bear in mind that i personally am not a follower of the old testiment

See post #29. Your homeboy Jesus mentions both.

 

[Mike182]

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/index.php?search=matthew%205&version=31

<H3>Matthew 5 (New International Version)</H3>"An Eye for an Eye"

38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
http://www.holybible.com/resources/KJV_DFND/index.php?Book=68&mode=4&BookTitle=Matthew&Chapter=5
King James Version

5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
​

ok, the article i quoted says something about the extra mile aswell

http://www.hccentral.com/gkeys/ccult.html

Verse Culture's Interpretation Biblical Interpretation Mt. 5:39.
Turn the other cheek. Forgive and forget. Make peace, not war. The passage does not say "Turn the other cheek" as if to say that the disciple should invite another blow of the same kind. The first blow was to the right cheek, which was the backhand slap that demonstrated the dominance of the powerful over the powerless. The slapper wants the slappee to slink away in shame. But when the slappee is a disciple, he/she is to hold his/her ground and offer the left cheek. This forces the man of power to either escalate his persecution to a blow in earnest or to himself back down and slink away in shame. The disciple reflects the evil back to its source, exposes the sin, and begs repentance. Mt. 5:40.
Give the other cloak. Don't get upset over a minor loss. After all, you have insurance. After a landlord foreclosed on a failed farm property, he would sue the farmer for everything else he might own--but would never claim the "cloak"--the garment warn closest to the skin--by Deut. 24:12-13. But Jesus says that the disciple will not withhold even the cloak. He would add the cloak to the pile of assets and walk, naked, out of the court and into the arms of his fellow disciples--saying, in effect, "There--now you have everything. You have no more hold over me." This, of course, forced the persecutor to look upon nakedness, a sin (see Gen. 9:20ff--it is not a sin for circumstances to cause one to be naked; the sin is in looking upon nakedness). Again, the sin of the persecutor is reflected back to its source by the disciple of Christ. Mt. 5:41.
Go the second mile. Do more than the boss says and you will get the promotion. The verb here is not "force," but "requisition." It is only otherwise used in the New Testament to describe the requisitioning of the labor of Simon of Cyrene to carry Jesus' cross (Mt. 27:32). Roman centurions had the right to requisition citizens to carry a pack for one mile--but anything further than that would cause the centurion to be judged guilty of the abuse of a citizen! It was common for the powerless to be "hassled" by the Roman occupying forces in this way--but Jesus says that the disciple is to pick up the pack gladly (perhaps engaging the adversary in banter as he carries the pack--asking about his family, the weather, and so on!). By continuing past the 1-mile limit, the disciple turns the tables on the persecutor, forcing him to beg him to drop the pack!

from what i know, this would appear to be true, but i shall so some more digging for reliable sources

ok, so if for now we assume the source to be correct, your original questions were

estions:
1) Why do you think that God can't seem to make up his mind on the subject of killing people? Do you consider these passages as contradictions?

2) Do you think that God kills anyone (by action or inaction), and if so is it fair for him to not follow his own commandment?

3) Can a Christian kill someone in self-defense (or in defense of another) without violating the rules of his/her faith?

i think god has made up his/her mind on killing, and condemns it

based on my belief for answer number one, i also do not think God has killed anyone, and nor do i think christians should be killing, be it in self defense or cold blood

 

[Deut 13:1]

Okay, I'm not going to debate linguistics or Hebrew translation with you since neither of us are an expert on the language. To answer your question, no, I don't define murder this way.

You're right, niether of us know any hebrew, it's just a coincidence that I read the Hebrew TNK, have all my prayers in Hebrew, ect...

How do you know I'm not God? I could be testing your faith right now. Or I, the LORD, may have learned some new things about right and wrong.

Because G-d incarnate of man is foreign to Judaism. Nowhere in Judaism is this concept of worshipping man found, ever.

For instance, I, the LORD, have finally realized that it is poor judgment to instruct my followers to MURDER young women for 1) being raped and not yelling out (what if they were near/in a city but gagged, or too frightened to scream out), 2) having sex with someone "betrothed" to another before their wedding should never have been considered a crime worthy of death (obviously), 3) a girl should NOT be MURDERED by any (past or present) court of law for having consensual sex. But you seem to think otherwise....

As I said, Judaism is about having a relationship w/ G-d on HIS terms, because He is G-d, and you're NOT.

In your opinion then, a girl should be put to death for having consentual sex? Sorry, but that's clearly twisted thinking. I, the LORD forbid such nonsense!

Yes, given the court procedures.

I'm sure there are thousands of people who find abortion just as acceptable and thousands of people who find it just as bad.

Again, how does me executing a girl for having sex have any bearing on you? Do you think it's your place to regulate punishments and laws in China? If no, then why would do you care so much about Jewish courts?

 

[Aqualung]

As to the quote, it said "you have heard it said... but I tell you" In other words, he was changing the mosaic law that said resist an evil person. In more simplified terms, it's not something a christian follows anymore, and is moot.

 

[Faint]

You're right, niether of us know any hebrew, it's just a coincidence that I read the Hebrew TNK, have all my prayers in Hebrew, ect...

Now you're misquoting me. I said we weren't "experts".

As I said, Judaism is about having a relationship w/ G-d on HIS terms, because He is G-d, and you're NOT.

Prove it. Or kneel, mortal.

Yes, given the court procedures.

That's ridiculous. If you're telling the truth, then your sense of justice reminds me of Hitler's.

I'm sure there are thousands of people who find abortion just as acceptable and thousands of people who find it just as bad.

And I'm sure there are thousands of people who realize that there is a huge difference between a developing fetus and a young woman. Most MORAL people (pro-life or pro-choice) can see that it is ethically wrong to kill a female for having consensual sex. To say otherwise is a sign that one's moral compass is broken. I mean seriously--I don't know how anyone could argue that that is okay and call himself a decent human being. What, God says it's okay?? To hell with God. Think outside the book.

Again, how does me executing a girl for having sex have any bearing on you?

Aside from the simple, primal human concern that I might want to mate with her, OR the possibility that maybe it was a girl who I had sex with because (in this scenario ) a) I have feelings for her or b) she didn't like who she was "betrothed" to, or c) neither of us have a problem with casual sex...it has bearing on me because I am concerned about the overall welfare of my species (which is more than your God can say).

Do you think it's your place to regulate punishments and laws in China? If no, then why would do you care so much about Jewish courts?

Of course it is my place to say what's right and wrong (China, Africa, Mexico, Eastern Europe, Thailand, Jewishland, etc.). I'm a concerned human being. What do you think when you hear about human rights violations?? Do you think "oh, that's just the way they do things over there in the country of ________"? It's a global community, and people are still people and deserving of basic rights (like not being murdered by stupid laws) wherever they are.

(I'm hoping that you're just playing the devil's advocate here, of course)

 

[Faint]

As to the quote, it said "you have heard it said... but I tell you" In other words, he was changing the mosaic law that said resist an evil person. In more simplified terms, it's not something a christian follows anymore, and is moot.

Right, so, as I was saying, Jesus wants you to not resist evil. Can you agree with that?


How then would you answer this multiple choice question?

1) A man punches you in the face. Then he wants to punch you some more. In the face. You the proper Christian following Jesus' rules do which of the following? :
a) resist him by dodging the blows.
b) resist him by running and hiding somewhere.
c) resist him by calling for help so someone else will stop the attack.
d) resist him by fighting back.
e) do not resist him by letting him do what he wants.

 

[Popeyesays]

I wonder if Faint realizes that the verse he keeps harping upon is part of the lead in to the Lord's Prayer, and is part of a long lesson on NOT being a hypocrite?

"5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
6:1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
6:2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6:3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: 6:4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
6:8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
6:10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
6:11 Give us this day our daily bread.
6:12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." (Book of Matthew)

Jesus also speaks of Himself being a good shepherd. Does a GOOD shepherd allow a wolf to run loose amongst the flock? Of course not. A good shepherd drives away the wolves, or kills them.
Society is called upon to do the same. Vengeance when personal is wrong - so says Jesus. Rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's has more significance than taxes.

Regards,
Scott