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

[Popeyesays]

"Thus when Christ said: "Whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the left one also,"[1] it was for the purpose of teaching men not to take personal revenge. He did not mean that, if a wolf should fall upon a flock of sheep and wish to destroy it, the wolf should be encouraged to do so. No, if Christ had known that a wolf had entered the fold and was about to destroy the sheep, most certainly He would have prevented it."
[1 Cf. Matt. 5:39.]

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 269)

 

[Faint]

"Thus when Christ said: "Whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the left one also,"[1] it was for the purpose of teaching men not to take personal revenge. He did not mean that, if a wolf should fall upon a flock of sheep and wish to destroy it, the wolf should be encouraged to do so. No, if Christ had known that a wolf had entered the fold and was about to destroy the sheep, most certainly He would have prevented it."
[1 Cf. Matt. 5:39.]

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 269)

I may not have noticed the irrelevant lead in to the irrelevant "lord's prayer", but I noticed that you like to quote that wolf analogy a lot. But again we have a problem of interpretation here. Mike182 said this passage is an attempt by Jesus to be rebellious. You're saying that Abdu'l-Baha assumes Jesus meant to instruct men not to take personal revenge? Let me ask then, what Biblical support do you have that Jesus would advise his "sheep" to resist an evil "wolf" attack?

As an aside, as far as livestock is concerned, I happen to know that according to scripture Jesus is reported to have caused a bunch of pigs to drown (that whole "we are legion" possession incident, Mark 5:13). Why would he be more concerned with the lives of sheep?

 

[Popeyesays]

I may not have noticed the irrelevant lead in to the irrelevant "lord's prayer", but I noticed that you like to quote that wolf analogy a lot. But again we have a problem of interpretation here. Mike182 said this passage is an attempt by Jesus to be rebellious. You're saying that Abdu'l-Baha assumes Jesus meant to instruct men not to take personal revenge? Let me ask then, what Biblical support do you have that Jesus would advise his "sheep" to resist an evil "wolf" attack?

As an aside, as far as livestock is concerned, I happen to know that according to scripture Jesus is reported to have caused a bunch of pigs to drown (that whole "we are legion" possession incident, Mark 5:13). Why would he be more concerned with the lives of sheep?

"10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
10:12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.
10:13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep." (The Gospel of John)

The Book of Mormon even notes much the same:
"ALM 5:39 And now if ye are not the sheep of the good shepherd, of what fold are ye? Behold, I say unto you, that the devil is your shepherd, and ye are of his fold; and now, who can deny this? Behold, I say unto you, whosoever denieth this is a liar and a child of the devil."
(LDS (Mormon), The Book of Mormon)

Now, what you continue to ignore is that the Torah and the Gospels provide not just a private structure for moral behavior but a social structure for moral behavior.

It is the "LAW" not just in terms of the revelation of God for me, individually, but for society as a whole. Surely, you recognize that the law of this land mirror those laws which the Torah and the Gospel provide in this society.

If someone murders your brother, you are not allowed to murder the murderer in revenge. Instead, society must intervene and through the law of the society act without vengeance to deter by that punishement similar behavior by others. Whether it be incarceration for a term, a lifetime or death by execution that is the LAW acting and it is not vengeance.
Ab du'l Baha postulates it this way (paraphrased): If you and I are discussing the weather and someone comes to attack and kill you, it might be incumbent upon you to "turn the other cheek", but it is not incumbent upon me to leave you unprotected - and vice versa. Thus when a person comes to kill me and society steps in to prevent that harm or punish the wrong-doer THAT is what God intends with His law.

Evangelical agnostics fail to realize that religion is SOCIAL and provides guidance for society as well as individuals. Then they crow forth an old argument, then crow forth victory when neither the argument has merit, nor is the paean to victory, in fact, truthful.

The purpose of religion in my understanding is to create on thsi earth a Divine Civilization and a Divine Civilization should be free from fear of personal violence.
We are working on it, if we are of good intent to our fellow man.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Deut 13:1]

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

Do you consider yourself an expert on english?

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

Okay, I can live with your disaproval. Just realize the difference between us. Hitler didn't let people choose if they wanted to live by the rules. If you don't want to live where the rules are being enforced, then leave. Same with the U.S. you don't like their rules, then leave.

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.

I'm not looking to turn this into an abortion thread, but you can open one if you want to debate this.

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).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. [/quote]I feel sympathetic, but I'm not going to force a country to live by a set of guidelines.

Let's try and keep this on the topic. Just because you don't like the answer because it doesn't mesh with your secularistic beliefs isn't my problem. If you have more questions on waht this thread is about, then let me know. Otherwise this thread has been answered.