Thou Shall not Kill Or Murder

[WIP]

Not just women but many men will find the truth difficult to bear. But back then it would have been the right of the father to give his daughters away.

But Peter calls him righteous.
2 Peter 2:7
and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the licentiousness of the wicked

So in my view Lot is a positive role model.

I don't agree that the Scriptures belong to the Jews. I would agree they received the law and the prophets belonged to them. But they were cut off so that the Gentiles might enter the kingdom. So I wouldn't expect very many Jews understand the Scriptures.

Do you consider Abraham and Sarah's lying to be a positive role model for us? How about Sarah and Abraham's distrust in God by having a child with Hagar? Do you consider Jacob's lying to be a positive role model for us? How about Isaac's lying, David's lying and murder? Do you consider those to be positive role models? Scripture is full of examples of human imperfection even from those who are identified as righteous. I cannot agree that their unrighteous acts can be considered examples of proper behavior.

Edit: You are correct that many men (and women) find the truth difficult to bear. The question that is on the table is "what is the truth?" We all have to be careful to keep our minds open to hearing the truth in this discussion and not to "shoot from the hip" and argue from our own personal prejudices.

 

[MarkT]

Jesus laid down his life for a purpose. It was His destiny from the beginning. In fact, if He had fought, it would have been against the Father's will for Him to do so. If a murderer/rapist would break into your home, assault your wife and your daughter(s), and then proceed to rip them apart piece by piece with a butcher knife, are you saying that you would stand by and watch without doing a thing about it? Do you believe said murderer/rapist would be doing God's will?

WIP

We don't base our theology on what we would do in a violent situation. We would be deceiving ourselves because we are evil. Mt. 7:11 We don't make God into our image.

 

[Razeontherock]

I don't agree that the Scriptures belong to the Jews.

If you could stop twisting what's said that would really promote the peace here. There's a long string of that in full evidence, and it bars anyone else from having a healthy discussion.

 

[Razeontherock]

Matthew 5:9
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

Two world wars, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, where does it end? It has to end with us.

Make peace by watching your wife get raped, and 'giving your daughter's hand' to a whole crowd.

Well, that is theology, so you're in the right place. That is the theology you've espoused, and the necessary ramifications of a couple views you've latched onto.

We'll let the readers decide if you present a convincing argument; it'd be interesting to hear from the women on this ...

 

[Razeontherock]

WIP

We don't base our theology on what we would do in a violent situation. We would be deceiving ourselves because we are evil. Mt. 7:11 We don't make God into our image.

Action is primarily determined by what we believe. Theology necessarily covers such an ugly possibility, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with what it's "based on."

 

[MarkT]

Do you consider Abraham and Sarah's lying to be a positive role model for us? How about Sarah and Abraham's distrust in God by having a child with Hagar? Do you consider Jacob's lying to be a positive role model for us? How about Isaac's lying, David's lying and murder? Do you consider those to be positive role models? Scripture is full of examples of human imperfection even from those who are identified as righteous. I cannot agree that their unrighteous acts can be considered examples of proper behavior.

Edit: You are correct that many men (and women) find the truth difficult to bear. The question that is on the table is "what is the truth?" We all have to be careful to keep our minds open to hearing the truth in this discussion and not to "shoot from the hip" and argue from our own personal prejudices.

Let's stick to the facts. It did happen that way. So what? Sarah wasn't perfect enough to be a role model? And yet the LORD blessed her with a son, Issac. So if the LORD blessed her, who can say she was not a positive role model?

I would consider Sarah to be a good role model in many ways. Certainly she feared God. That alone would make her a good role model. I'm sure Abraham was pleased with her. And the LORD did not count her sins against her.

 

[MarkT]

Make peace by watching your wife get raped, and 'giving your daughter's hand' to a whole crowd.

Well, that is theology, so you're in the right place. That is the theology you've espoused, and the necessary ramifications of a couple views you've latched onto.

We'll let the readers decide if you present a convincing argument; it'd be interesting to hear from the women on this ...

Are you serious? I'm saying don't kill and you think that means watching your wife get raped. And you think I'm teaching men to watch. I'm saying we should not kill, but having said that I would probably shoot the bastard if I had a gun. So what? It doesn't make it right. It's your theology that is in question, not mine. You're saying you have the right to kill. What gives you the right to kill?

 

[Jim Parker]

Matthew 5:9
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

Two world wars, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, where does it end? It has to end with us.

If we did not fight WW2 there would be no Jews left alive in Europe.
My father-in-law spent 3.5 years in a Japanese POW camp and was lucky to live to talk about it.
Look up "The Rape of Nanking."
The communists invaded South Korea in order to impose an atheist, totalitarian reign of terror on the people so they could starve and be put in slave labor camps like their relatives in the North.
Do you really think we should just stand by and watch?
Is another holocaust OK with you?

Did you ask your wife (assuming you have one, I don't know) If she would be OK with you doing nothing while she was gang raped and murdered?

Did you read the book of Esther?

where does it end? It has to end with us.

No. It cannot end with us. Jesus said so.
Mat 24:6 And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

It ends when Jesus comes again and not a nanosecond earlier.

 

[Razeontherock]

Are you serious? I'm saying don't kill and you think that means watching your wife get raped. And you think I'm teaching men to watch.

You're the one that said it.

 

[Jim Parker]

It's your theology that is in question, not mine.

No, sir.
It is your theology of pacifism that is being challenged.

 

[Razeontherock]

No, sir.
It is your theology of pacifism that is being challenged.

Ben Franklin's life has quite a bit to say about this. And those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[MarkT]

Action is primarily determined by what we believe. Theology necessarily covers such an ugly possibility, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with what it's "based on."

You're basing your theology on what you would do in a violent situation. For some reason you don't believe Lot was a righteous man. I would argue Lot was a righteous man and his act was a righteous act.

To me what stands out is the wickedness of what the men of Sodom were going to do. They were going to rape two angels of God. So Lot was willing to give them his daughters to keep the angels from violence. That's a righteous act.

God didn't condemn him. The angels didn't rebuke him.

The argument seems to be Lot was not righteous. He should not have offered his daughters. But the men of Sodom were out for sex. Should he have let the men of Sodom sodomize the angels of God?

 

[MarkT]

No, sir.
It is your theology of pacifism that is being challenged.

No. It's your theology of violence that is being challenged.

 

[Jim Parker]

No. It's your theology of violence that is being challenged.

No! It's yours!!!
No! It's yours!!!
No! It's yours!!!
No! It's yours!!!

Gee it feels great to be back in kindergarten again!

I think we've both presented our arguments.
Now let us agree to disagree.

 

[jasonc]

if its wrong to defend's oneself then one is en essence teaching that its a sin to protects one family . one cant be calling the use of lawful, common sense and right to life and freedom to be safe from rape, bodily harm, a sin and thing God would actually call Good. of course violence is not perfect . neither is the endorsement of violence to be free and alive saying one must be violent at the drop of a whim. I eschew pointless violence but I train to use violence efficiently in order to be ready should the need to use my skill occur. by doing so I know what to look for and how to avoid a response if possible by fleeing first and if caught where I cant or I must use violence. I do so to survive and to harm the other enough to stop the threat . I don't play hero, I hurt him enough to where he either has no ability to harm or no desire to harm.

 

[Razeontherock]

You're basing your theology on what you would do in a violent situation.

That's laughable! You may ASK me what I base my ideas on. You may NOT tell me. I hope this distinction is clear?

For some reason you don't believe Lot was a righteous man.

*sigh*. See the above. You may ASK me what I believe. You may NOT dictate to me (or anyone else) what I believe. I hope this distinction is clear? This has become a tedious, boring excuse for a conversation.

Lot was willing to give them his daughters to keep the angels from violence. That's a righteous act.

So own your stated position and look your wife in the eye and tell her Christianity means you'd have to helplessly watch her get raped for fear of hurting the poor wittle cwiminal in case he might later repent, and see what she says.

In the meantime the rest of us here have discovered that Scripture says "quit ye like men," and we know what it means. I bet your wife does, too. I bet she doesn't think it means either God miraculously intervenes as in the story of Lot or else it's too bad so sad for her.

You've painted yourself in a corner. You can't have it both ways. If you don't like the ramifications of your stated position, you can rethink a couple details and come up with a godly solution that jibes with the WHOLE of Scripture. Ben Franklin did.

 

[jasonc]

gah, I must start a thread in middle eastern hospitality , this still exist. I have been blessed by it.

the idea that the guests of a house are family , nay even better. one is to treat a guest as such. lot did that to protect his guests as that was his custom. to fail to do so would be a bad dishonor and im sure it wasn't easy for him to do that. right or wrong in our eyes that was the custom. the idea is also found in Abraham and its where the chuppa comes from.

 

[Razeontherock]

No. It's your theology of violence that is being challenged.

You need to re-read the OP.

 

[Razeontherock]

ability to harm or no desire to harm.

Creating "no desire to harm" in a violent criminal is not that hard to accomplish. Killing him is an entirely different matter; people are surprisingly resilient.

Anyway this has nothing to do with capital punishment, which is usually what's under discussion.

 

[Razeontherock]

gah, I must start a thread in middle eastern hospitality , this still exist. I have been blessed by it.

the idea that the guests of a house are family , nay even better. one is to treat a guest as such. lot did that to protect his guests as that was his custom. to fail to do so would be a bad dishonor and im sure it wasn't easy for him to do that. right or wrong in our eyes that was the custom. the idea is also found in Abraham and its where the chuppa comes from.

Yes, ripping a passage out of it's context and trying to cram it into today's situation is eisegesis. And doctrine should never be established based on one lone Scripture; it's much too likely to result in going off the rails, as is so clearly demonstrated here.