Is there an angel of death?

[Deborah13]

are there to know he wont? he has a weapon there that was used. do you know he wont kill you to cover that act? you don't.im sorry. I have that cop training, in that same scenario I received a call where I heard windows breaking. per the training. draw weapons. you don't know what he is going to do.

with a gun pulled you don't have to shoot its called presentation of force.if he drops the tv and flees then he wasn't a threat to you, if drops the tv and heads toward you then he is a threat.

If they say that they're going to "beat you up" and don't threaten your life...Then technically, you're looking at disparity of force. You're female...are they female or male, and what is their relative build compared to yours? If it's a male, then it is probably legally ok for you to shoot them. You are at home and female, they are male and since they broke in (your words), they have demonstrated their propensity to violence. Even if he only threatened to 'beat you up', you are still in danger of death or grave bodily injury. people can die very easily when struck. you'd be ok to shoot if you were moved to do so.
If it was a female, the same things are to be considered, but if she happens to be smaller than you, then you may not have to shoot her, but then again, for all you know, she could be a 5th degree black belt. And you are at home, so have no duty to retreat. Again, if you felt threatened enough to shoot her, with you being at home and so forth...I doubt they'd even take you downtown. (At least, that's how the law works here in Colorado. Not sure where you're at.

If you're armed and their taking your TV...? (In Colorado...) legally speaking, you could shoot them...but morally...Eh, I wouldn't. What's a TV? If you hadn't of killed them, perhaps they would have repented next week and increased the harvest for the Lord?!

I was speaking to morality of killing someone who was threatening me and one who was just stealing from me.
I think it is very different and I believe you both do to. As Edward said, "What's a TV?"

 

[By Grace]

Jason, I said nothing about self-defense.
So someone breaks into my house and they say they are going to beat me up. I have a gun in my hand, they start towards me....is it OK for me to shoot them because they are threatening me?

Differnet scenario....
Someone breaks into my house, I have a gun. They are stealing my TV. Is it OK for me to shoot them?

I think that you may be missing the point made in Scripture. The Bible does not specify that any object is worth an execution of a robber by a homeowner. Instead the relevant thing here is the time of day. Not stated, but inferred is the total lack of light in a home after sunset as well as in the town. Edison's street lights were not around then. So in the case before us, and is seen in the Scriptures below, there is an unknown intruder in a home, and the homeowner who rises to investigate. For one reason or another, someone strikes another. A fight is the result. Quickly, it escalates to a life-or-death conflict. The intruder is slain.

That is not murder because it was done in self defense against an unknown assailant in your home in the pitch black of night.

All that changes when you can see the robber in daylight. Since the town is relatively small, everyone knows everyone else, then charges of trespass and attempted robbery can be brought to bear.In all of these verses below, I believe that this above expresses the content of every verse below:

ESV | ‎Ex 22:2 If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him,
3 but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.
‎‎

1901 ASV | ‎Ex 22:2 If the thief be found breaking in, and be smitten so that he dieth, there shall be no bloodguiltiness for him.
3 If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be bloodguiltiness for him; he shall make restitution: if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.
‎‎

NASB95 | ‎Ex 22:2 “If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account.
3 “But if the sun has risen on him, there will be bloodguiltiness on his account. He shall surely make
restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.
‎‎

NIV |‎Ex 22:2 “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed;
‎3 but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed. “Anyone who steals must certainly make restitution, but if they have nothing, they must be sold to pay for their theft.
‎‎

NIV84 |Ex 22:2 “If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; ‎
3 but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed. “A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft.
​

.
So if you think that I am wrong, I am not, and if you pursue it further you will not get into heaven!

 

[Deborah13]

I think that you may be missing the point made in Scripture. The Bible does not specify that any object is worth an execution of a robber by a homeowner. Instead the relevant thing here is the time of day. Not stated, but inferred is the total lack of light in a home after sunset as well as in the town. Edison's street lights were not around then. So in the case before us, and is seen in the Scriptures below, there is an unknown intruder in a home, and the homeowner who rises to investigate. For one reason or another, someone strikes another. A fight is the result. Quickly, it escalates to a life-or-death conflict. The intruder is slain.

That is not murder because it was done in self defense against an unknown assailant in your home in the pitch black of night.

All that changes when you can see the robber in daylight. Since the town is relatively small, everyone knows everyone else, then charges of trespass and attempted robbery can be brought to bear.In all of these verses below, I believe that this above expresses the content of every verse below:

ESV | ‎Ex 22:2 If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him,
3 but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.
‎‎

1901 ASV | ‎Ex 22:2 If the thief be found breaking in, and be smitten so that he dieth, there shall be no bloodguiltiness for him.
3 If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be bloodguiltiness for him; he shall make restitution: if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.
‎‎

NASB95 | ‎Ex 22:2 “If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account.
3 “But if the sun has risen on him, there will be bloodguiltiness on his account. He shall surely make
restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.
‎‎

NIV |‎Ex 22:2 “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed;
‎3 but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed. “Anyone who steals must certainly make restitution, but if they have nothing, they must be sold to pay for their theft.
‎‎

NIV84 |Ex 22:2 “If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; ‎
3 but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed. “A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft.
​

.
So if you think that I am wrong, I am not, and if you pursue it further you will not get into heaven!

Huh? Where in that post did I say anything about this scripture or in any post for that matter?

 

[By Grace]

Huh? Where in that post did I say anything about this scripture or in any post for that matter?

Im thinking there are some exceptions
Exodus 22:2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.

I apologize for my previous post! The scripture under discussion Was posted by roro1972.

I do agree with you that we cannot kill someone for stealing from us. Material goods are not a reason to take a life.

Your posts listed above caused me to believe that you referred to Exodus 22:2. I added 22:3 to give the context of the verse to further understanding.

 

[Deborah13]

Your posts listed above caused me to believe that you referred to Exodus 22:2. I added 22:3 to give the context of the verse to further understanding.

I was responding to something follower said, sorry for the confusion.

 

[By Grace]

I was responding to something follower said, sorry for the confusion.

I am cool with that. The main thing is that we reached understanding, right?

 

[Deborah13]

I am cool with that. The main thing is that we reached understanding, right?

I agree with what you believe about the scripture in Exodus.

 

[jasonc]

I was speaking to morality of killing someone who was threatening me and one who was just stealing from me.
I think it is very different and I believe you both do to. As Edward said, "What's a TV?"

if you believe that its just them taking the purse?

answer me this. you are walking with your son. I come back hit your son from behind and he falls to the ground and is out I then(being unarmed) turn to you and say give me all your money, pills and house keys or the same fate will be fall you. your son has blood coming his head, you don't know if its serious, or not, you just that he has a concusion which in of itself is deadly or serious. you have a gun. do you draw it and to defend yourself and force me to either die or back off and flee and to render aid.

 

[By Grace]

if you believe that its just them taking the purse?

answer me this. you are walking with your son. I come back hit your son from behind and he falls to the ground and is out I then(being unarmed) turn to you and say give me all your money, pills and house keys or the same fate will be fall you. your son has blood coming his head, you don't know if its serious, or not, you just that he has a concusion which in of itself is deadly or serious. you have a gun. do you draw it and to defend yourself and force me to either die or back off and flee and to render aid.

Jason, you are posting as hypothetical here, and I am extremely wary about hypotheticals posted by the cultists, like the LDS. That is because their hypotheticals are really ruses to get a "legitimate" ground for something not mentioned in the Bible, and ultimately are designed to discredit what the Bible says because the hypothetical is so extreme.

Of course, YOU ARE NOT A MORMON, nor are you attempting to discredit Scripture in any fashion. But we do need to go over what is in focus, and not go to where a common sense reading of Scripture, and applying it to today takes us.

ESV | ‎Ex 22:2 If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him,
3 but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

Wisely, Scripture does not tell us that taking this, or that in any robbery is a deed worthy of death. The only mitigating, or lessening factor in causing the death of a thief is DAYLIGHT or NIGHTTIME.. Why do you suppose causing a death during a nighttime home invasion/robbery is a lesser offense than a death to a criminal during a daylight hold up?

My guess, taken from verse 3 is that during the day, the homeowner (purse snatch victim) has the opportunity to see the face of the criminal, and bring charges against the individual. Because the stars and our moon reflecting the rays of the sun back are the only sources of illumination are relatively weak. Only those who have camped out far away from any sort of man-created light know how dark it gets. In reality, placing your hand one inch in front of your eyes when it is almost totally dark and not being able to see it is an awesome feeling.

Of course there was no homeowner who would let the oil in the lamp burn all night long. As a result, the roofed house did not let the reflected moon light penetrate. The homeowner did have the advantage because he was in his own house, so if he swung his staff in the air in a similar manner to Henry Aaron, when he hit number 715 out of Atlanta's Fulton County Stadium center field outfield fence, and the thief was in the arc of that staff's swing, there is no doubt in my mind that he could not see it, and the last sound he heard while alive was the thwack of the staff against his skull, creating a fatal concussion due to a fractured/ruptured cranium.

Therefore the phrase in verse 3, " but if the sun has risen..." means that there is daylight, and the homeowner does the same thing to the intruding thief, well that makes the homeowner guilty of murder; he took a life, and that could have been prevented.

However in the case that you made, Jason, you are comparing apples to lug nuts.Yes, the common factor is a daylight robbery, but the mitigating circumstances in the incident was FIRST a sudden and deliberate attack on your son that caused your son some bodily injury because you could his blood.

SECOND the incident also creates a threat of having similar bodily injury against yourself that your son received.

As a result, YOUR life is now in jeopardy, and killing the assailant with your Glock .44 is an act of self defense. One shot any where on the body of the assailant is fatal.

The things that are important here are not the things in one's pocketbook; they can all be replaced; but life cannot be replaced when a person is dead. So in the example given in the Scripture about the nighttime home invasion and in your hypothetical example, the killing of the purse snatcher's threats and action against your son, is not the same as murder; it is justifiable self protection/preservation.

That is why there is nothing physical that can be stolen would justify the killing of another.

 

[jasonc]

im going to have to disagree. I have been robbed. I chased a kid down that took my bike. I was going beat the tar out of him to get the bike back. he never robbed me again. he knew that I was ready to fight him and he knew that I was at the dojo when it happened. he took it right in front of the dojo. that was my only means of getting any where. he could have called the bluff and fought me. but did see me in action and was convinced that it wasn't wise to rob me nor fight me.shoot he even one time found the other kid that took my bike and beat him up after dealt with him. I did make a friend of him.

most robberies involve violence upon a person. in the biblical days it was different. not unlike today where we rob men armed with gun. or knife of shank. a threat of such doesn't mean they will but shouldn't taken as they wont.

I also have looked up cases where It is what I said. a person hit first then robbed. a person robbed for needed meds, and also armed robbery.

beside syg doesn't allow for the use of lethal force where the threat isn't there. one cant just shoot a person if he isn't a threat. one has to be in fear of life. not just say theres an intruder and he opened the door.

im also trained in self defense. many of the time we train to throw a person from a punch after clinching them and setting them up to throw. sometimes a throw like the simple hip toss can injure or kill. its likely your head will hit the ground and if you don't know how to fall. it may be fatal. see the problem with that? the torah was given to them at the time they were in. at night. im not all that in the dark I could defend myself. im not a ninja and those are fantasy with the idea of blindly blocking punches.

I figured you knew the rule of law on lethal force. I never said one could use it if it wasn't justified. only that most of the time a robber will try to harm you or present the intent to harm you to get the items and legally the intent of force of a gun in act of robbery can be construed as the threat and allowable for deadly force.

 

[By Grace]

im going to have to disagree. I have been robbed. I chased a kid down that took my bike. I was going beat the tar out of him to get the bike back. he never robbed me again. he knew that I was ready to fight him and he knew that I was at the dojo when it happened. he took it right in front of the dojo. that was my only means of getting any where. he could have called the bluff and fought me. but did see me in action and was convinced that it wasn't wise to rob me nor fight me.shoot he even one time found the other kid that took my bike and beat him up after dealt with him. I did make a friend of him.

<SNIP>
.

As I stated earlier, you have the right to your own opinion, as do I.

HOWEVER, what the Scripture states is the only thing that matters to me. Scripture does not mention a purse snatching, nor a bike theft, both done in daylight. Therefore3 I cannot, nor will I comment about those things. Since the Scripture makes a difference between the killing of a home invader during the day, and killing the home invader during daylight hours, that is the area to what any discussion should be contained. Everything else is not important.

From the understanding of that idea in Scripture, all other cases should be evaluated. Therefore I ask if you understand what Scripture is actually saying in those two verses.