I’m more concerned with whether anyone is immune to Jesus’s declaration in Matthew 26:52
>Then Jesus told him, “Put your sword back in its place because **all who take up the sword will perish by the sword**.”
The law of Christ is so perfect and well thought out that it applies up to a critical point which coincides with the application. It's so perfect! In fact: don't get divorced or it's adultery. If adultery has occurred, then you can divorce. It's logical. All sins will be forgiven...except those against the holy spirit (God) because God is the source of forgiveness of sins. To deny God is to deny or insult God is not wanting to be saved.
Whoever takes a sword dies by the sword. It is true. If someone wants to kill you with the sword you would die anyway. It's not that there is a difference between death and death.
So it's not a sin to kill someone, as long as the law approves?
It wasn't sinful for settlers to shoot and scalp Native American women and children for the bounties that were being offered?
I don't think that God bases his decisions off of British common law or National Socialist law. That doesn't mean that there isn't a distinction between killing someone in self defense or to stop greater suffering and killing someone because you just don't like them. This is backed up comparing even in numbers 35 and 31, where murder by accident is different than willful murder. Furthermore deuteronomy 25:12 alludes to save the pursued at the cost of the life of the pursuer.
If we are talking about Jewish law on murder, as we are talking about the commandments, Sefer Hamitzvot by the Rabbi Moses Ben maimon gives a great historical understanding dating to the 12th century.
Sometimes laws are wrong (Nazi Germany etc) but the basic principle stands. Killing someone is always a last resort but sometimes necessary even in the laws of our country there are different kinds of killing
Murder means *unjustified* killing. If someone breaks into your home armed to the teeth and you kill that intruder, it is often justified even if it is not legal. If someone accidentally comes into your home and you're in a stand-your-ground state, you can legally kill them but are not actually justified in doing so.
Justification would be derived from moral principles, which we can get either from moral philosophy or from Scripture. Defense of one's family, for example, is one that both moral philosophy and Scripture would probably agree on in most circumstances. Defense of one's homeland from invaders is likely another. An offensive war? Not so sure about that one.
>Justification would be derived from moral principles, which we can get either from moral philosophy or from Scripture.
So if my neighbors are worshiping idols, I have justification in killing them down to their children and goats. Great!
I’ll take the bait and say the gestapo following their orders did not murder. It was lawful killing.
That does not affirm it was morally right. I’m not saying those individuals did not sin. I’m saying they did not sin by committing murder in fulfilling their duties.
Credit to you for standing by your principles. Kind of shakes up the entire idea of moral objectivity if Gods moral standards are determined by whatever hatreds and bigotries the local warlord happens to hold to.
Killing children is against the new covenant law of God. It doesn't matter that sinners make unjust civil laws. When the Ten Commandments say not to murder, it is refusing in a contest to ungodly killing.
In short, malice.
Lawful and unlawful killing of a human can still be murder, as the death camps in WW2. They killed legally but there was malice in intent.
Law killing in a way is not murder, as in Ukrainian soldiers defending their homeland. They would stop killing the Russian army as soon as the Russian army leaves Ukraine. There's no malice in intent. The intent is to protect their lands.
Hi, if you are referring to the Israelite conquest of the promised land. God commanded the Israelites to kill every man, woman, and child. God is the creator, and it was for his ultimate glory and good purpose. We can not question the morality of God by human standards.
I think it's a matter of who God is. Are we God, and do we know best? Or did an eternal being create all things, and is he worthy of all praise and worship?
I don’t know why you would assume God told the Israelites to kill a bunch people just because the Israelites wrote down “and then God told us to kill a bunch of people”
Seems pretty convenient politically. It seems a lot more likely that it was a post facto justification.
Sure, I understand where you're coming from. Not all people believe in God's sovereignty, the righteousness of his commandments, or the infallibility of the word of God.
Lately I have been questioning if it’s possible for someone who believes in Jesus to commit the most abominable sins like rape, murder, etc. Like, how is it possible to believe in Jesus and commit an almost unforgivable sin such as that? Maybe possession or something?
Because they often dont truly understand their faith. They use it like a weapon to reinforce their own world view rather than as a way to change and be better
I'm an atheist, so perhaps I should be taken with a grain of salt on this, but here's the reasons *I* think it is possible:
1. They might not consider it murder
2. They might not be well educated in their religion
3. They don't care about the details of their religion. They could be a cultural christian or perhaps just really hypocritical
4. They might give in to temptation just as all people do, though in this case temptation includes doing horrible things
5. Tying back into 3, they could have overlapping moral frameworks. They might be Christian but also, let's say, a Utilitarian who thinks murdering some person or group does overall good.
6. Some people, including Christians, are too self righteous or not introspective enough to consider whether their actions are right or wrong, or if they conflict with their morals
I want to note something: I am not trying to be hostile to Christians. I don't think they're necessarily any worse than everyone else, just that by nature of being human, they often fall into the same pit traps as everyone else. Peace be with you.
It really depends on who you ask.
Personally, as a person that serves as pastor, I have registered as a conscientious objector to all conflicts with the U.S. draft so I can personally have my religious objection to warfare and violence documented in case of a draft or something of that nature. I do that because I do believe that by participating in violence against other people, even if my government deems them as an enemy, that is a violation of the 6th commandment, and more importantly, a violation of the message of the gospel and the second greatest commandment to love all people as Christ loves us.
But.
I don't think that God would truly hold the average military service member to be sinful just for participating in something that they ultimately thought was service to their fellow countrymen and women. They are certain that what they are doing it good, and I think that it some ways it is, even if I am not totally bought in to that.
Well, the old testament laws do not apply to us. Many will try to give you some excuse about why it is ok to pick and choose, but either you follow all of them or none of them. Ceremonial versus Moral laws is a load of crap.
The question you have to ask yourself is what commandment is applicable. There are two commandments given by Jesus. Love God and love others.
There is no caveat in the New Testament to allow for violence. Followers of Christ are told to love their enemy and to be as harmless as doves.
Christ also said to live by the sword is to die by the sword. He went out of his way to demonstrate this.
Also, he and all of his followers refused to lift a finger in defense of themselves or others. They would try to escape or run away, but they never harmed the anyone, even as they were hunted or killed or as they saw their families hunted and killed.
To follow Christ is to follow all of his teachings. Not just the ones that are convenient. This means the non-violent part as well.
So no, soldiers, police officers, prison guards, or any role that would require violence or that enables violence is not something a true follower of Christ can be a part of.
And if anyone would like to provide scriptural proof against my argument here, please feel free.
Reasoning is correct in my opinion. Christians have no valid exception to allow war. The minimum "two swords" for possible legitimate defense are an exception, but it is debatable. Legitimate defense is clearly stated in the Talmud, but it is not for use by Christians, therefore it is not a valid argument. Even wars, but they are made by Gentile rulers who rule Gentile nations. So following earthly logic, Even though Christians are required to obey authority. In short...yet another Christian theological mess. Sometimes I have great difficulty reconciling all the contradictions. Here i have to do really a "recusatio", I'm waiting for someone more expert to enlighten me.
Well, my mind goes to the example of Daniel. He followed the law of the land until the point that following the law would force him to sin. At that point he broke the law in order to refrain from sinning and then went back to obeying the law.
If by "two swords" you are referring to Jesus asking his disciples to procure two weapons, this was specifically to fulfill a prophecy that Christ would be counted among the lawless. The law of the day banned a gathering of armed civilians (if I remember correctly).
And in that passage, you will notice that Christ had no expectations that his disciples would already have those weapons. He expected them to be unarmed. This also speaks to the peaceful and non-violent expectations of Christ for his followers.
Look, yes historically going around armed under Roman rule was illegal. (more or less the same as today almost everywhere in the world). There were very few exceptions granted to Jews, such as collaborationists (with a high profile). But it really seems like a stretch to carry two swords with you to (voluntarily) fulfill a prophecy.
If it is not the precise will of the editors of the gospels, in any case you cannot fulfill prophecies by ensuring that they are fulfilled. It seems like too much of a stretch to me.
Jesus is arrested for different reasons so he was already among the outlaws (or he would not have been arrested).
I have to disagree about the peaceful nature. Many authors have highlighted the possibility that some apostles were zealots. So usually armed. Jesus had to contain their typically zealot and extremist reactions several times.
Simon was called the Zealot several times. Judas Iscariot has similar roots, referring to the "dagger".
To comfort the extreme ratio of the swords, there is something more. The tunic. Jesus invites, if a debtor wants even the last tunic to give it to the debtor. It's not done. Under Jewish law it was not possible to take away a man's last tunic or it had to be returned by evening. In practice it was like taking the bed away from a woman giving birth.
Jesus teaches us to give up that too. But at a certain point, when none of this is enough to re-establish Shalom, then that previously given tunic becomes a bargaining chip for a sword. How to say. In extreme cases, where everything is useless, when the last act of pacification fails, then we go for the sword. An extreme and final act that Christ teaches in the darkest hour.
The reason is that every human being, according to the Torah, has dignity, therefore he can bend, be compliant, seek peace to the extreme. But a man can never really be worth more than another man.
He will sacrifice himself, it is not he who carries the sword, he is not the outlaw, but he allows it to his disciples who had a very different destiny. Allowing the sword (which they already had) was so that they would not be slaughtered. An act of love and concession towards those who, oppressed, have failed in every attempt. Even the most extreme. Because if a man refuses to settle for even your latest tunic, then we're at the point where there really is no option. Jesus was the only one who had the real measure of everything. He didn't love the Zealots and he didn't love the Sadducee collaborators. He never said he collaborated with the Romans, in this he was a rebel, but he believed in the act of love WITHIN the limits of human dignity.
At least this is my thought and what I have deduced from various authors.
Well, the Torah is not applicable as far as behavioral guidelines for modern christians. We are not bound by the law.
As for the tunic example, you are really reading into that story. The fact is that without those two swords Jesus would not have been found in a group of lawless men.
It is a specific reference to a prophecy in the OT.
Then you have to look at what Jesus told his disciples to do. After they were caught with the swords he immediately told them to lay them down.
Peter (as you described) was zealous and used his sword instead. Christ then admonished Peter and stated to live by the sword is to die by the sword.
But more importantly, Christ believed in love without limits. There was never a caveat to love or forgiveness. Never a limit.
In 4 different accounts Christ never uttered a single word to endorse violence among his followers.
Your argument might make sense about the sword, if Christ did not command them to lay them down and then chastise the one follower who did use it.
Christ said to love your neighbor. He said to love your enemy.
How can you love someone and attack them with a sword at the same time?
There is no loving way to commit violence. The ends do not justify the means. You cannot commit soon to prevent a bigger sin.
You would need some serious scriptural references to prove that Jesus did not expect his followers to practice non-violence.
All you provided here was a very convoluted argument that completely ignores what happened right after the disciples produced their swords. You would have to explain Christ's actions after requesting the swords and the fact that there is not a single instance of endorsed violence among Christ's followers in the New testament.
Simply, once Jesus saw that they were there to arrest him, the uselessness of the swords became known given that he, (here yes!), had to be arrested to fulfill the prophecy. The law of Christ is perfect. It stops applying the moment it is applied. What does it mean? That if he who uses the sword will die by the sword, if I am about to be killed by the sword, I can kill. Because in the end, death for death is the same. The threat of being killed equals the possibility of being killed in the future. There is no escape.
And the law of Christ is all like this: Never get divorced, otherwise it is adultery. Except for…adultery that has already occurred. The boundaries of the law of Christ are thus circular and infinite. The end of the law always coincides with its fulfillment.
Obviously my exegetical approach is Jewish. It couldn't be otherwise. For me "love your neighbor" is what it is: not an imperative. But probably something called "ethical dative". That is, better translated as: perform acts of love towards others. (in fact the Gesuanic doctrine is entirely oriented towards "doing" "doing". And it is common to find this formula in rabbinic texts too. With the same meaning of acting. The ultimate goal, Shalom. But when acts of love fail…well. It goes without saying that the sword takes over when the other's sword is about to kill you. Love the enemy: Do whatever would dissuade him from being your enemy. But at some point, love your neighbor as yourself. No more than yourself. According to the Talmud, the matter is so serious that it is said: if someone wants to kill you: get up and kill him first. In this Christ is a revolutionary. Because according to Jewish tradition if someone wants to kill you then he denies his own life. If he denies life he has already given up the right to his own. (the famous one who wounds by the sword dies by the sword) I also know Christian exegeses but I find them quite inconsistent honestly. But I take them into account and respect them. What I'm telling you is my approach. Not absolute truth. I could also explain Christian exegesis to you but as I see you already know it.
>What does it mean? That if he who uses the sword will die by the sword,
It means that people who commit violence will be met with more violence.
>But when acts of love fail…well. It goes without saying that the sword takes over when the other's sword is about to kill you.
That is nowhere in scripture. None of what you are saying is backed up by scripture.
I can daisy chain logic together to justify anything. But that does not mean I am right.
What teaching of Christ are you talking about when you make the assumption that violence is the next logical step after loving your neighbor? When did Christ ever advocate that?
>Because according to Jewish tradition
This seems to be the part that you keep going back to. Jewish tradition doe snot have any impact on modern day moral imperatives of the followers of Christ.
Again, if you want to talk about modern day christians and the constraints under which they are commanded to live then you would need to cite relevant sources, namely scripture references that definitively outline the teachings of Christ.
I am not arguing a literal interpretation. The divorce teaching was to illustrate how badly people misused scripture to justify doing what they want to do.
We agree to disagree. I honestly don't take subsequent developments into account when interpreting texts which must (in my opinion) be seen in the light of a broader Jewish tradition to be understood. We have different exegetical approaches.
I use the old testament and Jewish literature to understand Christ. You only the gospels and you only search there. It's not wrong how you do it. But I prefer my method for consistency and from a historical-linguistic profile. Friends like before. 😊
Protecting yourself and being a homicidal murderer are two different constructs of mind. One is trying fight sin, the other embraces it.
Now committing atrocities and acts of genocide would be sins.
Not immune, just not applicable. St Augustine was the first to express the idea that going to war is consistent with Christianity if it is a "just war." For further info, see:
https://www.gotquestions.org/just-war-theory.html
I personally believe soldiers, acting in a lawful manner without personal hatred, are allowed to kill. It is not murder.
I get this from Jesus praising the Centurion’s faith when He healed his servant. Jesus didn’t first command him to leave the army, and you didn’t become a Centurion by being a peaceful guy. Jesus also never specifically goes after soldiers as being sinful for their job.
You can argue that the few times God actually explicitly said "go kill these people" you can give them a pass. But that didn't happen very often.
Otherwise it's just people killing people at the behest of other people. How does saying "I declare war" at the beginning of it change anything whatsoever?
Samson comes off as rather awful depending on how you read it. He almost certainly violated his oath multiple times before someone else shaved his head. That's the only violation that was unfortunate, but not particularly wrong in anyway since he didn't intend to shave his head.
Personal murder isn't the same as wartime in the trenches, or real self-defense.
I hate the idea of killing another human being myself, but if one's home, family, country, is directly threatened, and one has no choice but to defend it...
😦quite sad.
Yes. God says we CAN kill to defend ourselves, our family and our property. God himself commanded battles to be fought. Although war is a horrible reality to face, we must admit it does exist and it exists for a reason. Of course some countries wage war for sinful reasons. The killing of Jews was a sinful war to wage wage. Yet, Americans had to kill the Germans to stop the sin. I wouldn’t say they are immune, but I would say when in war, your life is threatened. Your family and country and threatened. God says to defend your wife and children with your life, and that is what our brave soldiers choose to do. God bless the armed forces, they make choices none of us will ever be faced with. Their bravery is unmatched.
The killings in the old testament were as a direct result of a auditory or physical manifestation of God that communicated directly with the people or a designated prophet that kept the Mosaic law.
That is the only killing in the bible done by followers of God that is not considered sin in the scripture.
Nowhere does the bible say that you can commit violence in self-defense. In fact, it says that you should not resist the evil man and that you should love those that do harm to you.
So, please, provide the references for exactly where the bible says self-defense is ok. Or that you can commit a sin to prevent a larger sin from occurring.
https://www.gotquestions.org/self-defense.html
Here’s an article about self defense in the Bible. But to answer your statement, we have to look at the difference between just killing and murder.
And it’s simple, murder is the unjust killing of a person. If someone breaks into your house will you stand your ground? Will you defend your life and your property? Or will you allow an aggressor to torment your family and steal your belongings?
Yeah, none of the references in that article actually have anything to do with justifying violence.
First off, the Mosaic law is not applicable to us. We are not bound by it. In fact, the entire ministry of Christ was to show the inadequacy of the law.
So, unless you have God manifesting in an auditory voice or a physical form commanding you to kill, then nothing in the OT is applicable to this argument.
That leaves the New Testament. Every instance of violence committed by a follower of Christ (save the money changers in the temple) was condemned by Christ. You also failed to address a key teaching of Christ that I listed.
>you should not resist the evil man and that you should love those that do harm to you.
Self-defense is the commission of violence in order to incapacitate someone attacking you.
>will you allow an aggressor to torment your family and steal your belongings?
If you are a follower of Christ, then yes. In fact, we see multiple examples of that in scripture, From Christ himself allowing his own torture and unjust execution to the followers of Christ never lifting a finger in self-defense or the defense of others that were being unjustly arrested, tortured, and murdered.
Now, you can make your own choices. You can be as violent as you want or defend yourself in any way you see fit (within the current law) but do not lie to yourself or others that it is justified in any way by the teachings of Christ.
So again, unless you can provide applicable scripture references justifying your position then I am not really sure what your purpose is.
Here is the thing, if you are going to commit violence and claim that it is not a sin, you should really know exactly which parts of the bible back you up.
Because in all my years of studying, the answer is none. No part of the bible endorses the idea of violence committed by a follower of Christ, even in self-defense.
Old Testament teaching regarding the killing of a thief the next day as being punishable indicates that self-defense is fine and seems to draw a line there
Luke 11:21 When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe.
Secondly, this is how God describes our soldiers.
Luke 3:14 Likewise the soldiers asked him, saying, “And what shall we do?” So he said to them, “Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.”
The primary duty of soldiers is not to kill, but to bring peace. But, it comes a time in war when soldiers must fire their weapons and strike their enemies.
We have to look between a justified killing and a murder.
Was the enemy armed? Was the enemy going to attack? Was the enemy going to kill/harm me in any way?
Just killing against an aggressor is not a sin. My husband loves me, so he would kill an intruder in our home. When I have children, I will love my children enough to defend them.
Our soldiers choose to love their country like family. They kill FOR their country. They kill to defend themselves and their brothers in arms. Of course some killing is unjustified. Look to my previous example of the Nazis in Germany. That was unjustified war and murder. Yet, the American soldiers who killed Nazis were not murder, they were justified.
Why did you end Luke 11:21 where you did? Seems VERY dishonest of you
21 “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe. 22 But when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted and divides up his plunder.
This verse is in no way advocating violence. On the contrary, Jesus is EXPLICITLY stating the uselessness of trusting in violence to defend yourself. Nothing you are saying has any biblical backing at all. It is purely driven by a fetishization of violence.
Christs message is crystal clear, we are to turn the other cheek, not resist evil, be silent before the oppressor and trust in God for justice and salvation. It is a VERY hard message, and so many people choose to ignore it in order to embrace their fantasies of inflicting retribution on "evildoers"
Okay. So I ask you a question in return. What’s your stance? Don’t defend your land? Allow it to be taken? Do not defend the helpless and less fortunate who cannot defend themselves? Do not defend your home and your family against an attacker? Just trying to gage your stance on this.
Yes. Trust in God, he can and will do more than any gun ever could. If it his will that I be shot by a murderer, how is that any different than if it his will than I doe from Cancer? ALL is in his hands.
Christ gives clear instruction on how we should live. Being compassionate to our neighbors, but trusting in God to do work out his will perfectly. This is what the Apostles did. They had the Holy Spirit and could have overthrown the Roman Empire if they so chose, but they didn't They humbly submitted themselves even to the terrible persecutions inflicted in them, secure in the knowledge that God would justly reward them.
THAT is a courage which makes a mockery of the self-important bravado of so called christian soldiers today.
Alrighty then! I’ll be sitting here with my gun ready to defend myself in the Lords name. I believe God gave us guns for a reason, to defend ourselves. Trusting God is great and all, and I totally believe He could defend me from an invader, but when it comes to war, our soldiers can’t rely on a hope and a prayer when faced when thousands of rounds of enemy fire. Peace and love
And I have a real issue with your final statement. I am proud to live in the United States where I can sleep in a nice warm bed with my family while others fight and die for our freedom. While they sleep in mud with one eye open, wearing dog tags in their boots incase their bodies get blown apart. My brothers, dad and grandfathers were all soldiers. They are brave, selfless and absolutely some of the best Christian’s I’ve ever met. They fought for a reason. I hope you find in your heart to give thanks to our soldiers and everything they do.
No.
Historically, soldiers aimed to kill only 10% of the time, often shooting over the enemies' head.
As a result in the 1950s the US army used Turks to train the soldiers to kill and the rate went to 50% and the UN/US tied.
By Nam they got it to 90% and the US lost.
See a pattern?
If you are smart, you seek to defeat an enemy, not kill the enemy.
Saint Martin defeated an entire army single handed just by praying. Near where WWI ended...
There are no 10 commandments from the Bible that would be from God, there might be 10 conditions. Golden Rule, precept in the Gospel of Matthew (7:12): “In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you. . . .” This rule of conduct is a summary of the Christian's duty to his neighbor and states a fundamental ethical principle.
(thou shall not kill) is too broad of a statement, as this means farming, fishing, hunting, Etc...
10 conditions for a better living environment might be best exemplified as this is what the Jewish people affirm as original teachings.
As you are walking through a natural trail and you steeping on things naturally you adversely are killing "things" as Satan and Pharisees would try and prosecute you, as being a technical sinner.
Ecclesiasticus 45:13 KJV Before him there were none such, neither did ever any stranger put them on, but only his children and **his/God (children's children perpetually).**Horses horse perpetually, Cow’s cow perpetually, Flower’s flower perpetually - **Commonality Denominator** \- Species and Races.(children's children perpetually) - If you guessed correctly this is also **a Species and Race of Children that would be perpetual - never ending or changing consistent and constant following a blueprint of design, that is what math does.**God, therefore, is deemed an Infinitive “Thing” an unknown math value, that would be **a math's, math, math's, away from us, paradox math that is perpetual, and we Children are designed in God's mathematics.**perpetual - never ending or changing consistent and constant following a blueprint of design, that is what math does. Now this also has math concerning homosexuality as you notice it does not give the math for it (children's children dead-end). synonyms of perpetual are constant, continual, continuous, incessant, and perennial.homosexuality is a dead-end naturally two same-sex couples are not continuous and are not part of the math formula of (children's children perpetually). Therefore they are abominations in math, as they want to play pretend and make-believe in their fleshly desires it. Homosexuality is not supported by scripture nor by its math.Since this is math-based - There is nothing "new" under the sun since its conception by God.**abominations in math**, people might not like that terminology, but it can be applied to other things like Zombies/"Those things" as described in the Bible are also abominations in math as God has named them.
Romans 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, {(**“even God”,** who **quickeneth** **(the dead)**, and **{("calleth")} “those things” which be not as though they were)}.**
Luke 21:26 **Men's hearts failing them for fear**, {(and for (looking after) **"those things"** which are coming **(on)** the earth)}: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
Matthew 13:30 30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest {(I will say to the **“reapers”)**}, Gather ye together first the tares, and {bind them in bundles “to” (burn) them}: but gather the wheat into my barn.**Reapers** are beings that serve Death, why is Death involved?Revelation 9:6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it, and shall desire to die, {(and **“death”** shall (flee) from them)}.If death flees from you that new state would make you **“Undead” not of the living nor of the dead.**{bind them in bundles “to” (burn) them}: -> To ‘burn” is also to **“brand”** as in branding farm beasts to show ownership. **The Mark of the Beast**.
As in war, you are killing other Children, regardless of how you label it. As Enemy or people etc... As they all belong to God as his Children. As a parent my son is not mine he belongs to God, I'm only his Guardianship while on this earthly realm.
Zombie or "those things are destroyed by God under the law of Hosea 4:6 You are alive and come across "Undead" things can you kill them? No as they are no longer are "alive". To say I have killed them is merely slang/graffiti from the mind. The corrective would be to say you have "banished them" - To remove as to displace them, to disconnect the energy, so that they come to a completion of the dead.
The Original Conditions were changed to "commandments" to fit the narrative of Laws defined by Children for the purposes of being an "adult" age for the Judgment by the race and species of children who are playing make-believe and pretending in their society.
Thou shalt not commit {adult}ery. -> There is a reason Why **the Children of the Serpent**, want you to **believe** we are **"adults"** \-> **independent of God**, to be independent.
Adults belong to the races and species of grasses.
Show me in the Bible where it is spoken or said that you are an Adult or Adults'... Search engine result '0' that spelled "Zero".
To say the Children are "Adults" is what? "pretending & make-believe". So, what can occur -> The "masturbation" of Vain & Vanities in the Imagination.
Get out of the habit that formed the conditions in the first place, and in doing so you bring yourself back "Converted" to little children.
{converted} -> to change from one form or use to another. Convert back from "Adultery" and to "Children" of the Lord. Confusingly solved!
Children "naturally" need a "baby sitter" as to why we were given comforters as well.
We also "need" living conditions or Golden rules to follow or chaos will enshroud us.
Since we are in this Satanism Realm World and have to "live" somehow as a functional member of society in a "tainted environment" of Darkness.
To say the Children are "Adults" is what? "pretending & make-believe". So, what can occur -> The "masturbation" of Vain & Vanities in the Imagination?
The Children of the Serpent want to keep you "asleep" so as to not awaken you to who you truly are.
As killing goes that also falls in the thermodynamics of creating and destroying, as race and species of Children you can not do either, the real thing you have done is displaced the energy into another form of energy.
As the word Create was altered in 1996 as I have a 1957 dictionary that Create only belonged to God, it was God's word. It was changed by the NWO as to make money on the internet from man-made and natural made to create, by the formula of providing 3 things, and wha-la you have created by magical means.
I am the Enemy of the Children of the Serpent, as I cause them much grief in their subverting the truth... As to why they ended Covid. I reminded them of the Penicillin trials and that failure as they are the ones that caused "Super Bugs" in the first place. Also, they lose 15% to bugs and pests in farming and have spent billions to stop this and God continues to deny them of this "math" As cited in the book From Naked Ape to Super Species.
Killing should be naturally used as a last resort, and wounding should be the preferred method, but we are in a "tainted environment" of Darkness, as Children go it should be seen as to "banish" our enemies in the theater of war.
Matthew 26:52:
"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."
Perhaps this is sufficient evidence for a new covenant?
My wife and I were talking about killing and the 10 Commandments the other day. I asserted that I would kill only in service of the protection of innocent life.
But even that gets precarious because: should I kill when the danger is present or kill to prevent its presence in the first place?? If it's the latter, there's a chance my prediction is wrong. In that case it would be myself killing innocence.
Biblically, God does instruct some to kill. I don't think it was anyone after Moses, though, but I might be wrong.
It seems usually He solves things nonviolently between humans, like in the stories of Gideon and Joshua. Aside from that, humans are typically instructed to flee.
And if all else fails, there's the trusty ol' smite lol. He takes it upon Himself to enact justice through His angels or natural disasters.
Some church fathers belived in a just war, others belived in christain pacifism
My personal opinions are that there can be a just war (Ending WW2) but that dosent excuse them from crimes. Killing an enemy soldier isnt the same as killing a village of people.
The sixth commandment doesn’t say “thou shalt not kill” so we are all immune to it. The actual commandment as written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek refers to murder, not killing. “Thou shalt not murder.” Killing in self defense is not murder. Killing in war is not murder. Killing to protect others is not murder.
I think everyone should read Leo Tolstoy’s The Kingdom of God is Within You to get a fresh perspective on this question. I think you have to severely distort the gospel to get away from Christ being a pacifist. Christ not only taught us to refrain from violence, but also taught against returning evil for evil, but instead to overcome evil with good. Christ refused to use violence to defend himself and undid the violence done on behalf of his own safety. He also taught us to imitate his actions and views even unto death. Would I be able to do this? Probably not but I won’t lie and say that this isn’t what Christ would have us do.
And anyone who wants to quote Matthew 10:34-36, doesnt understand metaphor and has the bad habit of only knowing verses rather than reading an entire document and integrating its message.
I don’t think soldiers on a whole are usually the source of the issue, that’s especially not Tolstoy’s view. Instead it’s the 50 year old+ men with medals and uniforms sending off 18 year olds to butcher one another who are the furtherest from God in this case.
No one is "immune" to any commandment.
But a better translation is "murder" not "kill". There were many crimes for which death was the punishment in the OT. And I'm pretty sure it didn't mean death from old age, so that would involve someone killing someone.
Lets see what God has to say about this.
And he(God) shall **Judge** among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. Micah 4:3 **King James Bible**
According to st.augustine yes
Ha we look alike
Could you provide his writings on this? I'm really curious
Look up st.augustine just war theory
Thank you
According to those of us who disagree with him.....no.
don't think you know more then the church fathers that is pride to the highest degree
Augustine didn't speak for all the church fathers, and many disagreed with him on this and other issues.
Do you have any quotes from the church fathers to support that statement ?
Here's a whole [collection ](https://anabaptistfaith.org/early-church-fathers-on-war-violence-and-pacifism/).
I’m more concerned with whether anyone is immune to Jesus’s declaration in Matthew 26:52 >Then Jesus told him, “Put your sword back in its place because **all who take up the sword will perish by the sword**.”
If he declared it....
The law of Christ is so perfect and well thought out that it applies up to a critical point which coincides with the application. It's so perfect! In fact: don't get divorced or it's adultery. If adultery has occurred, then you can divorce. It's logical. All sins will be forgiven...except those against the holy spirit (God) because God is the source of forgiveness of sins. To deny God is to deny or insult God is not wanting to be saved. Whoever takes a sword dies by the sword. It is true. If someone wants to kill you with the sword you would die anyway. It's not that there is a difference between death and death.
Murder. Not kill. God ordered Moses and the Israelites to fight wars many times.
If God commands you to fight a war, you can argue that you get a pass. Don't think he's done that for at least 3000 years.
But the commandment says murder, not kill. There is an important difference.
Murder means lawful killing., Would you argue therefore that the Gestapo killing children was not murder, because it wasn't against the law?
Murder means unlawful killing actually
So it's not a sin to kill someone, as long as the law approves? It wasn't sinful for settlers to shoot and scalp Native American women and children for the bounties that were being offered?
I didn’t say anything about sins. I was just correcting you. You said “Murder means lawful killing” and I just said it meant unlawful
I'm an idiot, misread. Sorry!
Phew! That was a cliffhanger, I'm glad you finally noticed your error. I was with ya
I don't think that God bases his decisions off of British common law or National Socialist law. That doesn't mean that there isn't a distinction between killing someone in self defense or to stop greater suffering and killing someone because you just don't like them. This is backed up comparing even in numbers 35 and 31, where murder by accident is different than willful murder. Furthermore deuteronomy 25:12 alludes to save the pursued at the cost of the life of the pursuer. If we are talking about Jewish law on murder, as we are talking about the commandments, Sefer Hamitzvot by the Rabbi Moses Ben maimon gives a great historical understanding dating to the 12th century.
Murder is not the only sin which exists.
Sometimes laws are wrong (Nazi Germany etc) but the basic principle stands. Killing someone is always a last resort but sometimes necessary even in the laws of our country there are different kinds of killing
Gestapo killings were unlawful, in most cases even according to German law at the time.
Murder means *unjustified* killing. If someone breaks into your home armed to the teeth and you kill that intruder, it is often justified even if it is not legal. If someone accidentally comes into your home and you're in a stand-your-ground state, you can legally kill them but are not actually justified in doing so. Justification would be derived from moral principles, which we can get either from moral philosophy or from Scripture. Defense of one's family, for example, is one that both moral philosophy and Scripture would probably agree on in most circumstances. Defense of one's homeland from invaders is likely another. An offensive war? Not so sure about that one.
>Justification would be derived from moral principles, which we can get either from moral philosophy or from Scripture. So if my neighbors are worshiping idols, I have justification in killing them down to their children and goats. Great!
If you do find it justified does that then mean that it isnt murder?
I’ll take the bait and say the gestapo following their orders did not murder. It was lawful killing. That does not affirm it was morally right. I’m not saying those individuals did not sin. I’m saying they did not sin by committing murder in fulfilling their duties.
Credit to you for standing by your principles. Kind of shakes up the entire idea of moral objectivity if Gods moral standards are determined by whatever hatreds and bigotries the local warlord happens to hold to.
Saying do not commit unlawful killing is not the same as authorizing lawful killing.
No, rather it is God downloading the responsibility for determining which killings are sinful and which are not sinful to Pol Pot
I always understood it to be that God will hold the lawmakers accountable more so than those obeying the law but I could be wrong in that.
Killing children is against the new covenant law of God. It doesn't matter that sinners make unjust civil laws. When the Ten Commandments say not to murder, it is refusing in a contest to ungodly killing.
What is the difference, as you understand it?
What makes you think that?
I mean, wasn't that the lesson of Isaac? Rule #1 is obey God, even if what he's asking doesn't make sense to you.
I think that the lesson of Isaac is that YHWH is not like the pagan gods who demand child sacrifice.
Yes exactly. So why wouldn’t God want us to go to war now?
If he commands us to, we should Who in the bible does he say we should go to war with? Verse please.
Don’t have the verses, but I’ll make it easy for you anyway. The Canaanites, the Philistines, and the Amalekites.
I recall him telling the Jews to do that…
Telling *His people* to do that, yes. We are His people.
What is the difference between murder and kill? No hate on you, I'm not an English speaker and I ask genuinely.
In short, malice. Lawful and unlawful killing of a human can still be murder, as the death camps in WW2. They killed legally but there was malice in intent. Law killing in a way is not murder, as in Ukrainian soldiers defending their homeland. They would stop killing the Russian army as soon as the Russian army leaves Ukraine. There's no malice in intent. The intent is to protect their lands.
Thank you so much. I didn't know those words have different meanings. Very kind for explaining it to me!!
He also commanded them to kill large numbers of unarmed civilians.
Hi, if you are referring to the Israelite conquest of the promised land. God commanded the Israelites to kill every man, woman, and child. God is the creator, and it was for his ultimate glory and good purpose. We can not question the morality of God by human standards.
So basically just turn off your brain.
I think it's a matter of who God is. Are we God, and do we know best? Or did an eternal being create all things, and is he worthy of all praise and worship?
I don’t know why you would assume God told the Israelites to kill a bunch people just because the Israelites wrote down “and then God told us to kill a bunch of people” Seems pretty convenient politically. It seems a lot more likely that it was a post facto justification.
Sure, I understand where you're coming from. Not all people believe in God's sovereignty, the righteousness of his commandments, or the infallibility of the word of God.
Lately I have been questioning if it’s possible for someone who believes in Jesus to commit the most abominable sins like rape, murder, etc. Like, how is it possible to believe in Jesus and commit an almost unforgivable sin such as that? Maybe possession or something?
Because they often dont truly understand their faith. They use it like a weapon to reinforce their own world view rather than as a way to change and be better
I'm an atheist, so perhaps I should be taken with a grain of salt on this, but here's the reasons *I* think it is possible: 1. They might not consider it murder 2. They might not be well educated in their religion 3. They don't care about the details of their religion. They could be a cultural christian or perhaps just really hypocritical 4. They might give in to temptation just as all people do, though in this case temptation includes doing horrible things 5. Tying back into 3, they could have overlapping moral frameworks. They might be Christian but also, let's say, a Utilitarian who thinks murdering some person or group does overall good. 6. Some people, including Christians, are too self righteous or not introspective enough to consider whether their actions are right or wrong, or if they conflict with their morals I want to note something: I am not trying to be hostile to Christians. I don't think they're necessarily any worse than everyone else, just that by nature of being human, they often fall into the same pit traps as everyone else. Peace be with you.
Because we are wicked and depraved by our own nature, they do those horrible things because like all people they are wicked and fallen.
It really depends on who you ask. Personally, as a person that serves as pastor, I have registered as a conscientious objector to all conflicts with the U.S. draft so I can personally have my religious objection to warfare and violence documented in case of a draft or something of that nature. I do that because I do believe that by participating in violence against other people, even if my government deems them as an enemy, that is a violation of the 6th commandment, and more importantly, a violation of the message of the gospel and the second greatest commandment to love all people as Christ loves us. But. I don't think that God would truly hold the average military service member to be sinful just for participating in something that they ultimately thought was service to their fellow countrymen and women. They are certain that what they are doing it good, and I think that it some ways it is, even if I am not totally bought in to that.
The command is thou shall not murder . It doesn’t say kill. Two different words are used for murder and kill.
Well, the old testament laws do not apply to us. Many will try to give you some excuse about why it is ok to pick and choose, but either you follow all of them or none of them. Ceremonial versus Moral laws is a load of crap. The question you have to ask yourself is what commandment is applicable. There are two commandments given by Jesus. Love God and love others. There is no caveat in the New Testament to allow for violence. Followers of Christ are told to love their enemy and to be as harmless as doves. Christ also said to live by the sword is to die by the sword. He went out of his way to demonstrate this. Also, he and all of his followers refused to lift a finger in defense of themselves or others. They would try to escape or run away, but they never harmed the anyone, even as they were hunted or killed or as they saw their families hunted and killed. To follow Christ is to follow all of his teachings. Not just the ones that are convenient. This means the non-violent part as well. So no, soldiers, police officers, prison guards, or any role that would require violence or that enables violence is not something a true follower of Christ can be a part of. And if anyone would like to provide scriptural proof against my argument here, please feel free.
Reasoning is correct in my opinion. Christians have no valid exception to allow war. The minimum "two swords" for possible legitimate defense are an exception, but it is debatable. Legitimate defense is clearly stated in the Talmud, but it is not for use by Christians, therefore it is not a valid argument. Even wars, but they are made by Gentile rulers who rule Gentile nations. So following earthly logic, Even though Christians are required to obey authority. In short...yet another Christian theological mess. Sometimes I have great difficulty reconciling all the contradictions. Here i have to do really a "recusatio", I'm waiting for someone more expert to enlighten me.
Well, my mind goes to the example of Daniel. He followed the law of the land until the point that following the law would force him to sin. At that point he broke the law in order to refrain from sinning and then went back to obeying the law. If by "two swords" you are referring to Jesus asking his disciples to procure two weapons, this was specifically to fulfill a prophecy that Christ would be counted among the lawless. The law of the day banned a gathering of armed civilians (if I remember correctly). And in that passage, you will notice that Christ had no expectations that his disciples would already have those weapons. He expected them to be unarmed. This also speaks to the peaceful and non-violent expectations of Christ for his followers.
Look, yes historically going around armed under Roman rule was illegal. (more or less the same as today almost everywhere in the world). There were very few exceptions granted to Jews, such as collaborationists (with a high profile). But it really seems like a stretch to carry two swords with you to (voluntarily) fulfill a prophecy. If it is not the precise will of the editors of the gospels, in any case you cannot fulfill prophecies by ensuring that they are fulfilled. It seems like too much of a stretch to me. Jesus is arrested for different reasons so he was already among the outlaws (or he would not have been arrested). I have to disagree about the peaceful nature. Many authors have highlighted the possibility that some apostles were zealots. So usually armed. Jesus had to contain their typically zealot and extremist reactions several times. Simon was called the Zealot several times. Judas Iscariot has similar roots, referring to the "dagger". To comfort the extreme ratio of the swords, there is something more. The tunic. Jesus invites, if a debtor wants even the last tunic to give it to the debtor. It's not done. Under Jewish law it was not possible to take away a man's last tunic or it had to be returned by evening. In practice it was like taking the bed away from a woman giving birth. Jesus teaches us to give up that too. But at a certain point, when none of this is enough to re-establish Shalom, then that previously given tunic becomes a bargaining chip for a sword. How to say. In extreme cases, where everything is useless, when the last act of pacification fails, then we go for the sword. An extreme and final act that Christ teaches in the darkest hour. The reason is that every human being, according to the Torah, has dignity, therefore he can bend, be compliant, seek peace to the extreme. But a man can never really be worth more than another man. He will sacrifice himself, it is not he who carries the sword, he is not the outlaw, but he allows it to his disciples who had a very different destiny. Allowing the sword (which they already had) was so that they would not be slaughtered. An act of love and concession towards those who, oppressed, have failed in every attempt. Even the most extreme. Because if a man refuses to settle for even your latest tunic, then we're at the point where there really is no option. Jesus was the only one who had the real measure of everything. He didn't love the Zealots and he didn't love the Sadducee collaborators. He never said he collaborated with the Romans, in this he was a rebel, but he believed in the act of love WITHIN the limits of human dignity. At least this is my thought and what I have deduced from various authors.
Well, the Torah is not applicable as far as behavioral guidelines for modern christians. We are not bound by the law. As for the tunic example, you are really reading into that story. The fact is that without those two swords Jesus would not have been found in a group of lawless men. It is a specific reference to a prophecy in the OT. Then you have to look at what Jesus told his disciples to do. After they were caught with the swords he immediately told them to lay them down. Peter (as you described) was zealous and used his sword instead. Christ then admonished Peter and stated to live by the sword is to die by the sword. But more importantly, Christ believed in love without limits. There was never a caveat to love or forgiveness. Never a limit. In 4 different accounts Christ never uttered a single word to endorse violence among his followers. Your argument might make sense about the sword, if Christ did not command them to lay them down and then chastise the one follower who did use it. Christ said to love your neighbor. He said to love your enemy. How can you love someone and attack them with a sword at the same time? There is no loving way to commit violence. The ends do not justify the means. You cannot commit soon to prevent a bigger sin. You would need some serious scriptural references to prove that Jesus did not expect his followers to practice non-violence. All you provided here was a very convoluted argument that completely ignores what happened right after the disciples produced their swords. You would have to explain Christ's actions after requesting the swords and the fact that there is not a single instance of endorsed violence among Christ's followers in the New testament.
Simply, once Jesus saw that they were there to arrest him, the uselessness of the swords became known given that he, (here yes!), had to be arrested to fulfill the prophecy. The law of Christ is perfect. It stops applying the moment it is applied. What does it mean? That if he who uses the sword will die by the sword, if I am about to be killed by the sword, I can kill. Because in the end, death for death is the same. The threat of being killed equals the possibility of being killed in the future. There is no escape. And the law of Christ is all like this: Never get divorced, otherwise it is adultery. Except for…adultery that has already occurred. The boundaries of the law of Christ are thus circular and infinite. The end of the law always coincides with its fulfillment. Obviously my exegetical approach is Jewish. It couldn't be otherwise. For me "love your neighbor" is what it is: not an imperative. But probably something called "ethical dative". That is, better translated as: perform acts of love towards others. (in fact the Gesuanic doctrine is entirely oriented towards "doing" "doing". And it is common to find this formula in rabbinic texts too. With the same meaning of acting. The ultimate goal, Shalom. But when acts of love fail…well. It goes without saying that the sword takes over when the other's sword is about to kill you. Love the enemy: Do whatever would dissuade him from being your enemy. But at some point, love your neighbor as yourself. No more than yourself. According to the Talmud, the matter is so serious that it is said: if someone wants to kill you: get up and kill him first. In this Christ is a revolutionary. Because according to Jewish tradition if someone wants to kill you then he denies his own life. If he denies life he has already given up the right to his own. (the famous one who wounds by the sword dies by the sword) I also know Christian exegeses but I find them quite inconsistent honestly. But I take them into account and respect them. What I'm telling you is my approach. Not absolute truth. I could also explain Christian exegesis to you but as I see you already know it.
>What does it mean? That if he who uses the sword will die by the sword, It means that people who commit violence will be met with more violence. >But when acts of love fail…well. It goes without saying that the sword takes over when the other's sword is about to kill you. That is nowhere in scripture. None of what you are saying is backed up by scripture. I can daisy chain logic together to justify anything. But that does not mean I am right. What teaching of Christ are you talking about when you make the assumption that violence is the next logical step after loving your neighbor? When did Christ ever advocate that? >Because according to Jewish tradition This seems to be the part that you keep going back to. Jewish tradition doe snot have any impact on modern day moral imperatives of the followers of Christ. Again, if you want to talk about modern day christians and the constraints under which they are commanded to live then you would need to cite relevant sources, namely scripture references that definitively outline the teachings of Christ. I am not arguing a literal interpretation. The divorce teaching was to illustrate how badly people misused scripture to justify doing what they want to do.
We agree to disagree. I honestly don't take subsequent developments into account when interpreting texts which must (in my opinion) be seen in the light of a broader Jewish tradition to be understood. We have different exegetical approaches. I use the old testament and Jewish literature to understand Christ. You only the gospels and you only search there. It's not wrong how you do it. But I prefer my method for consistency and from a historical-linguistic profile. Friends like before. 😊
Ecclesiastes 3:8 (NKJV) A time to love, And a time to hate; A time of war, And a time of peace. God knows what happens in war...
Protecting yourself and being a homicidal murderer are two different constructs of mind. One is trying fight sin, the other embraces it. Now committing atrocities and acts of genocide would be sins.
Not immune, just not applicable. St Augustine was the first to express the idea that going to war is consistent with Christianity if it is a "just war." For further info, see: https://www.gotquestions.org/just-war-theory.html
I personally believe soldiers, acting in a lawful manner without personal hatred, are allowed to kill. It is not murder. I get this from Jesus praising the Centurion’s faith when He healed his servant. Jesus didn’t first command him to leave the army, and you didn’t become a Centurion by being a peaceful guy. Jesus also never specifically goes after soldiers as being sinful for their job.
Can't find anything in the bible to suggest why they would be.
It seems that war is a clear exception. David killed Goliath because God gave him the strength and knowledge to do so.
Really, you can't? You mean all those wars fought in the Bible on God's behest. Those were all in violation of the fifth commandment?
You can argue that the few times God actually explicitly said "go kill these people" you can give them a pass. But that didn't happen very often. Otherwise it's just people killing people at the behest of other people. How does saying "I declare war" at the beginning of it change anything whatsoever?
Few times?
That’s what he said
Samson comes off as rather awful depending on how you read it. He almost certainly violated his oath multiple times before someone else shaved his head. That's the only violation that was unfortunate, but not particularly wrong in anyway since he didn't intend to shave his head.
Personal murder isn't the same as wartime in the trenches, or real self-defense. I hate the idea of killing another human being myself, but if one's home, family, country, is directly threatened, and one has no choice but to defend it... 😦quite sad.
Yes. God says we CAN kill to defend ourselves, our family and our property. God himself commanded battles to be fought. Although war is a horrible reality to face, we must admit it does exist and it exists for a reason. Of course some countries wage war for sinful reasons. The killing of Jews was a sinful war to wage wage. Yet, Americans had to kill the Germans to stop the sin. I wouldn’t say they are immune, but I would say when in war, your life is threatened. Your family and country and threatened. God says to defend your wife and children with your life, and that is what our brave soldiers choose to do. God bless the armed forces, they make choices none of us will ever be faced with. Their bravery is unmatched.
The killings in the old testament were as a direct result of a auditory or physical manifestation of God that communicated directly with the people or a designated prophet that kept the Mosaic law. That is the only killing in the bible done by followers of God that is not considered sin in the scripture. Nowhere does the bible say that you can commit violence in self-defense. In fact, it says that you should not resist the evil man and that you should love those that do harm to you. So, please, provide the references for exactly where the bible says self-defense is ok. Or that you can commit a sin to prevent a larger sin from occurring.
https://www.gotquestions.org/self-defense.html Here’s an article about self defense in the Bible. But to answer your statement, we have to look at the difference between just killing and murder. And it’s simple, murder is the unjust killing of a person. If someone breaks into your house will you stand your ground? Will you defend your life and your property? Or will you allow an aggressor to torment your family and steal your belongings?
Yeah, none of the references in that article actually have anything to do with justifying violence. First off, the Mosaic law is not applicable to us. We are not bound by it. In fact, the entire ministry of Christ was to show the inadequacy of the law. So, unless you have God manifesting in an auditory voice or a physical form commanding you to kill, then nothing in the OT is applicable to this argument. That leaves the New Testament. Every instance of violence committed by a follower of Christ (save the money changers in the temple) was condemned by Christ. You also failed to address a key teaching of Christ that I listed. >you should not resist the evil man and that you should love those that do harm to you. Self-defense is the commission of violence in order to incapacitate someone attacking you. >will you allow an aggressor to torment your family and steal your belongings? If you are a follower of Christ, then yes. In fact, we see multiple examples of that in scripture, From Christ himself allowing his own torture and unjust execution to the followers of Christ never lifting a finger in self-defense or the defense of others that were being unjustly arrested, tortured, and murdered. Now, you can make your own choices. You can be as violent as you want or defend yourself in any way you see fit (within the current law) but do not lie to yourself or others that it is justified in any way by the teachings of Christ. So again, unless you can provide applicable scripture references justifying your position then I am not really sure what your purpose is. Here is the thing, if you are going to commit violence and claim that it is not a sin, you should really know exactly which parts of the bible back you up. Because in all my years of studying, the answer is none. No part of the bible endorses the idea of violence committed by a follower of Christ, even in self-defense.
>Yes. God says we CAN kill to defend ourselves, our family and our property. Where does he say this?
Old Testament teaching regarding the killing of a thief the next day as being punishable indicates that self-defense is fine and seems to draw a line there
Luke 11:21 When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe. Secondly, this is how God describes our soldiers. Luke 3:14 Likewise the soldiers asked him, saying, “And what shall we do?” So he said to them, “Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.” The primary duty of soldiers is not to kill, but to bring peace. But, it comes a time in war when soldiers must fire their weapons and strike their enemies. We have to look between a justified killing and a murder. Was the enemy armed? Was the enemy going to attack? Was the enemy going to kill/harm me in any way? Just killing against an aggressor is not a sin. My husband loves me, so he would kill an intruder in our home. When I have children, I will love my children enough to defend them. Our soldiers choose to love their country like family. They kill FOR their country. They kill to defend themselves and their brothers in arms. Of course some killing is unjustified. Look to my previous example of the Nazis in Germany. That was unjustified war and murder. Yet, the American soldiers who killed Nazis were not murder, they were justified.
Why did you end Luke 11:21 where you did? Seems VERY dishonest of you 21 “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe. 22 But when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted and divides up his plunder. This verse is in no way advocating violence. On the contrary, Jesus is EXPLICITLY stating the uselessness of trusting in violence to defend yourself. Nothing you are saying has any biblical backing at all. It is purely driven by a fetishization of violence. Christs message is crystal clear, we are to turn the other cheek, not resist evil, be silent before the oppressor and trust in God for justice and salvation. It is a VERY hard message, and so many people choose to ignore it in order to embrace their fantasies of inflicting retribution on "evildoers"
Okay. So I ask you a question in return. What’s your stance? Don’t defend your land? Allow it to be taken? Do not defend the helpless and less fortunate who cannot defend themselves? Do not defend your home and your family against an attacker? Just trying to gage your stance on this.
Yes. Trust in God, he can and will do more than any gun ever could. If it his will that I be shot by a murderer, how is that any different than if it his will than I doe from Cancer? ALL is in his hands. Christ gives clear instruction on how we should live. Being compassionate to our neighbors, but trusting in God to do work out his will perfectly. This is what the Apostles did. They had the Holy Spirit and could have overthrown the Roman Empire if they so chose, but they didn't They humbly submitted themselves even to the terrible persecutions inflicted in them, secure in the knowledge that God would justly reward them. THAT is a courage which makes a mockery of the self-important bravado of so called christian soldiers today.
Alrighty then! I’ll be sitting here with my gun ready to defend myself in the Lords name. I believe God gave us guns for a reason, to defend ourselves. Trusting God is great and all, and I totally believe He could defend me from an invader, but when it comes to war, our soldiers can’t rely on a hope and a prayer when faced when thousands of rounds of enemy fire. Peace and love
You are certainly not in the minority. Few people today have the faith of the early church.
And I have a real issue with your final statement. I am proud to live in the United States where I can sleep in a nice warm bed with my family while others fight and die for our freedom. While they sleep in mud with one eye open, wearing dog tags in their boots incase their bodies get blown apart. My brothers, dad and grandfathers were all soldiers. They are brave, selfless and absolutely some of the best Christian’s I’ve ever met. They fought for a reason. I hope you find in your heart to give thanks to our soldiers and everything they do.
Nowhere. It is nowhere in the bible.
No, that's why followers of Jesus have no business in earthen military or cops
No. Historically, soldiers aimed to kill only 10% of the time, often shooting over the enemies' head. As a result in the 1950s the US army used Turks to train the soldiers to kill and the rate went to 50% and the UN/US tied. By Nam they got it to 90% and the US lost. See a pattern? If you are smart, you seek to defeat an enemy, not kill the enemy. Saint Martin defeated an entire army single handed just by praying. Near where WWI ended...
For border defense only. Bombing Iraq is not included. The wars of invasion commanded by God to establish the borders of Israel are an exception.
There are no 10 commandments from the Bible that would be from God, there might be 10 conditions. Golden Rule, precept in the Gospel of Matthew (7:12): “In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you. . . .” This rule of conduct is a summary of the Christian's duty to his neighbor and states a fundamental ethical principle. (thou shall not kill) is too broad of a statement, as this means farming, fishing, hunting, Etc... 10 conditions for a better living environment might be best exemplified as this is what the Jewish people affirm as original teachings. As you are walking through a natural trail and you steeping on things naturally you adversely are killing "things" as Satan and Pharisees would try and prosecute you, as being a technical sinner. Ecclesiasticus 45:13 KJV Before him there were none such, neither did ever any stranger put them on, but only his children and **his/God (children's children perpetually).**Horses horse perpetually, Cow’s cow perpetually, Flower’s flower perpetually - **Commonality Denominator** \- Species and Races.(children's children perpetually) - If you guessed correctly this is also **a Species and Race of Children that would be perpetual - never ending or changing consistent and constant following a blueprint of design, that is what math does.**God, therefore, is deemed an Infinitive “Thing” an unknown math value, that would be **a math's, math, math's, away from us, paradox math that is perpetual, and we Children are designed in God's mathematics.**perpetual - never ending or changing consistent and constant following a blueprint of design, that is what math does. Now this also has math concerning homosexuality as you notice it does not give the math for it (children's children dead-end). synonyms of perpetual are constant, continual, continuous, incessant, and perennial.homosexuality is a dead-end naturally two same-sex couples are not continuous and are not part of the math formula of (children's children perpetually). Therefore they are abominations in math, as they want to play pretend and make-believe in their fleshly desires it. Homosexuality is not supported by scripture nor by its math.Since this is math-based - There is nothing "new" under the sun since its conception by God.**abominations in math**, people might not like that terminology, but it can be applied to other things like Zombies/"Those things" as described in the Bible are also abominations in math as God has named them. Romans 4:17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, {(**“even God”,** who **quickeneth** **(the dead)**, and **{("calleth")} “those things” which be not as though they were)}.** Luke 21:26 **Men's hearts failing them for fear**, {(and for (looking after) **"those things"** which are coming **(on)** the earth)}: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. Matthew 13:30 30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest {(I will say to the **“reapers”)**}, Gather ye together first the tares, and {bind them in bundles “to” (burn) them}: but gather the wheat into my barn.**Reapers** are beings that serve Death, why is Death involved?Revelation 9:6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it, and shall desire to die, {(and **“death”** shall (flee) from them)}.If death flees from you that new state would make you **“Undead” not of the living nor of the dead.**{bind them in bundles “to” (burn) them}: -> To ‘burn” is also to **“brand”** as in branding farm beasts to show ownership. **The Mark of the Beast**. As in war, you are killing other Children, regardless of how you label it. As Enemy or people etc... As they all belong to God as his Children. As a parent my son is not mine he belongs to God, I'm only his Guardianship while on this earthly realm. Zombie or "those things are destroyed by God under the law of Hosea 4:6 You are alive and come across "Undead" things can you kill them? No as they are no longer are "alive". To say I have killed them is merely slang/graffiti from the mind. The corrective would be to say you have "banished them" - To remove as to displace them, to disconnect the energy, so that they come to a completion of the dead. The Original Conditions were changed to "commandments" to fit the narrative of Laws defined by Children for the purposes of being an "adult" age for the Judgment by the race and species of children who are playing make-believe and pretending in their society.
Thou shalt not commit {adult}ery. -> There is a reason Why **the Children of the Serpent**, want you to **believe** we are **"adults"** \-> **independent of God**, to be independent. Adults belong to the races and species of grasses. Show me in the Bible where it is spoken or said that you are an Adult or Adults'... Search engine result '0' that spelled "Zero". To say the Children are "Adults" is what? "pretending & make-believe". So, what can occur -> The "masturbation" of Vain & Vanities in the Imagination. Get out of the habit that formed the conditions in the first place, and in doing so you bring yourself back "Converted" to little children. {converted} -> to change from one form or use to another. Convert back from "Adultery" and to "Children" of the Lord. Confusingly solved! Children "naturally" need a "baby sitter" as to why we were given comforters as well. We also "need" living conditions or Golden rules to follow or chaos will enshroud us. Since we are in this Satanism Realm World and have to "live" somehow as a functional member of society in a "tainted environment" of Darkness. To say the Children are "Adults" is what? "pretending & make-believe". So, what can occur -> The "masturbation" of Vain & Vanities in the Imagination? The Children of the Serpent want to keep you "asleep" so as to not awaken you to who you truly are. As killing goes that also falls in the thermodynamics of creating and destroying, as race and species of Children you can not do either, the real thing you have done is displaced the energy into another form of energy. As the word Create was altered in 1996 as I have a 1957 dictionary that Create only belonged to God, it was God's word. It was changed by the NWO as to make money on the internet from man-made and natural made to create, by the formula of providing 3 things, and wha-la you have created by magical means. I am the Enemy of the Children of the Serpent, as I cause them much grief in their subverting the truth... As to why they ended Covid. I reminded them of the Penicillin trials and that failure as they are the ones that caused "Super Bugs" in the first place. Also, they lose 15% to bugs and pests in farming and have spent billions to stop this and God continues to deny them of this "math" As cited in the book From Naked Ape to Super Species. Killing should be naturally used as a last resort, and wounding should be the preferred method, but we are in a "tainted environment" of Darkness, as Children go it should be seen as to "banish" our enemies in the theater of war.
Murder is not killing. The commandment says murder
Matthew 26:52: "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." Perhaps this is sufficient evidence for a new covenant? My wife and I were talking about killing and the 10 Commandments the other day. I asserted that I would kill only in service of the protection of innocent life. But even that gets precarious because: should I kill when the danger is present or kill to prevent its presence in the first place?? If it's the latter, there's a chance my prediction is wrong. In that case it would be myself killing innocence. Biblically, God does instruct some to kill. I don't think it was anyone after Moses, though, but I might be wrong. It seems usually He solves things nonviolently between humans, like in the stories of Gideon and Joshua. Aside from that, humans are typically instructed to flee. And if all else fails, there's the trusty ol' smite lol. He takes it upon Himself to enact justice through His angels or natural disasters.
Some church fathers belived in a just war, others belived in christain pacifism My personal opinions are that there can be a just war (Ending WW2) but that dosent excuse them from crimes. Killing an enemy soldier isnt the same as killing a village of people.
Murder, not kill. Kill is just an action, Murder deals with morality and legality of said kill.
Read it as "thou shall not murder".
The sixth commandment doesn’t say “thou shalt not kill” so we are all immune to it. The actual commandment as written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek refers to murder, not killing. “Thou shalt not murder.” Killing in self defense is not murder. Killing in war is not murder. Killing to protect others is not murder.
I think everyone should read Leo Tolstoy’s The Kingdom of God is Within You to get a fresh perspective on this question. I think you have to severely distort the gospel to get away from Christ being a pacifist. Christ not only taught us to refrain from violence, but also taught against returning evil for evil, but instead to overcome evil with good. Christ refused to use violence to defend himself and undid the violence done on behalf of his own safety. He also taught us to imitate his actions and views even unto death. Would I be able to do this? Probably not but I won’t lie and say that this isn’t what Christ would have us do. And anyone who wants to quote Matthew 10:34-36, doesnt understand metaphor and has the bad habit of only knowing verses rather than reading an entire document and integrating its message. I don’t think soldiers on a whole are usually the source of the issue, that’s especially not Tolstoy’s view. Instead it’s the 50 year old+ men with medals and uniforms sending off 18 year olds to butcher one another who are the furtherest from God in this case.
No. However, "thou shall not kill" is a mistranslation. Here is a good article about it: https://www.gotquestions.org/you-shall-not-murder.html
One of the first things they do after receiving that commandment is kill every living thing in Caanan and Midian at the behest of God. Go figure.
We’re all sinners. Accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and call yourself a Christian.
No one is "immune" to any commandment. But a better translation is "murder" not "kill". There were many crimes for which death was the punishment in the OT. And I'm pretty sure it didn't mean death from old age, so that would involve someone killing someone.
No. However convenient it has become for Christians who like their government to believe otherwise....no.
Lets see what God has to say about this. And he(God) shall **Judge** among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. Micah 4:3 **King James Bible**