I'd act in self-defence the best way I could, in case things get serious, but in case of killing, I would later repent for having taken a human life. That's my view.

StyLaZyn wrote: Epignosis wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: Epignosis wrote: Deathrabbit wrote: So question for you Epi? DO you believe that the things that are good are only so b/c God does them, or b/c of some intrinsic value? IE: Would rape be good if God suddenly said it was? That's an excellent question, with a simple answer (I don't fear rhetorical reprecussions, you know! ). The Bible is clear that nothing is good unless God declares it to be good. If God (the creator of morality) said "rape is now good," who am I to argue with Him?  Fortunately, I have full confidence that God will not say such a thing, because the Bible also says He abhors rape and that He does not change. But he doesn't abhor murder/killing? Yes. No. Even human court systems recognize a fundamental difference between killing and murdering (Soldiers fighting in a war are not charged with murder when they kill an enemy). Love your enemy?

The context of Matthew chapter five has nothing to do with war.

Jesus's sermon there refers to a militant attitude in interpersonal relationships, not those who are a threat to one's livelihood or family.  The "enemy" here is not a someone who would seek to kill me, my family, or harm my country, but one with whom I am feuding (this marks a HUGE difference between the Ancient Near Eastern concept of love and the Western idea of what love is).  Note that the WHOLE of Matthew chapter 5 details the relationship of people in the in-group (that is, people already attached to one another through some core belief)- in other words, this is how followers in Christ should treat each other (I can prove this if you would like me to).

And what Jesus was teaching was NOT radically different from what the law and proverbs of the Old Testament had to say.  Notice these verses:

"If you come across your enemy's ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to take it back to him. If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there; be sure you help him with it. (Exodus 23:4-5)

Do not gloat when your enemy falls; when he stumbles, do not let your heart rejoice, or the Lord will see and disapprove and turn his wrath away from him. (Proverbs 24:17-18)

Note that the verse in Exodus is taken from the law of the Hebrews- hence "enemy" means another Hebrew family that the first group is feuding with.  It does not mean a murderer (who is subject to judgment) or a militant nation (subject to war).

StyLaZyn wrote: Epignosis wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: Epignosis wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: Epignosis wrote: Deathrabbit wrote: So question for you Epi? DO you believe that the things that are good are only so b/c God does them, or b/c of some intrinsic value? IE: Would rape be good if God suddenly said it was? That's an excellent question, with a simple answer (I don't fear rhetorical reprecussions, you know! ). The Bible is clear that nothing is good unless God declares it to be good. If God (the creator of morality) said "rape is now good," who am I to argue with Him?  Fortunately, I have full confidence that God will not say such a thing, because the Bible also says He abhors rape and that He does not change. But he doesn't abhor murder/killing? Yes. No. Even human court systems recognize a fundamental difference between killing and murdering (Soldiers fighting in a war are not charged with murder when they kill an enemy). Love your enemy? The context of Matthew chapter five has nothing to do with war. Jesus's sermon there refers to a militant attitude in interpersonal relationships, not those who are a threat to one's livelihood or family.  The "enemy" here is not a someone who would seek to kill me, my family, or harm my country, but one with whom I am feuding (this marks a HUGE difference between the Ancient Near Eastern concept of love and the Western idea of what love is).  Note that the WHOLE of Matthew chapter 5 details the relationship of people in the in-group (that is, people already attached to one another through some core belief)- in other words, this is how followers in Christ should treat each other (I can prove this if you would like me to). And what Jesus was teaching was NOT radically different from what the law and proverbs of the Old Testament had to say.  Notice these verses: "If you come across your enemy's ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to take it back to him. If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there; be sure you help him with it. (Exodus 23:4-5) Do not gloat when your enemy falls; when he stumbles, do not let your heart rejoice, or the Lord will see and disapprove and turn his wrath away from him. (Proverbs 24:17-18) Note that the verse in Exodus is taken from the law of the Hebrews- hence "enemy" means another Hebrew family that the first group is feuding with.  It does not mean a murderer (who is subject to judgment) or a militant nation (subject to war). So you are saying Jesus would kill someone.

Where did I ever say that?

Epignosis wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: Epignosis wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: Epignosis wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: Epignosis wrote: Deathrabbit wrote: So question for you Epi? DO you believe that the things that are good are only so b/c God does them, or b/c of some intrinsic value? IE: Would rape be good if God suddenly said it was? That's an excellent question, with a simple answer (I don't fear rhetorical reprecussions, you know! ). The Bible is clear that nothing is good unless God declares it to be good. If God (the creator of morality) said "rape is now good," who am I to argue with Him?  Fortunately, I have full confidence that God will not say such a thing, because the Bible also says He abhors rape and that He does not change. But he doesn't abhor murder/killing? Yes. No. Even human court systems recognize a fundamental difference between killing and murdering (Soldiers fighting in a war are not charged with murder when they kill an enemy). Love your enemy? The context of Matthew chapter five has nothing to do with war. Jesus's sermon there refers to a militant attitude in interpersonal relationships, not those who are a threat to one's livelihood or family.  The "enemy" here is not a someone who would seek to kill me, my family, or harm my country, but one with whom I am feuding (this marks a HUGE difference between the Ancient Near Eastern concept of love and the Western idea of what love is).  Note that the WHOLE of Matthew chapter 5 details the relationship of people in the in-group (that is, people already attached to one another through some core belief)- in other words, this is how followers in Christ should treat each other (I can prove this if you would like me to). And what Jesus was teaching was NOT radically different from what the law and proverbs of the Old Testament had to say.  Notice these verses: "If you come across your enemy's ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to take it back to him. If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there; be sure you help him with it. (Exodus 23:4-5) Do not gloat when your enemy falls; when he stumbles, do not let your heart rejoice, or the Lord will see and disapprove and turn his wrath away from him. (Proverbs 24:17-18) Note that the verse in Exodus is taken from the law of the Hebrews- hence "enemy" means another Hebrew family that the first group is feuding with.  It does not mean a murderer (who is subject to judgment) or a militant nation (subject to war). So you are saying Jesus would kill someone. Where did I ever say that?

I wonder to what extent Jesus would support the death penalty -- for murderers, and also in regards to  so-called traitors and enemies of the state.  I saw a somewhat interesting debate between a Roman Catholic priest who was against the death penalty and an evangelical preacher who supported the death penalty (don't remember the limitations that were given for use of the death penalty as different countries and states have different standards/ laws).

Epignosis wrote: I don't believe he would.  If he did, I suppose he could light the bushes in front of my home on fire and speak to me that way.

Epignosis wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: Epignosis wrote: I don't believe he would.  If he did, I suppose he could light the bushes in front of my home on fire and speak to me that way. I'm trying to make a point. If the Bible\God\Jesus is OK with you killing someone, it should also be OK to provide information on how to do it.  Does this make sense?  Yes.  I agree with you.  The Bible is full of places in which God orders the killing of certain people (Joshua chapter six is a huge example I'm surprised no critics of Christianity have jumped on yet).

Epignosis wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: Epignosis wrote: I don't believe he would.  If he did, I suppose he could light the bushes in front of my home on fire and speak to me that way. I'm trying to make a point. If the Bible\God\Jesus is OK with you killing someone, it should also be OK to provide information on how to do it.  Does this make sense?  Yes.  I agree with you.  The Bible is full of places in which God orders the killing of certain people (Joshua chapter six is a huge example I'm surprised no critics of Christianity have jumped on yet).

I'm game for that. I don't know specific verses, but the Old Testament is a pretty horrible piece of literature if there ever was one. Genocide, senseless killing of animals, and an overall unreasonably vicious God.

The Gospels are entirely more agreeable, though civilized thought had basically covered all of its good ideas by that time.

stonebeard wrote: Epignosis wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: Epignosis wrote: I don't believe he would.  If he did, I suppose he could light the bushes in front of my home on fire and speak to me that way. I'm trying to make a point. If the Bible\God\Jesus is OK with you killing someone, it should also be OK to provide information on how to do it.  Does this make sense?  Yes.  I agree with you.  The Bible is full of places in which God orders the killing of certain people (Joshua chapter six is a huge example I'm surprised no critics of Christianity have jumped on yet). I'm game for that. I don't know specific verses, but the Old Testament is a pretty horrible piece of literature if there ever was one. Genocide, senseless killing of animals, and an overall unreasonably vicious God. The Gospels are entirely more agreeable, though civilized thought had basically covered all of its good ideas by that time.

If you read the sources I mentioned here just now, you'll see first of all that God never ordered genocide (despite one of the sources titles).

stonebeard wrote: Epignosis wrote: StyLaZyn wrote: Epignosis wrote: I don't believe he would.  If he did, I suppose he could light the bushes in front of my home on fire and speak to me that way. I'm trying to make a point. If the Bible\God\Jesus is OK with you killing someone, it should also be OK to provide information on how to do it.  Does this make sense?  <font size="3" face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Yes.  I agree with you.  The Bible is full of places in which God orders the killing of certain people (Joshua chapter six is a huge example I'm surprised no critics of Christianity have jumped on yet). I'm game for that. I don't know specific verses, but the Old Testament is a pretty horrible piece of literature if there ever was one. Genocide, senseless killing of animals, and an overall unreasonably vicious God.The Gospels are entirely more agreeable, though civilized thought had basically covered all of its good ideas by that time.

As far as I know, God has never said that animals and man are equal. That's a concept of mankind itself dreamt up. So it doesn't surprise me that He supported animal slaughter for His glory.

Edited by p0mt3 - June 03 2009 at 14:36