SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Will You Kill or Be Killed?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 Next Page )
PosterThread
ginnyrose
Member



Joined: 2004/7/7
Posts: 7474
Mississippi

 Re:

Well, I had a good morning..hope y'all did the same...We attended church services this morning and our preacher preached about the Church - it being a sheepfold. He shared a lot of very interesting points that I will share later.

Old Joe wrote:
How do you reconcile the OT command of killing of homosexuals with the ALSO OT command of "thou shalt not kill"?

I am not Jesus-is-God, but will share as I understand it.

Killing another human being is very serious, regardless who it may be. However, under the OT law God did stipulate that the penalty of certain sins be punished with death. How is this 'killing' different from 'thou shalt not kill?' One is man initiated and the other is God.

In Exodus 21:12-16 it details some acts whose reward was capital punishment. It also details in Exodus 21:13 what to do when one accidentally kills another person.

The kill as in "Thou shalt not kill" finds its definition in Exodus 21:14.

Chris wrote:
The Scriptures in the New Testament prohibit lust. However, most would agree that it is perfectly acceptable (and even commendable) to desire physical intimacy with your spouse.

As I understand lust it is similar to covetousness and that would mean to desire what is not yours whether it be things or persons. To desire intimacy with ones spouse is a God-given desire: it is the fulfilment of God's command to 'be fruitful and multiply' given before man ever sinned.

Chris wrote:
"but physical spanking seems to work quite well in the discipline of a child. Yet, it is still a form of physical resistance."

Killing a child and spanking a child are two totally different things. No one who exercises discipline will ever advocate killing a child. This is murder.

Our pastor preached about sheep this morning. In the course of his sermon he shared characteristics of sheep because Jesus refers to his followers as sheep. And one trait is that they are not predatory, unlike many other animals, like cats, dogs, birds, etc. Sheep are prey for other animals but they do not prey on others. The shepherd's job is to protect his sheep from predators.

Interesting lesson there.

ginnyrose


_________________
Sandra Miller

 2009/10/4 17:49Profile









 Re:

Quote:

Jesus-is-GOD wrote:
Brother, have you not read the N.T.?

I don't consider you a simpleton!

No where in the NT are we told to "kill" people who are homosexual or any other sort of sinners that are listed in those same verses - ie. adulterers, thiefs, and so forth.

You know that Joe - that's why I should not have to re-post almost the entire NT on this thread.

Jesus said - "It is written, an eye for an eye - but I say ....................."


We ALL should know at least the NT by now.






I am sure you also realize there was a time when the NT did not exist. All that existed was the OT, and it had two opposite commands. How would you reconcile those two commands?

 2009/10/4 17:53









 Re:

Quote:

ginnyrose wrote:
Old Joe wrote:
How do you reconcile the OT command of killing of homosexuals with the ALSO OT command of "thou shalt not kill"?

I am not Jesus-is-God, but will share as I understand it.

Killing another human being is very serious, regardless who it may be. However, under the OT law God did stipulate that the penalty of certain sins be punished with death. How is this 'killing' different from 'thou shalt not kill?' One is man initiated and the other is God.

In Exodus 21:12-16 it details some acts whose reward was capital punishment. It also details in Exodus 21:13 what to do when one accidentally kills another person.

The kill as in "Thou shalt not kill" finds its definition in Exodus 21:14.
...



So then you agree that there is a time to kill, and a time not to kill.

 2009/10/4 17:56









 Re:

Quote:

Old_Joe wrote:
Quote:

Jesus-is-GOD wrote:
Brother, have you not read the N.T.?

I don't consider you a simpleton!

No where in the NT are we told to "kill" people who are homosexual or any other sort of sinners that are listed in those same verses - ie. adulterers, thiefs, and so forth.

You know that Joe - that's why I should not have to re-post almost the entire NT on this thread.

Jesus said - "It is written, an eye for an eye - but I say ....................."


We ALL should know at least the NT by now.






I am sure you also realize there was a time when the NT did not exist. All that existed was the OT, and it had two opposite commands. How would you reconcile those two commands?



GOD makes the rules - OT and then NT and it's not up to me or anyone else to question His laws.


 2009/10/4 18:06









 Re:

Hi Joe,

Yes, if God commanded me to go to war then it would be off to war I would go and hopefully I would fight as a warrior since that is the name of my site :) Actually, when I named my site, one of the warriors I thought about was a frriend of our family. Her son was shot five times and left to die in the street. When interviewd by the local paper she publicly forgave her son's murderer. So powerful especially when one considers that there was not enough evidence to bring the case to trial and the man , who actually bragged about the killing, walks the streets. This kind of power, to me, is the power of the warrior. Could I do the same? I am not sure. Yet I know that what I would or would not do would not do would have no bearing on the Truth...........Frank

 2009/10/4 18:06









 Re:

There are two kinds of non-resistors in regards to war, those who are afraid to die, and those who aren't willing to dirty their hands, but would certainly have someone else do it on their behalf. Neither would have fared well against Goliath.

Num 32:6 And Moses said unto the children of Gad and to the children of Reuben, Shall your brethren go to war, and shall ye sit here?

Should I sit here in comfort while my atheist neighbour goes to war allowing me to sit here, all the while I am chastising him for being there? That absolutely SCREAMS of hypocrisy, the stench of which is putrid in the nostrils of God.

Non-resistors simply seek to reap the spoils of war without the pains.

 2009/10/4 18:10
chapel
Member



Joined: 2009/4/24
Posts: 280


 Re:

Quote:

Old_Joe wrote:
BTW
The first gentile convert was Cornelian the Centurion, (a leader of 100 men in the army), and he stayed in his position. Acts 10.

The first gentile convert was a military man....

Interesting....




Resisting Nonresistance IV: Acts 10

Posted on May 30th, 2007

Posted by Thom under Christian Ethics

The following day he arrived in Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends. As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. But Peter made him get up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself.” Talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?” Cornelius answered: “Four days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon. Suddenly a man in shining clothes stood before me and said, ‘Cornelius, God has heard your prayer and remembered your gifts to the poor. Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He is a guest in the home of Simon the tanner, who lives by the sea.’ So I sent for you immediately, and it was good of you to come. Now we are all here in the presence of God to listen to everything the Lord has commanded you to tell us.” Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right. You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. You know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached—how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him. We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days. (Acts 10:24-48)


The Basic Argument

Here is a third case of the same basic argument. If soldiering really is sinful for the Christian, God missed his third opportunity to make that clear to us, here in Acts 10. When Peter brought the kingdom of God to Cornelius’s household, he did not command the centurion to tender his resignation. This fact puts the final nail in the pacifist coffin. This third and final case leaves us with no doubt that the soldier’s life and the life of the Christian are not in conflict with one another, but can in fact coexist “peacefully,” as it were.

For Argument’s Sake

Despite the fact that this particular argument suffers from many of the same devastating problems as the arguments from Luke 3:14 and 7:1-10, it does have one advantage over them. While it may be argued that John the Baptist’s silence to the soldiers is explained by his limited understanding of the nature of the kingdom (as betrayed in Luke 7:18ff), and while it might possibly be conceded that Jesus’ silence to the centurion (also in Luke 7) is fairly explained by his limited mission to Israel, here in the case of Acts 10—Peter’s encounter with Cornelius—neither of these two points obtain. Clearly, if entrance into the kingdom required the renunciation of the sword, a post-Pentecost Peter would have understood that fact. Moreover, the limited nature of Jesus’ mission to Israel (to the exclusion of gentiles) ends exactly here in this very encounter of Peter (who holds the keys to the kingdom) with Cornelius, the first gentile citizen of the kingdom of God. If ever there was a time to speak out against Roman militarism, this seems to have been it! Yet Peter seems just as silent as Jesus and John.

Why the Argument Fails

Nevertheless, the problems with this reading far outweigh this single point in favor, and even this point is based on a mistake (I do not believe Peter was at all silent to Cornelius about the sword). We shall address that presently, but first it must be pointed out once again that even if it were the case that Peter was silent to Cornelius about the sword, the argument is still an argument from silence. There simply is no way of knowing that Peter did not address the issue at some other point in time. Or perhaps Peter did address it in his speech and Luke simply did not record it, for literary, political, or thematic reasons. For instance, given the socio-political conditions of Luke’s day, Cornelius’s renunciation of the sword very well could have been one of the obvious implications of his conversion. Luke did not record it because it was simply understood. Or perhaps Luke did not make explicit what would have been obvious to most insiders in order to protect Cornelius from the repercussions of having defected from the imperial army. Luke did not record it because such a record would have needlessly endangered Cornelius’s life. Perhaps both of those explanations are true. Or perhaps Luke did not mention the renunciation of Cornelius’s sword because—as a gentile himself—this event’s significance had more to do with the justification of the gentiles together with Israel, the reconciliation of two formerly estranged races of men. Luke did not record it because it was not the question driving his narrative, whereas the justification of the gentiles was. All of these readings are just as logically, textually, and contextually possible as the one posited by the nonpacifists. In fact, I would argue that the readings I have suggested (each compatible with the other) are much more likely readings than the reading that turns Peter’s alleged silence into the legitimization of the Roman military machine.

We must bear in mind that the Peter the nonpacifist reading suggests is at least tacitly approving of Roman militarism is the same Peter whose master was murdered by Roman “justice.” Peter was anti-Roman before Rome publicly executed his master. Are we to believe that after this gross miscarriage of justice Peter found good reason to think that Rome had become a just state, with a legitimate military agenda—that the empire of Caesar had somehow become compatible with the kingdom of the Messiah, the same Messiah the empire had no choice but to crucify? I think not. Especially since this particular injustice was only the culmination of centuries of the same. The resurrection of that Messiah from the dead changed a great many things for Peter, but are we to believe that the resurrection somehow magically transformed Rome from an unjust and idolatrous occupying force, in Peter’s eyes, into a legitimate state with legitimate interests? If that is what the resurrection accomplished, it only achieved on Rome’s behalf the objective of its propaganda. Nothing in this scenario has changed, except that Peter has now gone from being political to apolitical—which in effect just means that he has given his tacit political allegiance to whomever happens to be in charge.

But that is not at all what the resurrection means. The resurrection of the Messiah does not change what Rome is. Rather, the resurrection vindicates the one Rome crucified as the one who really is what Caesar claims to be—lord of the cosmos. What changes is not Rome’s nature. Rome’s nature remains idolatrous, rebellious, unjust, evil. What changes is how those who follow the Crucified One can relate to such evil. What changes is not Peter’s knowledge of Rome’s evil, but Peter’s approach to it—from sword-swinging zealotism to Spirit-baptizing pacifism, for if the one who was crucified was also resurrected, his renunciation of the sword becomes perfectly intelligible.

Indeed, we must bear in mind that the Peter who converts the centurion is the very same Peter who in the second chapter of his first epistle reminds us that all Christians share the same calling. “To this you were called,” Peter writes, “because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example that you should follow in his steps.” Does Peter have one standard for non-military Christians and another for centurions? We have no indication that he does. Silence, I am afraid, is not an indication of anything.

Yet church tradition is not silent about Cornelius’s profession. According to both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox tradition, Cornelius renounced his allegiance to Caesar and became bishop of Caesarea. According to Orthodox tradition, Cornelius would later be executed in Ephesus for preaching against idolatry. Granted that such tradition is not Scripture, but neither is the tradition that Peter was crucified upside-down Scripture, or the tradition that Paul was beheaded at the command of the Roman emperor. Yet we have no stake in challenging those traditions. Moreover, neither traditional Roman Catholicism nor Eastern Orthodoxy sees the conflict that I see between being a soldier and a Christian. In other words, the tradition about Cornelius is not an apologetic thought up by some pacifist.

Frankly, I have no stake in the Catholic and Orthodox tradition about Cornelius. I only bring it up to demonstrate, yet again, that there are other possibilities than the one upon which the nonpacifists wish to claim the legitimacy of biblical pacifism hinges. Yet another possibility—which is actually what Luke says happened—is that Peter instructed Cornelius further about the demands of discipleship. Luke tells us in 10:48 that after their baptism, Cornelius “asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.” And that is no surprise. If I were a Roman centurion, and if I had just learned that the whole basis for my life’s work had been undermined by a Jew—a Jew executed by my own comrades-in-arms, no less!—I would want to hear more about it too.

One might ask in what way it can be said that Peter’s sermon undermined Cornelius’s whole life’s work. This brings us to the question of Peter’s alleged silence. Was Peter really silent about the sword in his sermon to Cornelius? Or are our own political categories obscuring the text from us? In Acts 10:36 Peter declares, “You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all.” That phrase, “the euangelion of peace,” coupled with the fact that every scholar understands Peter’s sermon in Luke to be a condensed version of Peter’s actual sermon, leads me to the conviction that Peter was not silent, as is too often supposed, about the question of Cornelius’s sword. For what is the euangelion of peace through Jesus Christ if not a direct challenge to the euangelion of peace through Caesar?

In a postconstantinian world, it is no surprise that this tension implicit in the text should go undetected. Yet in the first century Roman world, it could not have been easily missed. Christians everywhere knew that to call Caesar lord was a denial of the lordship of Christ. Christians everywhere knew that the expansion of the kingdom into the gentile world was an extension of the command of Jesus to love the enemy. Christians, in other words, did not recognize the modern distinction between religion and politics. Religion was not about “spirituality” and politics about “public life.” For Christians, to be Christian meant to be a part of an alternative politic that challenged the politics of Caesar. To call Jesus “savior” and “lord” (these are political titles) was to call Caesar “not savior” and “not lord.” Everyone understood this, so much so that it would not have been necessary to make it explicit in conversion accounts such as that of Cornelius. To become a Christian in that context simply meant to give one’s allegiance to a different king and to adopt a different political agenda.[1] Hence Peter makes it clear in his sermon to Cornelius that the resurrection of the crucified Jew means that God has controverted Caesar’s claims, proclaiming Jesus of Nazareth to be “Lord of all” (10:36). As such, the Cornelius account would have been read in a context where the subversive (yet nonviolent) nature of what was then called “The Way” was simply understood—it went without saying. Yet it did not go without saying, because Peter preached a sermon on the euangelion of peace, not through Caesar’s Pax Romana, but through Jesus Christ, whom Rome crucified.

At this point I ought to make it clear that by emphasizing the political nature of Peter’s phrase (the good news of peace through Jesus Christ) I do not mean to deny the spiritual “aspect” of that peace. Yet we have made a mistake already once we have made an easy distinction between the “political” and the “spiritual” in the gospel story. That this peace is spiritual does not make it immaterial or apolitical. There is no way anyone in the Roman world would have understood “the euangelion of peace” to be an apolitical message. The word euangelion, from which we derive our “gospel” or “good news,” was a political term. For instance, when Rome had been victorious on a military campaign, a messenger would come back ahead of the camp to proclaim the good news (the euangelion) to the city, the good news that Caesar had once again been victorious. “Euangelion!” he would say. “The battle belongs to Caesar and to the Pax Romana!” Thus, when the messengers of a different king came proclaiming in precisely the same language that a political revolutionary the likes of whom Rome had already dispensed with had been vindicated by God as the true universal peacemaker, the challenge to Caesar’s legitimacy was wildly unambiguous.


Which brings us to the real problem with the nonpacifist interpretation of Cornelius’s conversion: it fails to see the entirely pacifistic thrust of the account itself. Remember that as a centurion, Cornelius is commissioned by Rome as a peacekeeper, according to their definition of peace. Caesar proclaims himself to be the universal peacemaker; he calls himself the son of god. Thus as an agent of Rome, Cornelius is an agent of Caesar’s peace. As such, the fact that Cornelius’s conversion was a subversive activity is painfully apparent. The account of the conversion of Cornelius is not an answer to the question of legitimate violence. It is a direct challenge to the Pax Romana of which Cornelius was formerly an agent. It is the conversion of Cornelius that heralds the beginning of the end of the enmity that for millennia had separated Jew from Gentile, Gentile from Jew—an enmity against which the Pax Romana was impotent. The conversion of Cornelius announces the truth that even homes bought by pagan violence are being visited by the peace of YHWH’s kingdom wrought by Christ. The conversion of Cornelius is indeed the proclamation to Jew and Gentile alike that in Christ—not under Caesar—peace has finally been established among the nations (Eph 2:14-15). To become a Christian is precisely, through the sufferings of Christ and the martyrs, to become established as a citizen of the very peaceable kingdom that the Caesars, through the wealth of the exploited and the blood of the barbarians, tried but failed to achieve.

Thom Stark





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[1] In fact, the very word “repent” as it was used in the first century quite naturally entails such a radical change of allegiance. Thus the Pharisee Josephus, after going over to the Romans during the Jewish War of 66-70, can shout out to his fellow Jews, “Repent, and you will be saved. For God is with the Romans.” Josephus wanted his kinsmen to “repent,” i.e., to join the winning side.



_________________
Lee Chapel

 2009/10/4 18:12Profile









 Re:

Quote:

Jesus-is-GOD wrote:
Quote:

Old_Joe wrote:
Quote:

Jesus-is-GOD wrote:
Brother, have you not read the N.T.?

I don't consider you a simpleton!

No where in the NT are we told to "kill" people who are homosexual or any other sort of sinners that are listed in those same verses - ie. adulterers, thiefs, and so forth.

You know that Joe - that's why I should not have to re-post almost the entire NT on this thread.

Jesus said - "It is written, an eye for an eye - but I say ....................."


We ALL should know at least the NT by now.






I am sure you also realize there was a time when the NT did not exist. All that existed was the OT, and it had two opposite commands. How would you reconcile those two commands?



GOD makes the rules - OT and then NT and it's not up to me or anyone else to question His laws.





There are hundreds of other cases with opposing commands that need to be reconciled, this one is rather simple. Surely with your great Bible knowledge you can reconcile two opposing commands.

 2009/10/4 18:15









 Re:

Resistance is just, when it is to preserve the life of another.

Killing is just, when it is to preserve the life of an innocent or the lives of many.

In each case it is in the behalf of another.

This is why the OT commanded gross sinners to be killed. Their death preserved the lives of many in Israel, preventing them from being killed by their enemies, on account of the conditional promises of blessings and long life for obedience.

In the NT whether we live or die is not conditioned on a holy representation of God before the lost, therefore these commands are abrogated.


However the ending of one life to preserve the lives of many remains the honourable thing to do in representing God to a fallen world. To abstain from this is cowardice before God.

 2009/10/4 18:31









 Re:

Joe wrote: "However the ending of one life to preserve the lives of many remains the honourable thing to do in representing God to a fallen world.

To abstain from this is cowardice before God."

In this quote - This may seem 'noble' in your eyes but here, You are "speaking for God".

HOW do we know if the "war" we're enlisted to is God's Will to begin with?

Are all wars "Just wars" or "ordered by GOD"?

I would jump on an attacker of anyone to try to save the victims life and there are ways to save the victims life by not killing the attacker and this I know from at least two experiences I've had.

What we are saying by thinking that it's all "in our hands to save" is that GOD is Not In Control and that it's up to us to take control of all situations world wide.

Joe, in the arena, some would throw themselves over others so that the lions would get them instead of the others.

We are not to follow what the secular world thinks but the leading by The Holy Spirit.

A non-resistant would throw themselves in front of the person that the gun is being pointed at.

There are countless stories of the Missionaries, and through-out Church history where the non-resistants saved many many lives at the expense of their own.

We have NO FEAR of death - but do fear sending any unsaved person to Hell when it was not GOD's timing nor His Will.

GOD Will Provide a way for us to save lives without taking any.

If we cannot Trust GOD in this as we should in all things - by "walking in The Spirit" - as His Apostles and disciples have through-out Church History - then we are thinking by the world's standards ... which is normally to send the sinner to Hell ourselves, by our own hands.

Better a saved person die for the unsaved by not killing them.
Better to trust GOD to play out His own will than to take things into our own hands.

Either we can Trust GOD or we can't --- but He said that every hair on our heads are numbered and that He is even in control of a sparrow's fall.

Our first obligation to mankind is to keep them out of Hell and not send them there by killing them.

GOD is able to save the lives of those whom He puts in our paths by His power and by our willingness to lay down our lives for them - Amen - HE IS ABLE.

If it's His will for them to live - they will live. If it is His will for any to die - they will die and this He has proven in His Trust-worthy Word.

Non-resistants through-out the bulk of Church History are not known to God as cowards - only if you haven't read much of Church History or have a worldly mind-set.



Edit: I think of the Corrie Ten Boom family - just for one.

 2009/10/4 18:56





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy