Fighting fire with fire will burn up the whole of the earth.

[popsthebuilder]

Um, yes you can...

OK, SCENARIO:

A family of four, mom, dad, brother, and sister. The parents love their children dearly.

Brother is raping the sister, and tells her that He will harm or kill her if she tells anyone. Eventually, the parents find out.

How do they resolve this issue? They love their children, but they don't want their son harming their daughter, so the only solution is to send their son away, never to return.

In the same way, let's say a nation is doing wicked things, and another nation comes along and demands that they cease their wickedness. They refuse, and refuse, and refuse some more, to where their actions severely harm the nations around them, and the only way to put an end to their wickedness is to destroy them, sending them to await judgment by God. The goal is not to destroy them, but to make them realize that they are in the wrong.

Still disagree?

Consider this:

If your friend is harming himself and/or those around him, would it be more loving to allow them to continue, or more loving to rebuke them and/or get them to stop what they're doing?

This;

"send their son away",

and this

"rebuke them and/or get them to stop what they're doing"

is not synonimous with;

"destroy them"

in any context what so ever.

As such; your premise is false.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

This;

"send their son away",

and this

"rebuke them and/or get them to stop what they're doing"

is not synonimous with;

"destroy them"

in any context what so ever.

As such; your premise is false.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

Pops, if the only way to stop someone from murdering someone else is to kill him, would that not prove you wrong?

 

[popsthebuilder]

Pops, if the only way to stop someone from murdering someone else is to kill him, would that not prove you wrong?

Give a single scenario where one would have to kill in order for one not to be killed.

Then I may consider what you say as a possibility.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Tambora]

This;

"send their son away",

Send him where????
Out in the world, free to continue with someone else?
And if he refuses to leave, what are you going to do?

 

[popsthebuilder]

Send him where????
Out in the world, free to continue with someone else?
And if he refuses to leave, what are you going to do?

Is that tomb raider?

Cool...



Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

Give a single scenario where one would have to kill in order for one not to be killed.

Then I may consider what you say as a possibility.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

“If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and slaughters it or sells it, he shall restore five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep. If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the theft is certainly found alive in his hand, whether it is an ox or donkey or sheep, he shall restore double. - Exodus 22:1-4 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus22:1-4&version=NKJV

In the verse I bolded above, it is understood (by reading the context) that the verse is talking about it happening at night.

That's one situation.

Here's another.

Let's say a man is holding a woman hostage, and using her as a protective shield. There's no way for the police to get behind him or to the side of him to take him out, and the only visible part of him not hidden by the woman is his head. The only way to end this hostage situation (and to protect the woman) would be to shoot the man in the head.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Send him where????
Out in the world, free to continue with someone else?
And if he refuses to leave, what are you going to do?

The scenario I provided unfortunately is something that actually happened (not to me, thankfully, but a friend of a friend). The parents sent the brother away to live with an uncle on his farm in another state.

 

[Tambora]

Is that tomb raider?

No.

 

[popsthebuilder]

“If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and slaughters it or sells it, he shall restore five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep. If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the theft is certainly found alive in his hand, whether it is an ox or donkey or sheep, he shall restore double. - Exodus 22:1-4 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus22:1-4&version=NKJV

In the verse I bolded above, it is understood (by reading the context) that the verse is talking about it happening at night.

That's one situation.

Here's another.

Let's say a man is holding a woman hostage, and using her as a protective shield. There's no way for the police to get behind him or to the side of him to take him out, and the only visible part of him not hidden by the woman is his head. The only way to end this hostage situation (and to protect the woman) would be to shoot the man in the head.

The above says clearly that if one(theif) is killed during the act and the heat of the moment and in the dark, while the act is being perpetrated then the theifs death is not to be judged against the one defending his property.

Good point; shows the defence of one's own possessions to be excusable. But it is in stark contrast to the teachings of the Christ which is to let them have and indeed take more if they are so inclined.

What you mentioned in the ot which isn't utter Truth also in no way excused knowing murder in retaliation of the act of theft.

Your hostage situation is easily bypassed by allowing an avenue for perp to "flee".

If one is using a human sheild then they feel as if they are in real iminent danger....."remove" the danger under the condition of the release of the hostage.....yet what you speak of; if perp has killed already.....and there is woman or child hostage.....don't blink.....take the shot; if safe. I very strongly agree with the defence of those in need; those being misused in some form.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

The above says clearly that if one(theif) is killed during the act and the heat of the moment and in the dark, while the act is being perpetrated then the theifs death is not to be judged against the one defending his property.

Good point; shows the defence of one's own possessions to be excusable. But it is in stark contrast to the teachings of the Christ which is to let them have and indeed take more if they are so inclined.

Except that that verse (which vindicates someone killing an intruder at night) isn't saying that it's ok to kill them to protect your possessions. It's talking about defending your family and yourself.

If an intruder has entered your house at night, you don't know if he's there to kill or to steal. In other words, there's no way to know if he has a weapon on him or if he's unarmed. However, during the day, it's much easier to tell if the intruder has a weapon on him, so if you kill him during the day after seeing no weapon on him, then it's not excusable.

What you mentioned in the ot which isn't utter Truth

I'm going to stop you here, because the rest of your post is based on this false premise.

The OT is just as much a part of scripture as is the NT. It is just as much TRUTH as the New Testament. Paul says:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. - 2 Timothy 3:16-17 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Timothy3:16-17&version=NKJV

The fact that you reject foundational scripture shows that you don't have the proper foundation to even understand what's being talked about here.

also in no way excused knowing murder in retaliation of the act of theft.

Your hostage situation is easily bypassed by allowing an avenue for perp to "flee".

If one is using a human sheild then they feel as if they are in real iminent danger....."remove" the danger under the condition of the release of the hostage.....yet what you speak of; if perp has killed already.....and there is woman or child hostage.....don't blink.....take the shot; if safe. I very strongly agree with the defence of those in need; those being misused in some form.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

No.

Looks like it

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

Except that that verse (which vindicates someone killing an intruder at night) isn't saying that it's ok to kill them to protect your possessions. It's talking about defending your family and yourself.

If an intruder has entered your house at night, you don't know if he's there to kill or to steal. In other words, there's no way to know if he has a weapon on him or if he's unarmed. However, during the day, it's much easier to tell if the intruder has a weapon on him, so if you kill him during the day after seeing no weapon on him, then it's not excusable.



I'm going to stop you here, because the rest of your post is based on this false premise.

The OT is just as much a part of scripture as is the NT. It is just as much TRUTH as the New Testament. Paul says:

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. - 2 Timothy 3:16-17 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Timothy3:16-17&version=NKJV

The fact that you reject foundational scripture shows that you don't have the proper foundation to even understand what's being talked about here.

I don't reject the OT, but when it contradicts the words of the Christ then it is apparent that there is a misunderstanding somewhere.

I've got a scenario for you;

A man is robbed of a particular possession from his property for months at night. He eventually concludes that the perpetrator is an adolescent male approx. 15 in age.

According to Christ what is one to do?

According to the OT what is one to do?

It's night time during the event....is it good to rifle butt them in the side of the face and point blank their wrist with buck shot? Squirrel shot? Why not wait till he goes to leave and catch him with the other barrel.....the one loaded with a slug? Did you not turn the other cheek repeatedly? Do you commit an act of violence in revenge and retribution or do you rebuke the theif?



What would you do?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

I don't reject the OT, but when it contradicts the words of the Christ then it is apparent that there is a misunderstanding somewhere.

Again, the rest of your post is based off of this false premise.

Jesus and the Old Testament do not, repeat DO NOT, contradict, as Jesus, who is God, is the one who told the authors of the Old (and the New) Testament what to write.

You're essentially saying that God is contradicting Himself between the Old and New Testaments.

I won't budge from this until you acknowledge that Jesus does not contradict the Old Testament.

I've got a scenario for you;

A man is robbed of a particular possession from his property for months at night. He eventually concludes that the perpetrator is an adolescent male approx. 15 in age.

According to Christ what is one to do?

According to the OT what is one to do?

It's night time during the event....is it good to rifle butt them in the side of the face and point blank their wrist with buck shot? Squirrel shot? Why not wait till he goes to leave and catch him with the other barrel.....the one loaded with a slug? Did you not turn the other cheek repeatedly? Do you commit an act of violence in revenge and retribution or do you rebuke the theif?



What would you do?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

Again, the rest of your post is based off of this false premise.

Jesus and the Old Testament do not, repeat DO NOT, contradict, as Jesus, who is God, is the one who told the authors of the Old (and the New) Testament what to write.

You're essentially saying that God is contradicting Himself between the Old and New Testaments.

I won't budge from this until you acknowledge that Jesus does not contradict the Old Testament.

Did Jesus promote physical violence?

War?

Slavery?



Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

Did Jesus promote physical violence?

War?

Slavery?



Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

Did Jesus affirm the Old Testament as completely valid?

 

[popsthebuilder]

Did Jesus affirm the Old Testament as completely valid?

Did Jesus not out right change or modify laws?

The word fool comes to mind.....as does the word Rabbi

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

Did Jesus not out right change or modify laws?

The word fool comes to mind.....as does the word Rabbi

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

Which testament did Jesus quote from, the Old Testament, or the New testament?

 

[popsthebuilder]

Which testament did Jesus quote from, the Old Testament, or the New testament?

The old.....and He changed it from the symblance of the truth passed by word of mouth by man which could have been changed over time; and showed the truth of the matter.

Now please answer #172, #174.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

The old.....and He changed it from the symblance of the truth passed by word of mouth by man which could have been changed over time; and showed the truth of the matter.

Now please answer #172, #174.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

Did Jesus affirm the Old Testament as completely valid?

 

[Tambora]

Looks like it

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

You are easily confused.