If this would happen he would not possibly believe in a God bigger then himself would he?

Not necessarily. In fact, very few people who believe in both those things see the contradiction. Contradictions are the life of a character, actually.

Well then he would believe in God? Or.... a god?

Let's say he does, to make it more realistic (atheists are pretty rare), and to make things more interesting. Let's say he believes in works salvation though of some sort, and God rewards us with authority based on our advancement.

I like it. And his family was the one who planted this belief. So he would have been brought up in a strict enviroment. Unless their beliefs were the extreme opposite and had no rules and he rebelled? That would explain his arrogance and over self-confidence.

*looking at thread...*

*posts so he can easily find it again for the sake of Airi's monster post which will be handy when debating pacifists*

Oh, fun.
On a side topic of extreme pacifists, if you read the Wheel of Time books, there's a culture of travelling people who follow the 'Way of the Leaf', and they don't fight, period. It adds an odd twist.
Let's see. I'm going to get you a new character person. Tell me if I'm doing this right.
Halfelven are just a war race.
I have a man who has never fought in his life. He is trained to fight -halfelven have a great affinity for the weaker human race and are more likely to defend them than to defend themselves.
In any case, this man (we'll decide he's Liam, a character of mine who hasn't yet been developed) has been trained to fight with swords and with a bow. He is trained to a high level of skill, but even with the tryant who ruled Kythen, he never planed to use it. Halfelven use their gifts to help them evade capture.
He, as most of his people, likes music and learning. He is generally accepting of all races, even the elves, who despise halfelven.
The only time he ever fought was when a messenger came from Drythen to fight to defend the humans against the tryant.
It's given him a distaste for any fighting, even self defense. Because halfelven cherish life, it makes him physically sick to harm people because he's seen the effects.
He'll never fight again unless another Commission comes, and then it would take a very strong commandment to go to war. He stands fimly on the edict of the Holiness of Life.

All that contains lots of background that I barely knew was there.
In general, killing for self-defense can rarely be entirely justified (in my opinion). Only if it's a close fight where he's trying to kill you and you're fighting back. If it was, say, a thief, or a man holding a gun to someone's head (well, first of all, I don't know how you're going to save them at all) what about maiming in self defense? It puts them in your debt for saving their life. Even in writing, it seems wrong.
Of course, that's if you have a perfect character. As they're likely not perfect, go ahead. But I would show the consequences of killing someone in the defender's life and worldview. How does a simple act of self defense change how they look at things when they see the dead man in front of them? Killing has a lot of emotion behind it.
I'm not big on just war either, for purely human purposes. But there should be an alternate thread for just war.

*smiles at Luke *

*pokes Aldara * You are more than welcome to start that thread, you know.

@ Airi -I'm working on it.

Yay!

*posts this on Fantasy, in addition to Historical *

Okay. Everyone knows how passionate I am about this topic. So let me try and break it down and show you the multiple sides of my passion on this topic. I normally just argue the self defense angle from the "it is not a sin" angle because that is what is most often attacked. However, I'm going to try and approach this from all the angles.

Okay, let’s begin by looking at the Biblical command to preserve life. The Bible clearly teaches that we must preserve life--our own lives and the lives of other people. Some people think this could be a conflict of interest. Here is what I think, though:





Not only are we to take care of our bodies, and the life contained, we have an obligation to preserve the body and life of other people. Psalm 82:4 even cites an obligation to protect those who are in danger:



Consider also Proverbs 24:11, which indicates we have a duty to preserve the lives of those who are harming themselves:



Ezekiel 33 is a well-known passage:



If you know danger is coming to others, and you deliberately fail to warn the others of the danger, you are guilty of harming the victims. This is not to say that you can make people heed your warning. The surrounding verses also say that if the people refuse to heed the warning of the watchmen, the watchman is not guilty if they are harmed.

So we see we have a Biblical obligation to protect life. Now let's look at the Biblical view of bloodshed. When we come to this topic, we enter an area that requires cultural re-calibration. As you read through the Old and New Testaments, it's very clear that real blood, from animals as well as humans, has a significance not recognized in modern American culture. We must adjust our perception of blood to fit God's view of blood.
Let's look at some relevant passages and contrast them with what our culture thinks about bloodshed.



We learn here that there is sanctity to spilled blood. Why? Two reasons:

1) Life is precious, and the life is in the blood. When blood is shed, something precious is lost. You might not think blood is precious. We tend to consider blood to be just a "bodily fluid". It is, however, precious to God.

2) An attack on man is an attack on the image of God. At a trivial level, you're messing with sculptures in God's art studio. In God's view of bloodshed, it is not merely a physiological event, but it is an assault on the divine image. Why is murder punishable by death? It says, "For in the image of God man was made."

Killing someone is not a light thing. Our culture casually depicts killing. In television, movies, and video games, killing, whether it is legitimate or illegitimate killing, is portrayed with such a frequency that most people are relatively desensitized to it.

But here is the bottom line: Shedding blood, taking the life of another, is a big deal. Your life is forfeit if you wrongfully take the life of another. Bloodshed must have the same significance to us. It is never a light thing, even if you are in the right, even if you do it righteously.

So, let’s look at Old Testament passages on lethal force and self defense. We start in the Ten Commandments.



Murder is wrong. This means the premeditated killing of others is wrong. Killing in a fit of emotion is also wrong and is prohibited here. Having stated this prohibition, let's look at some of the qualifiers to this prohibition.



From verse 17, we see that "killing" was a crime requiring capital punishment. "Killing" here is defined above. But note that not all killing is wrong. In verse 16 there were times (such as in civil judgments) in which "killing" was commanded and sanctioned. Blasphemers were to be killed. So we already see two qualifiers to the command "thou shalt not kill." Killing a man in capital punishment for murder or blasphemy was permissible.



There are two cases here. In the first case, if someone breaks into your home at night, and you kill him, you are not held guilty of murder. You are not deserving of capital punishment. You do not need to flee to a city of refuge to preserve your life. The understanding is that at night, it is dark, and if someone has invaded your house, they do not announce if they are there merely to steal jewelry and tools. In the dark, you have no way of knowing if someone is coming to kidnap, to rape, or to murder. You are thus blameless if the criminal is killed in that situation. The passage does make it clear that if a man is breaking in at night with the intent of theft or worse (rape, murder, kidnapping, etc.), the defendant can righteously defend himself with lethal force to prevent the commission of the crime.

In the second case, it says "if the sun has risen on him", and you kill the intruder, you are guilty of his bloodshed. The understanding is that in daytime, there is light, and you can discern the intentions of the home invader. The crime in question here is theft ("if the thief"). It is not legitimate to kill someone who is merely stealing your property. In creating civil laws, we see here that not all crimes are worthy of death.

In the daytime, it is assumed that the intention of the intruder can be discerned. If he is a thief, he may not be killed by the defendant. However, if the intruder is there to commit a different crime—assault, murder, kidnapping, rape, etc.—different laws/rules would apply. Though the crime of theft is not worthy of death, kidnapping was worthy of death (Exodus 21:16, Deut. 24:7) as was murder.
Matthew Henry writes: "...if it was in the day-time that the thief was killed, he that killed him must be accountable for it, unless it was in the necessary defense of his own life. ... We ought to be tender of the lives even of bad men; the magistrate must afford us redress, and we must not avenge ourselves."

Now let's look at two examples of defending your own life against murderers.

In Nehemiah 4, Israelites have been sent back from captivity to rebuild Jerusalem. They were rebuilding their lives with the sanction of the civil ruler, King Artaxerxes. This was not a wartime scenario. It was closer to a racial integration scenario where racists wanted to kill them. Think of the KKK threatening black homeowners and students. They are surrounded by people who hate them and want to kill them.

These were citizens, not soldiers. Nehemiah 4:13 says that people stationed "people by families" around the city. These were not trained soldiers or law enforcement officers. They were merely concerned residents and settlers—citizens, not professional soldiers or law enforcement agents.

Note that these families were armed, with "their swords, their spears, and their bows." This is a situation where they are willing to apply lethal force to defend themselves.

Let's briefly discuss swords, spears, and bows. Swords and daggers killed Ehud, Amasa, and eighty priests. At longer ranges, we know bows and slings killed men like Goliath, King Joram, and King Ahab. Spears killed men like Asahel, Absaolm, the Israelite man and the Midianitish woman, and many others. There are people who say “Yes, but a sword, bow, or spear are very different than a gun”. True, but the swords, spears, and bows were still implements of lethal force.

Note that they are carrying these weapons for personal defense and civil defense, and that these are "assault weapons", namely, the same types of weapons that armies would use for offensive purposes. And why wouldn't they want assault weapons (for those weapons are the most effective weapons for defending oneself)? Why would you not want to use the best tools available for the task at hand?

Against what are they defending themselves? The crime of unlawful, racist murder. Hate crimes. They are defending their lives and their homes. Nehemiah 4:14 specifically says, "...fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your houses." It is good and right to defend your family, even using lethal force weapons.

One final observation: In self-defense, these citizens did not merely own weapons. Rather, where they perceived a risk of harm to their persons, they carried their weapons with them, as many people legally carry weapons with them today, for the purpose of self-protection:



If you live somewhere where you have reason to be concerned about crime, this would be similar to legally carrying a weapon to defend your family, even when running daily errands to the store. Note, however, that you should be licensed to conceal and carry, thus being a responsible gun user.

The final Old Testament passage we will examine is in the book of Esther. Here we have a historical example arranged by Divine Providence. In this account, the Jews are under threat of racial violence. The civil authority, King Ahasuerus, grants them legal permission to use lethal force in self-defense:



So they have legal sanction to "protect their lives" using ultimate force, much as we do in most parts of this country. They are allowed to "kill and annihilate" in order to "protect their lives." Now, as people under obligation to obey God, not just stay within the civil laws of Ahasuerus, what do the Jews do with this legal freedom?



We see that given legal sanction to defend their lives with lethal force, they do not choose non-violence. Rather, as it says in verse 11, to "protect their lives", they use the "sword" (verse 5). Here is another example of widespread use of weapons in self-defense—a non-wartime, non-law enforcement scenario.

At this point, you may be thinking this is all relegated to Old Testament principles and thinking. Let's turn to some passages in the New Testament dealing with lethal force and self-defense.

So, how about buying and carrying a sword?



If you read commentaries on this passage, there are a number of questions which are not clearly answered. There are questions about the applicability of this passage, of the intent of Jesus, of the meaning of His response.

Whatever your interpretation of this passage, there are a couple broad-stroke observations we can make about this passage.

1. Jesus expected them to carry the swords on their person as they traveled from the city to the garden prayer meeting.

2. Among eleven disciples, they did have two swords--in almost a 1:5 ratio.

It is difficult to make absolute claims beyond these observations, but the observations themselves have significance. Namely, among those closest to Jesus, some carried personal weapons in His presence with His consent to communion and to prayer meetings. We cannot make absolute claims as to the reasons, right or, wrong, for the carriage of these weapons. Perhaps it was in anticipation of trouble from the Jewish leadership. Perhaps it was protection against mere robbers. Paul in 2 Cor. 11:26 cites the "perils of robbers". Though there are questions we can't answer, we do know they possessed these weapons, that they carried these weapons, and that Jesus knew and consented.


The Garden of Gethsemene. The next passage we come to follows this event. Jesus and the disciples are in the garden, and the men come to arrest Jesus. At least two of the disciples are armed, with the knowledge and consent of Jesus. Here is the question: Will they use the sword against the armed multitude which has come against Him? Let's look at the three passages which recount this event.







Why does Christ tells Peter to put up the sword, if he is allowing them to carry the swords?

1. Christ is willingly laying down His life, though He has the right to use sword and angelic legions to deliver Himself from this unjust arrest (Luke 22:51, John 18:11).

2. Those who are quick to resort to violence will die by violence (Matt 26:52). The Lord hates the one who "loves violence" (Psalm 11:5).

The sword is not always the appropriate response, especially in persecution for Christ. There is greater protection than swords.

Having looked at a number of passages that deal with weapons and self-defense, let's spend a little time discussing Scripture's view of owning weapons and being skilled in their use. The imagery of weapon use and skill at weapons use is often employed in Scripture, and it is often portrayed as a positive or desirable thing. The Lord's might is something good, and it is often depicted using martial terms (Zec. 9:14, Psa. 7:13, 18:14, 21:12, 64:7, Hab. 3:11, Deu 32:42, 2 Sam 22:15). The Scriptures are a sword (Eph. 6:17; Heb 4:12). A sword comes out of the mouth of Christ (Rev. 1:16, 2:16, 19:15).

Possession of weapons is never discouraged in Scripture. In fact, in 1Sam 13:19ff, it is negatively reported that no spears or swords were found in Israel because of the Philistines:



Let's look at two verses from the Psalms:





Skill and ability to use weapons here, whether literal and/or metaphorical, is positively portrayed in these verses.

Further, we have accounts of David, not a soldier, not a law enforcement officer, but a youth, employing ranged weapons skillfully (with God's help) against bears and lions. This is domestic use of lethal weaponry, non-military use, with non-military training. The weapons used by young David are not "kiddie" slingshots. They are powerful enough to kill a bear and lion--in today's market, we're talking about a .44 magnum, not a .22, in the hands of someone too young to be in the army.

We might be tempted to think that was just for dealing with animals that could threaten sheep. But aren't humans worth even more protection than sheep?

We understand that according to Scripture, in matters not of worship or church government, whatever is not forbidden is permitted. I'm not making a claim that ownership of weaponry for the purpose of self-defense is required of the believer. It is not required, but it is permitted by Scripture.

Warnings!!!

Now, let's conclude with some warnings.

First of all, it would be a mistake to leave this post saying “let’s trust in the sword/guns/knives/weapons”... these are mere tools, and none of these things can guarantee protection, any more than owning a fire extinguisher guarantees that your house won't burn down.



We see in Nehemiah 4:14 that the people were armed and willing to use their weapons, but they were also trusting in the Lord:



Do not put your trust in weapons. They are tools that are useful, but they are only dead, inanimate tools, at the end of the day.



Improperly resorting to the sword

Secondly, beware of improperly resorting to the sword. I would hope the passages dealing with the shedding of blood impressed on you the narrow limitations for when it is proper to employ lethal force. It is never to be in hatred, never in revenge, never in jealously. David in his pride nearly murdered Nabal, but Abigail restrained him. David would have killed Nabal...and regretted it.



Employing potentially lethal force out of anger, hatred, jealously, or revenge is always wrong and is condemned by Scripture.

Here is a warning: If you find that you have anger or self-control problems, owning weapons is unwise. The believer is "not to be easily angered" (Titus 1:7).

When you are insulted or cursed, when your wife or your mother is insulted or cursed, you are not to resort to violence. After all, the bible says bless them that curse you, do good to those who hate you. (Luke 6:27-30)

There are a lot of great virtues depicted in the classic westerns. However, the propensity to break into fistfights or gunfights when honor is insulted is not a virtue. The Lord, not you, is to take vengeance and set things right. An insulting slap in the face is something you can suffer as a Christian.

What if you are badly wronged? What if your wife or daughter is badly wronged? You must stop an attack that is in progress, but afterwards, you must not seek revenge. There is no room for vigilantes.



Thirdly, do not admire the "man of violence".



Those who resort to violence rather than Godliness are not to be admired. There are similarities between David and Joab. Both were skilled at killing men, and both had killed many men. Were they both men of violence? Here is the difference: David, first and foremost, sought the Lord, trusted the Lord, and loved the Lord. Why didn't he do violence against Saul? It wasn't because Saul was his father-in-law. Rather, it was because Saul was the Lord's anointed. It was because of David's regard first for the Lord that he would not resort to violence.

On the other hand, Joab, over and over, resorted to the sword to deal with problems. Joab was a man of violence.





Earth was destroyed in the day of Noah because "the earth was filled with violence" (Gen 6:11ff). God hates violence.

Finally, I challenge people to keep the right perspective on this. Though we see sanction and even a qualified directive from Christ to possess personal weapons, we must remember the emphasis of scripture is decidedly not geared toward the issues of physical self-defense or righteous use of lethal force. Rather, we see more emphasis on Godly living, suffering affliction and persecution for Christ, and grasping the precious doctrines of Christ and the Gospel. This does not mean possession of weapons and acquiring the skill to use them in self-defense is wrong.

The tendency in some circles is to make the topic of self-defense of primary importance. Though heavenly beings do battle and render judgments with the sword, in the perfection pictured in both the Garden of Eden and in the Heavenly city, the primary activities are fellowship with God, fellowship with His people, singing in worship, and living in peace.

That is our destination. However, I see nothing is scripture that tells me to not resist a man who would wrong me, or that I should let a serial killer murder me, rather than fight for my own life.

Good idea. If they have this thread on HWSF, you should post it there, too.

*chuckles * I suppose I could.

Goodness, Airi. How long did that take?

*copies and treats it like a priceless manuscript*

I already said this on HF, Airi, but thank you so much for writing all that up! It's such a well thought out post.

Airi wrote a novel...

* agreed with said written novel * * tiptoes away *

*chuckles * A while, but it was worth it. I enjoyed getting all my thoughts formulated and together.

*needs to read this in detail sometime when she can give it her full attention*

Yes. It's worth it.

*cough, blog post, if it hasn't been already, cough*

Hasn't read previous posts, but I totally think that killing/harming in self-defense is right.

For all you who have hounded me, the post is now rewritten for my blog.

*Clicks* Awesome. (Did I ever tell you I think your blog looks amazing )

It seems the hounds got what they wanted.

I think killing for self-defense is totally appropriate. Now, if you don't have to kill them, then don't. But if you have to do it, then go right ahead. This is just a small comment.

So, bringing it all back to writing, can anyone share some instances where they have used killing in self-defense? Why was it appropriate in your case? Would you have rather done something different?

How about an instance where you used self-defense but didn't kill with it? Why did you do it this way? Would you change it?

The reason I make some of my characters against killing is because they believe in Jesus. They have trusted Jesus as their Lord, so they are committed to following him. From Jesus' example, I find to 'Love Your Enemies' (Matt. 5:44). What is the greatest way to love someone? 'Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends' (John 15:13). Who are our friends? A man asked Jesus a similar question: "Who is my neighbor?" (Luke 10:29). Jesus replied with the story of the Good Samaritan. Who did the religious leaders say was the Jewish Man's neighbor? "The one who had mercy on him' (Luke 10: 37).
So should we just stand by when a person attempts to kill a Christian friend? Not at all. Yet, to kill the man would be to violate Jesus' teachings. What do we do? I don't know.
A Brethren in Christ Pastor, Bruxy Cavey, once came upon a gang beating up a black-skinned girl. He knew he could not kill the gang and he knew he could not stand idly by. Rather than do something he knew was wrong, he told the gang he wouldn't harm them and he wouldn't stand by. Instead, he told them, he would stand in front of the girl, blocking their blows. Now, in that situation, the gang ended up leaving, and Mr. Cavey lived to tell the tale. Still, I think I would rather take the place of the victim, or at least do all I could to keep the oppressor's blows from landing on the victim, rather than killing the oppressor. I would rather die and go to Heaven, than kill and send someone else to hell.
That viewpoint is different than a lot of what you said on this thread, but that is what I believe.

If you kill some one it is not your choice to send him to hell. That is up to God.

Luke 12
5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

And it is the duty of every human being to destroy the destroyers of the Image of God.

Genesis 9
5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Jesus is a man of war.

Exodus 15
3 The LORD [is] a man of war: the LORD [is] his name.

And he is coming.

Revelation 19
15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

1 Corinthians 16
22 If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.

Let true Christians rise up, for this honor hath all his saints!

Psalms 58
10 The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.

*extends to Astronomer my hand dripping with blood *

*takes the hand and shakes it* That works, in a somewhat confusing way. Though, I think that is more of a Jewish theology than a Christian one. The Israelites were an earthly Kingdom that God chose to be his children. In order for Jesus to be born, the Israelites and to survive.
Now, we are in the New Covenant. The old is not ignored, it is obsolete. The Old Covenant was replaced by the new. We are no longer under the law, but under grace. We should forgive those that sin against us or against others. Once we have forgiven, we should love them. By loving them, we should not kill them, therefore making their present choice their final one. Should we not be people who give second and third and fourth chances? It is only God who can say someone is beyond turning back (God hardened Pharaoh's heart, but only after it was already hardened by Pharaoh himself).
In conclusion, God is not calling us to war, but he is of love and justice. Eventually, he will condemn those who have sinned, but there is no condemnation for us who follow Christ Jesus. And if we condemn others when God has forgiven us, are we not like the servant in Matthew 18?

You realize what that means, do you not?

Psalms 149
6 [Let] the high [praises] of God [be] in their mouth, and a twoedged sword in their hand;
7 To execute vengeance upon the heathen, [and] punishments upon the people;
8 To bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron;
9 To execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Praise ye the LORD.

You realize that the Christian theology is Jewish. Salvation is of the Jews. Christ(Christ-ian) was a Jew.

Yet the law never had anything to do with Israel.

Exodus 12
49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Genesis 20
1 And Abraham journeyed from thence toward the south country, and dwelled between Kadesh and Shur, and sojourned in Gerar.
2 And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, She [is] my sister: and Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took Sarah.
3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou [art but] a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she [is] a man's wife.
4 But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation?
5 Said he not unto me, She [is] my sister? and she, even she herself said, He [is] my brother: in the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this.
6 And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.
7 Now therefore restore the man [his] wife; for he [is] a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore [her] not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that [are] thine.

1 Timothy
8 But we know that the law [is] good, if a man use it lawfully;
9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

The Old Testament was a specific covenant with God to keep the rituals foreshadowing Christ and showing the Holiness of God. This ended when "Not one stone was left on another."

From the beginning of the rituals it was the Jews that were bound by them, and the gentiles served God without them. The rituals for the Jews had nothing to do with God's commands to mankind. We are part of mankind.

What do you say? *hands Astronomer a sword *

So, according to this, we should kill all nonbelievers. And, since I don't believe what you believe, shouldn't you kill me? How does this fit in with the Great Commission? Are we not to become 'all things to all people'?

Yes, Christ was a Jew. Christianity began Jewish, that is why we have the Old Testament as a part of the Bible. Yet, we focus on Jesus, rather than the Old Testament. The Old Testament is useful for teaching, but we are not under its law (Romans 6:14). All things are permissible for us, for we are not under the law. Yet, we shouldn't use that freedom as a reason to sin, but rather as a chance to allow God's Grace to cover us and more freely follow after Jesus.

Okay, maybe I am wrong here. Yet, if the law applied to all people, then why aren't we required to be circumcised? What about sacrifices? Shouldn't we sacrifice as well? I read that Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, fulfilling the law and releasing us from its grasp. We are now bound by grace to love one another, to think unselfishly and love all people, not just those who are your friends or Christians (Matthew 5:46-47)

Yes, the law is required for those who are weak in their faith, like children. For children cannot understand why something is bad, they simply need a commandment not to do it. When children become older and mature, they can then comprehend the unselfish motive behind the commandment. They might be required for those not Christians, but we as Christians are not to enforce it. God will enforce the law through the government, but we are not to take revenge.
Now if you read through the Bible and come to the conclusion that we can kill non-Christians, I respect that conclusion. I simply can't understand why would command us to bring the non-Christian to know him, while giving us reason to kill them. It just doesn't make any sense to me. Can you explain your reasoning in regards to that?

Hm. I doubt you actually believe that this verse tells us to kill all non-believers, but if you started to act on that belief then I would certainly not hesitate to kill you. But, like I said, I doubt that is actually what you believe.

Not, "kill all the heathen."
Where is it written that we should kill the heathen?

Genesis 15
16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites [is] not yet full.


1 Corinthians 9
21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all [men,] that I might by all means save some.

James 5
20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

Romans 6
17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.

Why? God wrote the Old Testament first. It is foundational. Jesus was the focus of the Old Testament.

John 1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Luke 16
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

4John 5
6 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

Proverbs 28
9 He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer [shall be] abomination.


Romans 6
15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?

1 Kings 20
42 And he said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Because thou hast let go out of [thy] hand a man whom I appointed to utter destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people.

Not if it is obsolete and we can disregard it when we please.

The law never required the gentiles to keep the rituals, unless they became Jews (ceasing to be gentiles). But now all rituals are ended. The Temple veil was torn in two by God himself, and later the Temple was leveled, never to be built again. The law bound the rituals to the Temple which is no more.

Leviticus 17
4 And bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer an offering unto the LORD before the tabernacle of the LORD; blood shall be imputed unto that man; he hath shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people:
5 To the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they offer in the open field, even that they may bring them unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest, and offer them [for] peace offerings unto the LORD.

We always were bound to love one another.
Romans 13
8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

We must enforce it according to the law. We are bound as Christians to do so.

You had better not respect that conclusion! People have come to the conclusion that children under a certain age are not human, and therefore may be killed. I do respect that conclusion. There are many other such conclusions.

Where does Jesus say to kill those who sin? If the sinner is a non-Christian, he says to love them and pray for them. If the sinner is a Christian, Jesus says in Matthew 18 about that: "15 “If your brother or sister[b] sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector."
Yet, in Romans 12:19 it says "It is mine to avenge, I will repay," says the Lord."


1 Corinthians 9
21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all [men,] that I might by all means save some.

James 5
20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.
[/quote] Yes. This is brilliant. We are to become weak to the weak, so we might save some. Can we command who we can save? No. Yet, we can give the gospel out there and let them make there own choice. Will some refuse to follow Christ? Yes. Can we say that the choice they make now is their final choice? No. God gives us a second chance, so we should give others a second chance as well.
I'm not sure how this pertains to the subject. Can you extrapolate on this?

You are exactly right. Jesus was the focus of the Old Testament. When Jesus arrived, the rules weren't thrown out the window which allowed us to live however we liked, the rules were raised. Yet, rules cannot change a heart. Just because we do good things, doesn't mean we are good people at the core. We will not be perfect, so we cannot get to heaven by works. Instead, we are to get to heaven by faith, living as Jesus lived, and loving as he loved. The Old Testament, the old covenant, was fulfilled when Jesus died, rescuing us from its wrath. Now we are called to follow Jesus, because Jesus was the messiah, bringing about a law not just of actions, but of the heart. Luke 16:16 says, "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached".
If our heart is devoted to him, we don't need rules because we will obey the rules in order to make Jesus happy. If we aren't devoted to him, no amount of rules is going to change our heart. I can't make you love me by holding a sword to your throat! Jesus doesn't want us to love him by force or make others love him by force, instead he wants us to choose to love him.
Jesus was referring to people believing in God. If they didn't believe in God when he spoke through the prophets, they weren't going to believe in him even if someone (Jesus) rose from the dead. And we find that is true today: people don't believe Jesus rose from the dead, and they don't believe in God.
Again, Jesus is talking about the Old Testament prophesying about his coming. If they had believed Moses, they would have believe Jesus because Moses spoke about the Christ's coming. The Jewish people (to whom Jesus is talking) believed anyone who talked about the Law (the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). Yet they didn't believe Jesus was God's son even after everything Jesus did, and all the prophecies he had fulfilled. Jesus is God's Son! He has the right to shift our thinking. Jesus changed the Jews mindsets from focusing on an earthly kingdom (which you are born into) into focusing on a heavenly kingdom (which you are reborn into: you have to make the choice to join it).
This verse refers to people in the old testament, and they were under the law. Christians (according to Romans 6) are no longer under the punishment of the law, but are under the law to Love God with everything we have and to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. That sums up the entire law, according to God's Son himself.
If you would have read a bit further, I said exactly this, referring to this verse, in fact. So, there was no need for this (though thank you for making me work out my thoughts).
Again, this verse refers to Old Testament. Now, we are to allow God to fulfill his vengeance (through the government) and we are instead called to love our enemies.
Let me use this analogy: the laws and history of England are interesting and useful for teaching others, but are we under those laws? In the same way, the Old Testament is useful for teaching, but we are not under the laws or to follow everything that people did in those days (otherwise rape, murder, and all sorts of things would be necessary to do today).

The law never required the gentiles to keep the rituals, unless they became Jews (ceasing to be gentiles). But now all rituals are ended. The Temple veil was torn in two by God himself, and later the Temple was leveled, never to be built again. The law bound the rituals to the Temple which is no more. [/quote] The law was intertwined with the rituals. If we obey the law, we must follow the rituals as well.
Understand, I'm not trying to say the Ten Commandments are unnecessary to obey now. We should obey them, but we are firstly called to love God and others. By doing this, we will fulfill the law. Therefore, the law itself is not our goal, but loving each other is.


Yet, this law was given post Christ. Before Christ, we were called to only love those who were our neighbors. Now, we are called to love all people, enemies and friends alike.
Yet we are free from the law! You yourself quoted Romans 6: "14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.
15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no means! 16 Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey —whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. 18 You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness."
So you are a pacifist? You believe that we should not kill non-Christians in any situation? Great! Then why are we still discussing this topic?

Here's a new question for you (so we don't end up with endless quote stacks): Which holds more importance: the teachings of Jesus or the teachings of the Old Testament?

First off, you guys are getting too personal. Second, who are we to say which testament is more important? God wrote them both.

I apologize if I insulted you in any way, Tsahraf ChahsidMimetes.


Yes, God wrote them both. But if we take them both as equal worth (read: we have to obey both) then we run into some contradictions. Specifically: God calling the Israelites to war while Jesus calling us to love our enemies. How do reconcile those 'inconsistencies'?

I don't believe they are inconsistent.

Why not? Jesus defines the best way we can love anyone in John 15:13 'Lay down your life'! That doesn't fit with the old covenant way of killing your enemy. Does it?

Hey everyone!

It's great to see you all interacting so much, and trying to find the answer in scriptures to your questions. However, I'd like to remind you that we do need to relate this back to writing. Even though opinions are wonderful things, and I love you sharing them, please share them with how you use them in your writing.

Thanks for being awesome! I look forward to seeing even more discussion on this topic!

I am a firm believer in the fact that the Bible does not contradict itself, Astro. I think you can both love your enemy and defend your family. And while I have more I could say to you, based off of your responses and the scripture verses used, I do not think it is really beneficial. I strongly disagree with pacifism. I've studied it. I've studied what the Bible says. I don't think we can make blanket statements about this, and I believe heart motives and situation play a big role in things. In addition, I have family and friends serving to protect Americans at this very moment. You won't change my mind. I strongly and passionately believe they are not in sin in what they do. Or that I am not in sin when being taught by my father how to defend myself with a weapon.

While some may look my unmoving stance as a negative thing, I do not. There are some positions of which we are absolutely sure and cannot be moved in. This is one of those.

You, likewise, are strongly opposed to my views. That is your right. But I don't see a point in continuing this argument, as it is becoming circular. So, with all due respect, I am not going to pursue this discussion further. It is not beneficial to me or to you, and I have things which would be more profitable that I must tend to, both in my personal life, and on HW.

I respect our decision, believing that you have gone through the Bible and based your convictions on what you have read and what your conscience tells you is right. I, however, cannot agree with that decisions, but I respect you for working through what you believe and explaining it to me. I thank you for your willingness to explain your convictions to me.

*peeps in as a participant in this discussion*

I do want to point out something... Although Jesus didn't kill, he did hit people.



He was defending His Father's house, and hit the people disrespecting it until they left.

Did he still love these people? Yes. But he was also following His duty in protecting His Father's house.

I'm not really going to side with one side or the other. I'm still trying to figure out my own personal stance on this issue. But I did want to just point this instance out.

Looking through several versions of the Bible, it seems that Jesus used the whip to chase out the animals, while simply chasing the people out. There are divided views on this, some believe anything short of killing is okay, others believe that maiming or hurting others is unacceptable.
Either way, Jesus didn't kill the people disrespecting the temple, he merely chased them out.

There is going to be a war at the end, it says the beast and kings of the earth are making war against God and the armies of heaven. Jesus doesn't do nothing, He won't stand by and not fight, from what I can tell by this scripture above.

When Hitler and his army tried to invade our countries, should people have just stood by and watched the innocent murder of Jewish men, women and children, and so many others? There is a time for war, and a time for peace. Many men and women gave their lives so we could be here today, and I for one cannot and do not believe they were wrong to do so.


There is so much above, I have not read it all so I aopologise if I am repeating anyone!

Good thoughts! Unfortunately, just because Jesus has a right to judge, doesn't mean we do. Plus, if that is talking literally, how do you exactly fight someone with a sword in your mouth? Wouldn't that be kind of ridiculous if taken literally?
In regards to the Hitler question: Most of Hitler's army was made up of Christians. Germany was full of Protestants which knew of God, had Bibles with which to read Jesus' anti-war teachings. If those Protestants had believed in Pacifism, Hitler's small group of Nazis wouldn't have had much of an army with which to fight. Also, if the Allies had been a bit more forgiving after WWI, then a lot of Hitler's main rallying points would not have existed.
Even if Hitler had taken over the entire world, what kind of place would we stand in? The exact same place Jesus stood in: a country being run by his enemies (the Romans) who killed the innocent and had high taxes. Did Jesus encourage zealotry? Did he take a sword up and proclaim that this was his Kingdom? No, Jesus chose the way of the Cross. Laying down his life; laying down the sword and picking up the cross.
Does that mean that innocents won't be killed? Probably not. Innocents were killed back then, and are being killed now. The USA or the UK, as earthly kingdoms, have every right to fight to keep their kingdom safe. We, as Christians who are a part of Jesus Kingdom, are called to love.

This is another one of those discussions I told myself not to get involved in. But as it's progressed, there are a few thoughts I've had that I'll go ahead and share.

Killing in Personal Self Defense: A Matter of Personal Conviction

You all seem to be very convicted in this subject. But you're all thinking that you can't all be right.

Well, to an extent, you can be.

If Astronomer violated his own convictions, it would be a sin. To go against one's conscience is neither right nor safe.

But if Airianna went against her own convictions, and the leading of her father, that would also be wrong.

In terms of pure justice, you have a right to life, and an individual which threatens that has forfitted their own, so killing them is acceptable and justifiable. But this isn't a question of what's acceptable and justifiable.

Several of you have said "all things are permissible, but not all things are profitable" and applied that to your own arguments. But I think the way this verse is relevant to this discussion is that most options in the situation of self-defense are permissible, but violating your personal conviction is not good.

You can't tell me that Astronomer would be sinning if he didn't kill someone to defend himself. But likewise, you can't tell me that Airianna would be sinning if she killed to protect herself.

Capital Punishment: A Matter of Duty

If I remember correctly, the question of capital punishment has been brought up, directly or indirectly, in this discussion. I'm not trying to start a side-topic to to further illustrate my own thoughts.

Every person has three God-given rights-life, liberty, and property. The justice system exists to punish those who violate said rights, and justice operates on the principle that somebody who violates or attempts to violate a right forfeits their own rights.

So, in my opinion, a murderer or rapist has given up their own right.

But justice isn't that simple. There's also an obligation.

Government has a biblical mandate to punish evildoers, i.e. people who violate the rights of others. In other words, when somebody murders someone, that person must die.

There's no bones about this one. Putting aside the personal and the spiritual, as officials of government must kill. Then, as people and Christians, they can offer forgiveness and God's mercy.

So, that's just to say that there's a line, at some point, between conviction and obligation.

And I say that because either side of the line can be taken too far. You can try to force your convictions on others (wrong), or you could decide that because somebody must die there is not reason for you to personally forgive them.

Death and life are a big deal. Let's deal with this in some moderation of our passion, and a little understanding for others.
_______________________

Finally, I just want to quickly mention that Jesus came to earth to show us how humans ought to behave toward God. Besides, Jesus gave us the right to judge: what we forgive will be forgiven, what we do not will not be. And we, as Christians, are still part of earthly nations. I pay taxes and I benefit from the protection provided by US soldiers. That makes me part of the nation whether I like it or not.

Nice, Neil! Well put together, well thought out.
Now, you say that we are a part of our earthly kingdom. I agree. Yet, if you visit China, would you fight to defend it if it went to war during that time? I think not.
Likewise, we are to be like 'exiles and aliens' (1 Peter 2:11). Not entirely disregarding our earthly kingdom, but also not fighting for it because, from our point of view, the people are more important than the territory.

*steps in for a brief moment * Absolutely, Jordan! My family and I have discussed this many times as it refers to Quakers and the Amish (whom I, personally, have tremendous respect for).

The issue arises when people say that others sin because they have fought in wars or have killed in self defense.

*will not address the Hitler's armies being comprised of Christians *

Yup, that's what I was getting at. I felt like there was a lot of animosity building here, and I just wanted to remind everybody that our walks with the Lord are all different.