TexasCHLforum.com

wil wrote:I've never seen anything within the new testament which prohibits the moral use of force, it does say "thou shalt not murder" which is the wrongful taking of an innocent life. It does not actually say "thou shalt not kill" the hebrew writing says murder. As for being persecuted for being a christian to the point of myrterdom, I am no scholar on the subject but I've always thought the idea simply means refusing to reject one's faith in Christ regardless of the circumstances. And that includes using force if need be to defend oneself up to and including death if need be in the face of refusing to reject or disavow one's faith. The idea of the christians passively allowing themselves to be fed to the lions never seemed to make sense, grab a sword or a spear and defend one's faith and by extension one's self. You may still die but you are dying because of your refusal to reject your faith regardless of the fact you are still defending yourself.
Jesus himself was not above the use of force, in this case brute force. He did not ask the moneychangers in the temple to please leave. He got ahold of a whip and beat them until they left.

Pawpaw wrote:

wil wrote:I've never seen anything within the new testament which prohibits the moral use of force, it does say "thou shalt not murder" which is the wrongful taking of an innocent life. It does not actually say "thou shalt not kill" the hebrew writing says murder. As for being persecuted for being a christian to the point of myrterdom, I am no scholar on the subject but I've always thought the idea simply means refusing to reject one's faith in Christ regardless of the circumstances. And that includes using force if need be to defend oneself up to and including death if need be in the face of refusing to reject or disavow one's faith. The idea of the christians passively allowing themselves to be fed to the lions never seemed to make sense, grab a sword or a spear and defend one's faith and by extension one's self. You may still die but you are dying because of your refusal to reject your faith regardless of the fact you are still defending yourself.
Jesus himself was not above the use of force, in this case brute force. He did not ask the moneychangers in the temple to please leave. He got ahold of a whip and beat them until they left.

Except it has been explained to me that the original language does not directly translate to any English word. The closest phrase is, "Thou shalt not kill with evil intent."

Pawpaw wrote:

wil wrote:I've never seen anything within the new testament which prohibits the moral use of force, it does say "thou shalt not murder" which is the wrongful taking of an innocent life. It does not actually say "thou shalt not kill" the hebrew writing says murder. As for being persecuted for being a christian to the point of myrterdom, I am no scholar on the subject but I've always thought the idea simply means refusing to reject one's faith in Christ regardless of the circumstances. And that includes using force if need be to defend oneself up to and including death if need be in the face of refusing to reject or disavow one's faith. The idea of the christians passively allowing themselves to be fed to the lions never seemed to make sense, grab a sword or a spear and defend one's faith and by extension one's self. You may still die but you are dying because of your refusal to reject your faith regardless of the fact you are still defending yourself.
Jesus himself was not above the use of force, in this case brute force. He did not ask the moneychangers in the temple to please leave. He got ahold of a whip and beat them until they left.

Except it has been explained to me that the original language does not directly translate to any English word. The closest phrase is, "Thou shalt not kill with evil intent."

Abraham wrote:
{snip}

You, who are afraid of guns, depend on people who aren't.

Oldgringo wrote:

Abraham wrote:
{snip}

You, who are afraid of guns, depend on people who aren't.

Did I mention that Mrs. Oldgringo and I watched the 1967 movie, "HOMBRE", the other night?

Bitter Clinger wrote:Exodus 22 offers the case of self-defense by a homeowner against an intruding burglar. The Torah makes a clear distinction between a nighttime and daytime robbery – as does Texas law!

This passage from Exodus introduces the classic principle of self-defense, "If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him (first)." If there is homicidal intent, self-defense is more than permitted; it is required. This is a common principle of all legal systems, America's included and Texas especially!

superchief wrote:This site reflects my person thinking on killing in self defense. I think i'd have to answer for spilling blood, and I hope i have a satisfactory answer when it counts.

http://www.biblicalselfdefense.com/

WildBill wrote:

Bitter Clinger wrote:Exodus 22 offers the case of self-defense by a homeowner against an intruding burglar. The Torah makes a clear distinction between a nighttime and daytime robbery – as does Texas law!

This passage from Exodus introduces the classic principle of self-defense, "If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him (first)." If there is homicidal intent, self-defense is more than permitted; it is required. This is a common principle of all legal systems, America's included and Texas especially!

Can you provide a link to these references?

Exodus 22:2 (NIV) wrote:If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed;

WildBill wrote:

Bitter Clinger wrote:Exodus 22 offers the case of self-defense by a homeowner against an intruding burglar. The Torah makes a clear distinction between a nighttime and daytime robbery – as does Texas law!

This passage from Exodus introduces the classic principle of self-defense, "If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him (first)." If there is homicidal intent, self-defense is more than permitted; it is required. This is a common principle of all legal systems, America's included and Texas especially!

Can you provide a link to these references?

WildBill wrote:

Bitter Clinger wrote:Exodus 22 offers the case of self-defense by a homeowner against an intruding burglar. The Torah makes a clear distinction between a nighttime and daytime robbery – as does Texas law!

This passage from Exodus introduces the classic principle of self-defense, "If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him (first)." If there is homicidal intent, self-defense is more than permitted; it is required. This is a common principle of all legal systems, America's included and Texas especially!

Can you provide a link to these references?

TangoX-ray wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Bitter Clinger wrote:Exodus 22 offers the case of self-defense by a homeowner against an intruding burglar. The Torah makes a clear distinction between a nighttime and daytime robbery – as does Texas law!

This passage from Exodus introduces the classic principle of self-defense, "If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him (first)." If there is homicidal intent, self-defense is more than permitted; it is required. This is a common principle of all legal systems, America's included and Texas especially!

Can you provide a link to these references?

Exodus 22:2 (NIV) wrote:If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed;

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

WildBill wrote:

TangoX-ray wrote:

WildBill wrote:

Bitter Clinger wrote:Exodus 22 offers the case of self-defense by a homeowner against an intruding burglar. The Torah makes a clear distinction between a nighttime and daytime robbery – as does Texas law!

This passage from Exodus introduces the classic principle of self-defense, "If someone comes to kill you, rise up and kill him (first)." If there is homicidal intent, self-defense is more than permitted; it is required. This is a common principle of all legal systems, America's included and Texas especially!

Can you provide a link to these references?

Exodus 22:2 (NIV) wrote:If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed;

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

Thank you sir. It is in my Bible as well.