Up to twelve people shot at a Chicago basketball court

[ServantStrike]

Sorry to hear, Nautilus. I was joking, I never meant you any actual harm.

I never saw how the NIV was different to the other versions - they sounded like they were all saying the same to me (thief dies breaking in at night - thief to blame - no guilt to defender. Thief dies breaking in during the day - further investigation warranted as it may have been murder).

Either way, I agree with you. The sword of bible times is the AK47 of today (or maybe something smaller).

Well actually, if you read it, it almost sounds like the daylight part means if the thief survives then the theif will be forced to pay restitution for his attempted robbery. The homeowner couldn't have been the robber as he would have been stealing his own possessions (unless it was insurance fraud - but I don't think they had homeowners insurance in the Old Testament days). The part about being forced to pay double for what he stole sounds to me like the homeowner struck a non fatal blow to the thief in the night, but the thief escaped and has stolen property in his possession.


Exodus 22
[SUP]2 [/SUP]“[SUP][b][/SUP]If the thief is [SUP][c][/SUP]caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account. [SUP]3 [/SUP]But if the sun has risen on him, there will be bloodguiltiness on his account. He shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. [SUP]4 [/SUP]If what he stole is actually found alive in his [SUP][d][/SUP]possession, whether an ox or a donkey or a sheep, he shall pay double.


The NIV version seems to indicate the only time the homeowner is allowed to defend His property is at night. So if it's a daylight robbery, the theif is just allowed to carry everything away.
[SUP]2 [/SUP]“If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; [SUP]3 [/SUP]but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed.


But, I goofed, I missed verse 4 in the NIV version
“Anyone who steals must certainly make restitution, but if they have nothing, they must be sold to pay for their theft. [SUP]4 [/SUP]If the stolen animal is found alive in their possession—whether ox or donkey or sheep—they must pay back double.

It still doesn't make perfect sense though as the defender is still only allowed to defend himself at night, even though if the thief is found the next day after a night time defensive situation, the theif is expected to pay restitution.


Personally, I'm not one to want to fight a mugger or whoever. If all they want is one of my material possessions, they can have them (and if it's my wallet, I'll take the cash out and throw it, forcing them to pick it up while I bolt the other way).

I'd rather not have to live with what I could have done on my conscience, nor with the ensuing legal battle, so I guess personally I'm a protect against loss of life kind of guy rather than a protect against loss of property. I might feel differently if I lived in a high crime area where one's house may be burglarized multiple times.

 

[letti]

I dont think Christ ever said anything about gun laws.

WOW,really, was I referring to gun laws or something that covers one main thing in general.I should no better next time.

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

Ah, I think I understand what you're saying. I hadn't read it like that before. I thought the "bloodguiltiness on the thief's account" was to the one who had struck him. And my understanding of this (could be flawed), was that if someone is in your house at night, unless they live there, its pretty certain they are there to harm, kill or to steal. And because its night time, its hard to see what is going on, you'd probably be startled etc. If the thief dies, he shouldn't have been there - who was to say he wasn't going to kill you?

Whereas if its in the day, perhaps the victim was just a visitor who'd come for a visit, and you slew him as a thief? Or perhaps a neighbour had a dispute with you, and came around to settle, and you killed him and called him a thief? Or perhaps it was a real thief, but he wasn't intent on harming you as he came during the day when you could see clearly he wasn't armed, but killed him as he fled, instead of taking it to the court? I'm sure if the thief were armed, self defense would have been a valid reason for the slaying. Its just if a "thief" dies during the day, its not as open and shut a case.

That was how I understood those passages.

 

[letti]

A man must take care of his family by God's command and he who ignores this duty is worse than a non-believer. It's prudent for a man to be armed, trained, and ready to use his arms against those who would seek to injure and murder him and/or his family.

For this reason, Jesus tells his followers, "let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one." Jesus understood the purpose and the use of a sword. Jesus often used natural law principles of self-defense.

For example, in Luke 12:39 he said, "But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have allowed his house to be broken into."

Jesus didn't use parables that contained false principles contrary to God's will. Jesus used parables that conformed to God's laws. Jesus parables contain the truth of God's laws. All of them do. Upon this foundation of truth, Jesus was able to say after the conclusion of this protector-of-his-house parable, "Be ye ready also." (verse 40, emphasis added).

This command as applied in the spiritual realm necessarily means that the head of the house be ready against the invader in the physical realm. If that were not a truth, then Jesus would have been likewise incorrect in the spiritual application.

Consider how in Esther 8 the people's (e.g. Jews in this case) human right to take arms and protect themselves when threatened with murder.

Naturally, the ability to protect oneself, family and neighbor from an aggressor is not limited only to those individual robbers, rapists and murderers among society who singularly seek to harm another. Such a God-given right and duty of defense extends especially to tyrants that use their position of public trust and the power of government to betray the trust of the public and destroy those whom he is charged to protect.

wow Ageofknowledge got what I meant and I missed it.

 

[ServantStrike]

WOW,really, was I referring to gun laws or something that covers one main thing in general.I should no better next time.

Please don't be sarcastic, I was serious. He never challenged the concept of self defense, and the early apostles didn't advocate using Christianity as a battering ram to change the political landscape either. So the idea that Christianity should drive gun laws is foreign to me.

Now using a Christian stance to vote, yeah I do that every time I vote.

wow Ageofknowledge got what I meant and I missed it.

Perhaps we are out of sync then. If you're saying the same thing he is, and that is that we shouldn't disarm the population because an armed population is a safeguard against tyranny, then you already know people that think that way are defensive about it because they continually get mud thrown at them in the media, even though a recent poll by the Associated Press shows that a majority of Americans do not feel their second amendment rights are being protected.

 

[letti]

Please don't be sarcastic, I was serious. He never challenged the concept of self defense, and the early apostles didn't advocate using Christianity as a battering ram to change the political landscape either. So the idea that Christianity should drive gun laws is foreign to me.

Now using a Christian stance to vote, yeah I do that every time I vote.



Perhaps we are out of sync then. If you're saying the same thing he is, and that is that we shouldn't disarm the population because an armed population is a safeguard against tyranny, then you already know people that think that way are defensive about it because they continually get mud thrown at them in the media, even though a recent poll by the Associated Press shows that a majority of Americans do not feel their second amendment rights are being protected.

I't wasn't meant for you, I am sorry I actually just got annoyed I felt misunderstood.my apology.

 

[ServantStrike]

I't wasn't meant for you, I am sorry I actually just got annoyed I felt misunderstood.my apology.

No need to apologize, things can get heated sometimes. It's a tense issue.

 

[letti]

Yes,I believe in self defense, but I never agree with killing anybody.

 

[letti]

I't is something that gets me tense to even discuss, I don't think anybody who loves there family would just sit back and watch them be slaughtered God forbid that, I wouldn't.

 

[letti]

So if you have no choice?

 

[ServantStrike]

Yes,I believe in self defense, but I never agree with killing anybody.

Agreed. There is a serious difference between murder and self defense. The trouble is if you eliminate the tools that can facilitate the one, you increase the risk that the other will happen and no one will be able to do anything about it.

Honestly I don't understand trying to disarm people. If you do, the criminals will use the guns still in circulation on the black market (and in the US it's easy for them to smuggle them from Mexico). And the less affluent criminals will just use knives. Eliminate the knives and they will just use baseball bats.

 

[letti]

Wow,it will be a huge mess.I think it is just to serve the best interests of certain people.The vast majority of us will be in more danger because of it if it were to go into full effect.You might be wise to protect yourself from now on just in case.That is my gut feeling.

 

[letti]

See that is another thing the bible says obey the law and authorites what about when the law is in opposition?Meaning was the nazi regime in it's authority to be followed or opposed?

 

[letti]

There is a big difference in being paranoid and being foolish.

 

[ServantStrike]

Wow,it will be a huge mess.I think it is just to serve the best interests of certain people.The vast majority of us will be in more danger because of it if it were to go into full effect.You might be wise to protect yourself from now on just in case.That is my gut feeling.

A mess is probably an understatement. And it's funny you mention Nazi Germany. The first thing they did was disarm everyone. So did the communists under Lenin. Neither of those situations turned out well for the people (but went well for a select few who wanted the disarmament).

See that is another thing the bible says obey the law and authorites what about when the law is in opposition?Meaning was the nazi regime in it's authority to be followed or opposed?

Well we are told to obey the law, but there is also a prohibition on sin, and Jesus said those who are not for Him are against him.

Just like the police and military are not supposed to follow an unlawful order (and paradoxically are also not allowed to disobey orders), the Christian has to walk a fine line in such a situation. The answer is not to let it get that far if at all possible, but if it does get that far, then you certainly can't support what the regime is doing. Christians were sent to interment camps alongside Jews in Nazi Germany, at least they were for speaking up against what was going on.

 

[letti]

Yeah nazi germany and hitler bombed his own building LoL,to gain approval for his agenda.

 

[letti]

WoW,some uncanny similarities indeed,that's creepy comparisons of a communist regime in the making.

 

[letti]

That's all I will say I am becoming, PARANOID A CONSPIRACY FREAK!

 

[ServantStrike]

That's all I will say I am becoming, PARANOID A CONSPIRACY FREAK!

I know a good supplier of tinfoil hats if you need them. Guaranteed to block mind control rays or you get a free alien, err demonic abduction.

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

See that is another thing the bible says obey the law and authorites what about when the law is in opposition?Meaning was the nazi regime in it's authority to be followed or opposed?

I struggle with this also. I feel like most of the people in government have usurped power - they are in rebellion to God, and also man (e.g. in the US law I believe, the constitution is higher (or should be higher) than the president and congress, and if these make laws over-riding or nullifying the constitution, they are in rebellion to it). Romans talks about rulers who protect the good, but punish the evil. Most governments today are varying degrees of the reverse (look at the gay marriage laws). We are not in a very different situation than if the Mafia (or Nazis, if you like, or Communists, as I think these were more evil than the Nazis), have established themselves in government. Normally, a Christian would say we don't have to pay protection money to the mafia, especially if the highest laws also support this. So what then, if the mafia usurps the government?

My own feeling (and these are mine, not necessarily God's), is that if a government is in rebellion to God and itself by rejecting the very purpose for which God established it, we are no longer obliged to submit to the same degree (afterall, Paul defines government in the same passage he says to submit to it, and by his definition, such a government is not a government). We should aim to live in peace with all men, but peace is not always possible if a government declares war on its own people.

Romans 13: 1 - 6 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.[SUP]2 [/SUP]Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.[SUP] 3 [/SUP]For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:[SUP]4 [/SUP]For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.[SUP]5 [/SUP]Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.[SUP] 6 [/SUP]For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.