33 North Korean Christians to be executed!

[Angela53510]

Kim Jong-un calls for execution of 33 Christians - Washington Times

And a video in this article regarding the North Korean camps!

North Korea's Kim Jong Un Reportedly Orders Execution of 33 People for Talking With Christian Missionary to Start 500 Churches

A blog on what the whole thing!

Deeper with Jesus in Rhode Island: They'll Be Dead by Morning (What Difference Will it Make?)

Pray for the families of these valiant martyrs who have been evangelizing North Korea under the nose of a truly evil dictator!

 

[Drett]

I am disappointed with China that continue to protect North Korea from accountability.

 

[jb]

I am disappointed with China that continue to protect North Korea from accountability.

China "might" have appeared to have lightened up upon its citizens in the last 10-20 years, however, do remember it is a STILL a hardline communist regime under all that recent glitz!

If things come to shove and some emergency arises in China that threatens the present communist regime, the shutters will fall down in an instant and those "freedoms" that they have now will evaporate almost immediately!

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

The North Korean baby faced psychopathic tyrant is completely given over.

"The tyrant who forces mothers to drown their babies: Survivors of brutal North Korean regime reveal the chilling truth about the world's most horrific torture camps

• UN commission of inquiry in Seoul interviewing 30 defectors
• Witnesses include Shin Dong-hyuk, author of Escape From Camp 14
• Harrowing evidence of country's ‘political penal-labour colonies'
• Accounts of mass executions, torture and forced labour
• Starving prisoners - including children - resort to eating rats, lizards and insects"

Tyrant Kim Jong-un who forces mothers to drown babies: Survivors of brutal North Korea reveal world's most horrific torture camps | Mail Online

 

[sc81]

The North Korean baby faced psychopathic tyrant is completely given over.

"The tyrant who forces mothers to drown their babies: Survivors of brutal North Korean regime reveal the chilling truth about the world's most horrific torture camps

• UN commission of inquiry in Seoul interviewing 30 defectors
• Witnesses include Shin Dong-hyuk, author of Escape From Camp 14
• Harrowing evidence of country's ‘political penal-labour colonies'
• Accounts of mass executions, torture and forced labour
• Starving prisoners - including children - resort to eating rats, lizards and insects"

Tyrant Kim Jong-un who forces mothers to drown babies: Survivors of brutal North Korea reveal world's most horrific torture camps | Mail Online

funny they said a similar thing about saddam hussein about throwing babies out of incubators, all fake.

N. Korea is isolated from western media so I take any outlandish claims with third hand information from unverifiable sources as just unreliable gossip.

anyway the west has literally murdered millions of babies through abortion, I think N. korea would be a far less barbaric place than it is being portrayed as.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I hear you with regards to Iraq; however, it's well established North Korea is what it's asserted to be. Understand that ALL of the agencies that refused to pile on with respect to Iraq for the very reason you state here are asserting North Korea is pure tyranny.

Organizations like Open Doors and Al Jazeera have sent people inside and come out with horror stories.

"One would have to create a new language to put into words the cruelties of the North Korean regime. In no other country are Christians so severely persecuted. Tens of thousands live and (ultimately) die in concentration camps. Even the possession of a Bible is reason enough to be killed or locked up with your family for the remainder of your life. Why are the approximately 400,000 Christians hunted like animals?" -Open Doors

The United Nations committee investigating North Korea condemned the Kim Jong-un regime in unusually blunt and blistering terms, blasting the police state as without “any parallel in the contemporary world,” and called for the regime to face charges in the International Criminal Court. Here's the UN report: Report of the Commission of Inquiry on HR in the Democratic People s Republic of Korea

Even China, that has wielded North Korea against the West in line with the philosophy of Sun Tzu, has become nervous: China draws 'red line' on North Korea - Asia-Pacific - Al Jazeera English

I agree with you that the Western mainstream media is regularly leveraged by Western governments for the purposes of indoctrination of its citizens to accomplish military objectives and that they've resorted to outright lying in the past toward that end.

However, all of the non-regular and unusual sources for news and information are aligned with the mainstream media in the case of North Korean atrocity and that is cause for serious reflection.

That said, I believe this is primarily the fault of China for allowing this situation to escalate to the point it has. We have a destabilized nuclear power that poses a serious nuclear proliferation risk under the despotic rule of a young psychopath who enjoys being worshipped as a god and who's government wields totalitarian violence upon its citizenry while threatening to annihilate the U.S..

That's the problem.

funny they said a similar thing about saddam hussein about throwing babies out of incubators, all fake.

N. Korea is isolated from western media so I take any outlandish claims with third hand information from unverifiable sources as just unreliable gossip.

anyway the west has literally murdered millions of babies through abortion, I think N. korea would be a far less barbaric place than it is being portrayed as.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

New purges imminent: North Korean official ‘executed by flamethrower’ in new purge of supporters for Kim Jong-un’s dead uncle Jang Song-thaek - Asia - World - The Independent

 

[TheAristocat]

Doubt the US is going to go to war this time. Probably don't want our cities nuked and millions of lives lost to save a North Korean minority. But I'd suggest an assassination mission if these stories are true.

 

[TaylorTG]

Pray for the families of these valiant martyrs who have been evangelizing North Korea under the nose of a truly evil dictator!

Rest in pieces.

 

[Ecclesiastik]

Doubt the US is going to go to war this time. Probably don't want our cities nuked and millions of lives lost to save a North Korean minority. But I'd suggest an assassination mission if these stories are true.

You would suggest murder?

 

[notuptome]

Many tyrants had endeavored to eradicate Christianity by slaughtering all the believers they could find. God simply uses the death of His saints to glorify Himself and more souls are saved by the courage of these. Scripture says that precious in His sight is the death of His saints but the death of the wicked is not so. Ps 116:15 The more they are stamped out the greater the spread of the fire.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[TheAristocat]

You would suggest murder?

If assassinating Hitler would've been murder, I still would've suggested it regardless.

 

[Ecclesiastik]

If assassinating Hitler would've been murder, I still would've suggested it regardless.

What if you could have committed adultery with his mother to prevent him from being born?

 

[TheAristocat]

What if you could have committed adultery with his mother to prevent him from being born?

What if assassinating a proven murderer isn't a murder? Aren't we kind of twisting the definition here? Murdering is murder because it's taking a life that does not warrant the death penalty according to previously established laws that help facilitate human interaction in a society. For example, the death penalty is not murder as long as it is executed upon the head of a murderer or someone who otherwise deserves it.

The whole purpose of holding a court session is to establish guilt when there is reasonable doubt to assume innocence. If an international community establishes the guilt of this man as being a murderer with substantial supporting evidence, then I would say to confront him with the evidence and order him to stop. If he does not stop, then rather than go to war and have millions killed the next option would be the assassination of a murderer. If assassination were to trigger a war, then I would be against it. In the end I think the fundamental issue is an easy one: prevent blood shed.

Numbers 25:6-13 And indeed, one of the children of Israel came and presented to his brethren a Midianite woman in the sight of Moses and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping at the door of the tabernacle of meeting. Now when Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose from among the congregation and took a javelin in his hand; and he went after the man of Israel into the tent and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her body. So the plague was stopped among the children of Israel. And those who died in the plague were twenty-four thousand. Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: "Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, has turned back My wrath from the children of Israel, because he was zealous with My zeal among them, so that I did not consume the children of Israel in My zeal. Therefore say, 'Behold, I give to him My covenant of peace; and it shall be to him and his descendants after him a covenant of an everlasting priesthood, because he was zealous for his God, and made atonement for the children of Israel.'"

 

[Ecclesiastik]

What if assassinating a proven murderer isn't a murder? Aren't we kind of twisting the definition here? Murdering is murder because it's taking a life that does not warrant the death penalty according to previously established laws that help facilitate human interaction in a society. For example, the death penalty is not murder as long as it is executed upon the head of a murderer or someone who otherwise deserves it.

The whole purpose of holding a court session is to establish guilt when there is reasonable doubt to assume innocence. If an international community establishes the guilt of this man as being a murderer with substantial supporting evidence, then I would say to confront him with the evidence and order him to stop. If he does not stop, then rather than go to war and have millions killed the next option would be the assassination of a murderer. If assassination were to trigger a war, then I would be against it. In the end I think the fundamental issue is an easy one: prevent blood shed.

Numbers 25:6-13 And indeed, one of the children of Israel came and presented to his brethren a Midianite woman in the sight of Moses and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping at the door of the tabernacle of meeting. Now when Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose from among the congregation and took a javelin in his hand; and he went after the man of Israel into the tent and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her body. So the plague was stopped among the children of Israel. And those who died in the plague were twenty-four thousand. Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: "Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, has turned back My wrath from the children of Israel, because he was zealous with My zeal among them, so that I did not consume the children of Israel in My zeal. Therefore say, 'Behold, I give to him My covenant of peace; and it shall be to him and his descendants after him a covenant of an everlasting priesthood, because he was zealous for his God, and made atonement for the children of Israel.'"

If assassination isn't murder then adultery isn't fornication.

Go kill a serial killer right in his bed right now and see if you do not go to prison.

If you are trying to argue based on Jewish civic law, it doesn't apply anymore. That is why Jesus said "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone at her" in regard to the adulteress. Up to that point, they would have been fully in their right to kill the adulteress.

If you are arguing based on man-made law, then you still don't have a point because you can't just go kill whoever you want just because they are a bad person. The government could authorize you to do it as a military member or spy. But then again the government could authorize you to do a lot of stuff: sleep with someone that isn't your wife, spy on someone, and etc. etc. and if you are leaning on what the government says more than what Scripture says then you are in a bad, bad place.

 

[TheAristocat]

If assassination isn't murder then adultery isn't fornication.

Go kill a serial killer right in his bed right now and see if you do not go to prison.

If you are trying to argue based on Jewish civic law, it doesn't apply anymore. That is why Jesus said "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone at her" in regard to the adulteress. Up to that point, they would have been fully in their right to kill the adulteress.

If you are arguing based on man-made law, then you still don't have a point because you can't just go kill whoever you want just because they are a bad person. The government could authorize you to do it as a military member or spy. But then again the government could authorize you to do a lot of stuff: sleep with someone that isn't your wife, spy on someone, and etc. etc. and if you are leaning on what the government says more than what Scripture says then you are in a bad, bad place.

There is a difference between shooting a man dead in the act of killing others and going to his home at night and shooting him dead in a private act of justice based on unscrutinized evidence. Right now the stage they're in is collecting and scrutinizing the evidence.

But I find it interesting that you did not claim that what Phinehas had done was murder. And you're justified in your silence, because it was not. Because to claim that just because the Old Law "is done away with" Phinehas' act, if performed today, would be classified as murder in God's eyes is to say that God at one time condoned murder. So whether or not the Old Law has been done away with, I don't believe that you could argue it as being murder if you believe in a righteous God.

On a side note, I don't even see how Phinehas' act fell within the confines of the Old Law. But we can see that God deemed it just. But personally I'd rather a couple of strapping, burly men took the man and the woman into custody and put them to trial based on the testimony of the witnesses. We can't currently do that with this North Korean dictator. Without the use of lethal force he will forever be beyond our reach. And, if the rumors are true, he will continue to brutally murder innocent people. I don't see how anyone is justified in letting that happen unless action would be more morally questionable than inaction.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

If assassinating Hitler would've been murder, I still would've suggested it regardless.

Assassinating Hitler was murder indeed for Hitler murdered himself.

 

[Ecclesiastik]

There is a difference between shooting a man dead in the act of killing others and going to his home at night and shooting him dead in a private act of justice based on unscrutinized evidence. Right now the stage they're in is collecting and scrutinizing the evidence.

But I find it interesting that you did not claim that what Phinehas had done was murder. And you're justified in your silence, because it was not. Because to claim that just because the Old Law "is done away with" Phinehas' act, if performed today, would be classified as murder in God's eyes is to say that God at one time condoned murder. So whether or not the Old Law has been done away with, I don't believe that you could argue it as being murder if you believe in a righteous God.

On a side note, I don't even see how Phinehas' act fell within the confines of the Old Law. But we can see that God deemed it just. But personally I'd rather a couple of strapping, burly men took the man and the woman into custody and put them to trial based on the testimony of the witnesses. We can't currently do that with this North Korean dictator. Without the use of lethal force he will forever be beyond our reach. And, if the rumors are true, he will continue to brutally murder innocent people. I don't see how anyone is justified in letting that happen unless action would be more morally questionable than inaction.

I understand your points. I have had this conversation with a few other people in different formats. Let's get to the heart of the matter (I spent a while typing a reply to what you said but then just deleted it because it felt like we would be going round and round in circles and stuff that has nothing or little to do with the question we are discussing).

What evidence does the New Testament offer for the OK to kill folks under certain (or any) conditions? From my understanding there is plenty of evidence that we shouldn't- "Turn the other cheek", "He who takes the sword will perish with the sword" (Jesus could have just told Peter "Now is not the time", why did He tell him not to take the sword at all?), the many verses that exhort us to suffer persecution without inflicting it back again such as "Do not avenge yourselves".

Why did God tell folks to stone adulterers back then but then reproved them for it in the NT? Me thinks there is something different about taking the law into your own hands in the New Covenant. What do you think?

God bless

 

[TheAristocat]

I understand your points. I have had this conversation with a few other people in different formats. Let's get to the heart of the matter (I spent a while typing a reply to what you said but then just deleted it because it felt like we would be going round and round in circles and stuff that has nothing or little to do with the question we are discussing).

What evidence does the New Testament offer for the OK to kill folks under certain (or any) conditions? From my understanding there is plenty of evidence that we shouldn't- "Turn the other cheek", "He who takes the sword will perish with the sword" (Jesus could have just told Peter "Now is not the time", why did He tell him not to take the sword at all?), the many verses that exhort us to suffer persecution without inflicting it back again such as "Do not avenge yourselves".

Why did God tell folks to stone adulterers back then but then reproved them for it in the NT? Me thinks there is something different about taking the law into your own hands in the New Covenant. What do you think?

God bless

The heart of the matter is saving life. I'm not saying assassination is the way to go if there are other means. And I understand advancing the kingdom of God through persecution. And that's between the North Korean Christians and God. But what I don't see God saying is that we should sit by and watch the North Korean Christians advance the Kingdom of God through their lives while we pat them on the back and say, "Great job, guys!" If we're not willing to jump in and be tortured and murdered along with them, then we should be willing to call an end to their suffering in whatever way works.

Jesus was not trying to reform civil and criminal law. God had already laid down those laws, and they were just. He was trying to reform people's hearts so that there would be no cause for legal action. But it was the power of the sword that God granted legal authorities that facilitated Jesus' teachings. If you removed that context, then there are some of Jesus' teachings that would, well, be taken out of context and misapplied.

Romans 13:4 For the one in authority is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Obviously the teachings on mercy and forgiveness in the New Testament can be misapplied. When Jesus comes back he is not going to have mercy on his enemies, and he is not going to forgive them. He is going to utterly destroy them. So in what ways do people today misapply Jesus' teachings? In my opinion the New Testament teachings with regard to mercy and forgiveness and turning the other cheek, if not wholly, then at least in large part deal with the treatment of our personal enemies.

We shouldn't ignore the fact that humans interact with each other on different levels. Sometimes we interact with each other within the context of individuals, sometimes within the context of corporate entities, sometimes within the context of national entities. Our individual interactions should be conformed to Christ's teachings, because Christ's teachings fall within the context of personal struggles and changes of heart. But if we misapply his teachings we'll see seeming contradictions pop up elsewhere in the Bible.

And I really don't want this to break down into a New Testament vs Old Testament debate, so I'll let you have the last word on it and call it quits. To me the NT and OT go hand-in-hand. They work well with each other side-by-side. I've seen plenty of arguments to the contrary, and I understand them. But I feel that if either is eliminated in the present context the other is worse off for it.

 

[Ecclesiastik]

The heart of the matter is saving life. I'm not saying assassination is the way to go if there are other means. And I understand advancing the kingdom of God through persecution. And that's between the North Korean Christians and God. But what I don't see God saying is that we should sit by and watch the North Korean Christians advance the Kingdom of God through their lives while we pat them on the back and say, "Great job, guys!" If we're not willing to jump in and be tortured and murdered along with them, then we should be willing to call an end to their suffering in whatever way works.

Jesus was not trying to reform civil and criminal law. God had already laid down those laws, and they were just. He was trying to reform people's hearts so that there would be no cause for legal action. But it was the power of the sword that God granted legal authorities that facilitated Jesus' teachings. If you removed that context, then there are some of Jesus' teachings that would, well, be taken out of context and misapplied.

Romans 13:4 For the one in authority is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Obviously the teachings on mercy and forgiveness in the New Testament can be misapplied. When Jesus comes back he is not going to have mercy on his enemies, and he is not going to forgive them. He is going to utterly destroy them. So in what ways do people today misapply Jesus' teachings? In my opinion the New Testament teachings with regard to mercy and forgiveness and turning the other cheek, if not wholly, then at least in large part deal with the treatment of our personal enemies.

We shouldn't ignore the fact that humans interact with each other on different levels. Sometimes we interact with each other within the context of individuals, sometimes within the context of corporate entities, sometimes within the context of national entities. Our individual interactions should be conformed to Christ's teachings, because Christ's teachings fall within the context of personal struggles and changes of heart. But if we misapply his teachings we'll see seeming contradictions pop up elsewhere in the Bible.

And I really don't want this to break down into a New Testament vs Old Testament debate, so I'll let you have the last word on it and call it quits. To me the NT and OT go hand-in-hand. They work well with each other side-by-side. I've seen plenty of arguments to the contrary, and I understand them. But I feel that if either is eliminated in the present context the other is worse off for it.

Hey bud,

I'm not trying to make it into an OT vs. NT debate, however, I do think it is wrong when people try to pull up examples from the OT of certain things and say "Well that still applies to today" but then when someone else pulls up another example that is similar they say "Oh no, we are not supposed to do that anymore."

For example, in what New Testament sense would I be able to drive a stake through the forehead of someone who is sleeping? What about marrying my brother's widow? Could she spit in my face if I refused to take her as a bride? This is part of Jewish civic law as well (save for the first one, but that person was praised for her deed). For the first one, as your New Testament verses says, we respect the authorities with the sword, but we do not walk around enacting physical punishment/justice ourselves but we rather give place to God to enact justice.

I've heard many people say that a central theme of the New Testament is "A better way". Yes, it is true. I believe there is a better way than stoning adulterers now. I also believe there is a better way than not eating pork or catfish or killing witches. I do not annul the law through my thinking but rather trust that there is a better way through Jesus Christ.

A final thought- saving life. What is more powerful, the gun in your hands or God? Dietrich Bonhoeffer found his attempts to save life through killing Hitler failed and rather his was taken.

Should we truly choose to defend our lives with tooth and nail as if these are our choice (and strongest) of weapons or trust in the great I AM?

Let me leave you with a few verses to think on brother.

Romans 12:19 Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord. 20"BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD."

Matthew 26:51And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew out his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. 52Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.

How about instead of killing Kim Jong Un, you give him a cup of water and tell him about Jesus then spend your life praying for him (most likely in prison)? Pretty crazy huh? Christianity isn't meant to be a sustainable religion. It's all about leaning on God who sustains and protects us, not our ourselves.

"You have planted wickedness, you have reaped evil, you have eaten the fruit of deception. Because you have depended on your own strength and on your many warriors" Hosea 10:13

God bless