Hypocrisy on the Left!

[lnf]

A burglary during the day (when 100% of mine occurred) would surely lessen the chance that the homeowner would be on premises, because most people work during the day.  Goodness, any casing by a criminal would show them when the cars are gone!  If someone breaks into my home during the night, I think I can rightly assume that they are looking for more than just my stuff.  Sure, it's within the realm of possibility that their goal is nothing more than the thrill of getting away unnoticed while I sleep, but I doubt it.  Home invasion is a different crime, altogether...and requires a different response.   

 

[Friend40]

The discussion of the use of lethal force is usually an emotional one. I have had it on more than one occasion.  One more thought from my side, just because the government gives you the right to do something, or even if the Bible makes provision for it, does not mean you should do that thing.

 

[ALAYMAN]

The Law clearly called for the death penalty, no?

It called for lots of things that are not carried over as mandates to the NT.  There's a difference between believing the OT laws as still legally binding and deriving principles to live by, sort of like those who use Deut 22:5 for a command against "crossdressing" (pants on women).  The principle that is fair to derive from it is that there is to be a difference in males and females (other than biological).  You may disagree with that application and principle, but so long as I don't attempt to bind your conscience by demanding that you abide by my scruples then we're all good.  If you don't want to shoot an intruder as a matter of conscience, okie-dokie.  But to attempt to foist your scruples on me in that department, especially given my understanding of the warrant Scriptures give on the matter, well, that's overstepping your bounds.  After all, who are you to judge another man's servant?

No...you said "potentially".

I don't understand your argument here, nor what you think you are trying to rebut.

Which one is the typical interpretation of the verse in question?

Doesn't matter.  If there is reasonable doubt, and in my mind, there is, then it neutralizes any qualms or quibbles I might have had in understanding that there are circumstances which warrant the proper application of self-defense up to the point of death of the intruder if necessary.

Stephen, all of the Apostles but John (according to Tradition), Polycarp, Tyndale, Jesus...

Seriously?  They gave their lives in order to proclaim the gospel.  Your pretzel hermeneutics knows no bounds.  If you believe that principle rises to the same level of a command then you need to be booking your airline trip to Iran today so that you can go to savage lands and preach the gospel to those who will kill you for merely daring to do that.

I think you meant that it potentially would be morally valid to use lethal force if someone was there to merely take your stuff.

Nope, never meant or said that, you've misunderstood.

What I was saying was that you were potentially justified in your position of non-use of lethal force if the homeowner were to act out of reckless abandon or maliciously desire to kill the person just because they trespassed.

 

[rsc2a]

The Law clearly called for the death penalty, no?

It called for lots of things that are not carried over as mandates to the NT.  There's a difference between believing the OT laws as still legally binding and deriving principles to live by, sort of like those who use Deut 22:5 for a command against "crossdressing" (pants on women).  The principle that is fair to derive from it is that there is to be a difference in males and females (other than biological).  You may disagree with that application and principle, but so long as I don't attempt to bind your conscience by demanding that you abide by my scruples then we're all good.  If you don't want to shoot an intruder as a matter of conscience, okie-dokie.  But to attempt to foist your scruples on me in that department, especially given my understanding of the warrant Scriptures give on the matter, well, that's overstepping your bounds.  After all, who are you to judge another man's servant?

And we are to base those principles on the teachings of the New Testament. So tell me again: what does Jesus say about someone taking your coat?

Also, you are advocating for the death penalty for theft from the OT Law; I'm advocating for mercy as Jesus defined it with the adulteress woman.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

No...you said "potentially".

I don't understand your argument here, nor what you think you are trying to rebut.[/quote]

The fact that you clearly stated that there is a potential justification for killing someone who is "merely after your stuff" (your words).

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Which one is the typical interpretation of the verse in question?

Doesn't matter.  If there is reasonable doubt, and in my mind, there is, then it neutralizes any qualms or quibbles I might have had in understanding that there are circumstances which warrant the proper application of self-defense up to the point of death of the intruder if necessary.[/quote]

It doesn't matter what the typical interpretation is? Welcome to the fundy way...where it really doesn't matter what the verses say, we can make it up as we go along and find a verse that supports our view....maybe...if you hold your head right and squint...without glasses...in the dark...

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Stephen, all of the Apostles but John (according to Tradition), Polycarp, Tyndale, Jesus...

Seriously?  They gave their lives in order to proclaim the gospel.  Your pretzel hermeneutics knows no bounds.  If you believe that principle rises to the same level of a command then you need to be booking your airline trip to Iran today so that you can go to savage lands and preach the gospel to those who will kill you for merely daring to do that. [/quote]

It appears like you forgot your question.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

I think you meant that it potentially would be morally valid to use lethal force if someone was there to merely take your stuff.

Nope, never meant or said that, you've misunderstood.[/quote]

No...you said that...nearly verbatim. You might not have meant that, but you said that.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]What I was saying was that you were potentially justified in your position of non-use of lethal force if the homeowner were to act out of reckless abandon or maliciously desire to kill the person just because they trespassed.[/quote]

You're adding language to what you said to change the meaning and pretending like that's what you were saying all along? 

 

[ALAYMAN]

....You're adding language to what you said to change the meaning and pretending like that's what you were saying all along? 

You're hopeless, seriously.  You twist, contort, ignore what people say, obfuscate, and generally make a butt of yourself in nearly every conversation, but that's okay, because you have Rainbow Warriors who've got your back.

lol

 

[prophet]

In the State of Indiana, Home invasion is a class 'A' felony, carrying 20+ years sentence guideline.  In the State of Indiana, Murder, premeditated, carries the same structure :'A' 20+.
  Premeditated apostasy is still legal, as well as scripture twisting, super-imposition of ones own 'liberal' bent over the interpretation of scriptures, and confining ones 'ministering' to prating on at those one disagrees with on a fu-fu-fu- forum.

Anishinabe

No.

http://www.ai.org/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar43/ch2.html

I said 'home invasion', not 'burglary'.  You have to be home, in order to kill the robber.  If you are home, it becomes a class a. 
  You Phony.

Anishinabe

From the link:

IC 35-43-2-1.5
Residential entry
    Sec. 1.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally breaks and enters the dwelling of another person commits residential entry, a Class D felony.

Before you start insulting and name-calling, you might want to at least make sure you got your facts right.

Once again, you are pretending that home invasion is equal to burglary.  You are keeping up a charade, solely for the purpose of continuing an argument.  When you 'enter a residence' that is occupied, your crime changes to home invasion.
Please stop the phoniness.  You would call 911, and ARMED officers would arrive, and do your job for you.  You are supposed to be the strong man armed in your house.  Jesus cant even teach you about Satan's kingdom being sacked, cause you and Nicodemus can't even understand wind blowing, and armed homeownership.

Anishinabe

 

[rsc2a]

....You're adding language to what you said to change the meaning and pretending like that's what you were saying all along? 

You're hopeless, seriously.  You twist, contort, ignore what people say, obfuscate, and generally make a butt of yourself in nearly every conversation, but that's okay, because you have Rainbow Warriors who've got your back.

lol

Let me ask again: what did Jesus say is the correct response when someone takes your coat?

 

[rsc2a]

From the link:

IC 35-43-2-1.5
Residential entry
    Sec. 1.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally breaks and enters the dwelling of another person commits residential entry, a Class D felony.

Before you start insulting and name-calling, you might want to at least make sure you got your facts right.

Once again, you are pretending that home invasion is equal to burglary.  You are keeping up a charade, solely for the purpose of continuing an argument.  When you 'enter a residence' that is occupied, your crime changes to home invasion.

Then cite the law. It's quite simple. You simply got fact-checked and were shown to be making things up.

[quote author=prophet]Please stop the phoniness.  You would call 911, and ARMED officers would arrive, and do your job for you. [/quote]

Render unto Caesar...

[quote author=prophet]You are supposed to be the strong man armed in your house.[/quote]

According to?

[quote author=prophet]Jesus cant even teach you about Satan's kingdom being sacked, cause you and Nicodemus can't even understand wind blowing, and armed homeownership.

Anishinabe[/quote]

Again...I really don't think you understand the point of the parable.

 

[Izdaari]

Home invasion is serious, and if it happens it's reasonable to assume the intruder is armed and at least willing to kill somebody... if that isn't his primary intent. That person is thus presumably a threat to life, not just property. I may have the opportunity to disarm and capture him with no one harmed. I hope so. But the odds are against it. He's probably going to die. 

I am NOT open to theological arguments on this.

 

[prophet]

Izz, I showed how Jesus assumed that we would have this common sense approach, of which you spoke.  Any one who says that they wouldn't end the miserable existence of a robber, is a phony, or a coward.  The police will show up in time...if you survive long enough to call 911, and wait for them.  Nonsense.  The police are there to figure who the body belongs to.

Anishinabe

 

[prophet]

From the link:

IC 35-43-2-1.5
Residential entry
    Sec. 1.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally breaks and enters the dwelling of another person commits residential entry, a Class D felony.

Before you start insulting and name-calling, you might want to at least make sure you got your facts right.

Once again, you are pretending that home invasion is equal to burglary.  You are keeping up a charade, solely for the purpose of continuing an argument.  When you 'enter a residence' that is occupied, your crime changes to home invasion.

Then cite the law. It's quite simple. You simply got fact-checked and were shown to be making things up.

[quote author=prophet]Please stop the phoniness.  You would call 911, and ARMED officers would arrive, and do your job for you.

Render unto Caesar...

[quote author=prophet]You are supposed to be the strong man armed in your house.[/quote]

According to?

[quote author=prophet]Jesus cant even teach you about Satan's kingdom being sacked, cause you and Nicodemus can't even understand wind blowing, and armed homeownership.

Anishinabe[/quote]

Again...I really don't think you understand the point of the parable.
[/quote] You are willingly ignorant.  One must first understand the Earthly application, before its spiritual analogy can be grasped, Nicodemus.
  I apologize for calling you a phony. I thought you were pretending to misunderstand to make a point.  I realized what was going on, when you said 'jesus I know'.

Anishinabe

 

[ALAYMAN]

Let me ask again: what did Jesus say is the correct response when someone takes your coat?

Well, in the Matthew passage it is clear that the <legal> context is that of people not taking vengeance/retaliation. 

Why do you pit the words of Jesus against one another, as if the entirety of the Bible isn't to be considered in this discussion?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=prophet]You are willingly ignorant.  One must first understand the Earthly application, before its spiritual analogy can be grasped, Nicodemus.

  I apologize for calling you a phony. I thought you were pretending to misunderstand to make a point.  I realized what was going on, when you said 'jesus I know'.

Anishinabe[/quote]

I'm still waiting on you to cite the law you claim exists....

 

[rsc2a]

Home invasion is serious, and if it happens it's reasonable to assume the intruder is armed and at least willing to kill somebody... if that isn't his primary intent. That person is thus presumably a threat to life, not just property. I may have the opportunity to disarm and capture him with no one harmed. I hope so. But the odds are against it. He's probably going to die.

I think this is a fair statement. (Although I don't think most intruders are willing to kill.)

 

[rsc2a]

Let me ask again: what did Jesus say is the correct response when someone takes your coat?

Well, in the Matthew passage it is clear that the <legal> context is that of people not taking vengeance/retaliation. 

And again (for the third or fourth time): what did Jesus say is the correct response when someone takes your coat?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Why do you pit the words of Jesus against one another, as if the entirety of the Bible isn't to be considered in this discussion?[/quote]

I'm actually considering the entirety of the Bible in my response. I didn't select one verse (and ignore the adjacent one) to make my case. I didn't ignore the case of the woman caught in adultery. Not one single time in His ministry does Jesus give warrant to lethal force to protect stuff. In fact, He addresses personal protection in the same sermon (as the one that has the answer to the question you keep avoiding) when He tells us to turn the other cheek. (That sounds a lot different than "unload your clip in the guy".)

 

[ALAYMAN]

And again (for the third or fourth time): what did Jesus say is the correct response when someone takes your coat?

You do not have the right to make application from a passage which is authoritatively and definitively teaching against vengeance. 

Vengeance and Self Defense are two different things, like and apple is not an orange, but I repeat myself (for the umpteenth time).

I'm actually considering the entirety of the Bible in my response. I didn't select one verse (and ignore the adjacent one) to make my case. I didn't ignore the case of the woman caught in adultery. Not one single time in His ministry does Jesus give warrant to lethal force to protect stuff. In fact, He addresses personal protection in the same sermon (as the one that has the answer to the question you keep avoiding) when He tells us to turn the other cheek. (That sounds a lot different than "unload your clip in the guy".)

"turn the cheek" is well documented by commentators alike as being understood to warrant longsuffering with disagreements.

These two things are not alike: Disagreements and Home Invasion

Jesus' words in the Red Letters aren't more authoritative than the word of God rightly divided and applied in the totality of Holy Writ.

For the love of Biblical Christianity and all things good, unless you have a Damascus Road experience, please, please, please don't go into the pastorate.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Home invasion is serious, and if it happens it's reasonable to assume the intruder is armed and at least willing to kill somebody... if that isn't his primary intent. That person is thus presumably a threat to life, not just property. I may have the opportunity to disarm and capture him with no one harmed. I hope so. But the odds are against it. He's probably going to die.

I think this is a fair statement. (Although I don't think most intruders are willing to kill.)

How do you know if YOUR particular intruder is or isn't ?

 

[rsc2a]

And again (for the third or fourth time): what did Jesus say is the correct response when someone takes your coat?

You do not have the right to make application from a passage which is authoritatively and definitively teaching against vengeance. 

I think it's the fifth time now...what did Jesus say is the correct response when someone takes your coat?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Vengeance and Self Defense are two different things, like and apple is not an orange, but I repeat myself (for the umpteenth time).[/quote]

Oh, I agree. I've also pointed out that less than one half of one percent of all home invasions result in a fatality. (Actually, the majority of those fatalities are when the invadees attempt to engage the invaders.) So you should stop treating burglaries like they are a question of self-defense.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

I'm actually considering the entirety of the Bible in my response. I didn't select one verse (and ignore the adjacent one) to make my case. I didn't ignore the case of the woman caught in adultery. Not one single time in His ministry does Jesus give warrant to lethal force to protect stuff. In fact, He addresses personal protection in the same sermon (as the one that has the answer to the question you keep avoiding) when He tells us to turn the other cheek. (That sounds a lot different than "unload your clip in the guy".)

"turn the cheek" is well documented by commentators alike as being understood to warrant longsuffering with disagreements.[/quote]

1 - You explicitly stated that you ignore the accepted interpretation when it suits your own personal theology. So why are you talking about "well documented by commentators"? With that being said...

2 - ...

- That is, rather than avenge thyself, be ready to suffer patiently a repetition of the same injury. - Clarke
- The plain instruction is, Suffer any injury that can be borne, for the sake of peace, committing your concerns to the Lord's keeping. - Henry
- In the case of an offense to our personal dignity, Jesus not only warns us not to avenge our honor by retaliating but suggests that we indulge the offender further. By freely offering our other cheek, we show that those who are secure in their status before God do not value human honor. - IVP NT commentary
- But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. - Apostle Peter

[quote author=ALAYMAN]These two things are not alike: Disagreements and Home Invasion[/quote]

Yes...thankfully it's clear that  both are being addressed.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]Jesus' words in the Red Letters aren't more authoritative than the word of God rightly divided and applied in the totality of Holy Writ.[/quote]

No, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son...the exact imprint of his nature, so if you want to know Who God really is, then you better be looking at Jesus and the example He provided.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]For the love of Biblical Christianity and all things good, unless you have a Damascus Road experience, please, please, please don't go into the pastorate.[/quote]

You don't even believe Biblical Christianity...

 

[rsc2a]

Home invasion is serious, and if it happens it's reasonable to assume the intruder is armed and at least willing to kill somebody... if that isn't his primary intent. That person is thus presumably a threat to life, not just property. I may have the opportunity to disarm and capture him with no one harmed. I hope so. But the odds are against it. He's probably going to die.

I think this is a fair statement. (Although I don't think most intruders are willing to kill.)

How do you know if YOUR particular intruder is or isn't ?

I've cited the statistics numerous times. Less than one half of one percent of all home invasions result in a fatality

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Home invasion is serious, and if it happens it's reasonable to assume the intruder is armed and at least willing to kill somebody... if that isn't his primary intent. That person is thus presumably a threat to life, not just property. I may have the opportunity to disarm and capture him with no one harmed. I hope so. But the odds are against it. He's probably going to die.

I think this is a fair statement. (Although I don't think most intruders are willing to kill.)

How do you know if YOUR particular intruder is or isn't ?

I've cited the statistics numerous times. Less than one half of one percent of all home invasions result in a fatality

Since we all know that statistics don't lie....I won't quibble over the numbers.
But, one never knows if he is in the one half of one percent.
If someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, I'm going to assume he's in that minority!  ;D