Adventist Online

I am astonished, surprised, amazed, astounded , dumbfounded , flabbergasted, overwhelm, dazed, was render speechless, it took my breath away, shocked, knock for six to know that some believe killing and murdering amounted to the same thing . In other words some actually believe that God Murdered people. Those who hold this view may not be aware but they share the same belief as does the atheists.  

 

Those who have read the bible a few times over and who understand the bible can you share with us the reasons why you do not believe they are the same. 

Those who are of the opinion that they are the same can you elucidate... 

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy1 Corinthians 7:14 

unholy parents have unholy children that's why you get exterminations in the bible.  Some of the babies who were murdered by Herod and also by  Pharaoh may be saved, but it is my opinion that those babies who were killed (not murdered)  by the  Israelites under God's command will not be saved in the kingdom

two questions in one  

Views: 1056

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Out of context, explain ?

what do you understand by this text ?

Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn Deuteronomy 25:4  KJV

That reminds me of a story:

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?"

GENERAL REINWALD: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery, and shooting." FEMALE INTERVIEWER: "Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?"

GENERAL REINWALD: "I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range." FEMALE

INTERVIEWER: "Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?"

GENERAL REINWALD: "I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm. "

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: "But you're equipping them to become violent killers."

GENERAL REINWALD: "Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you? "

Nope.  Seems spot on to me.  What do you think the military uses, sharpened fruit?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByZqx30OvVs

The men and women of the military were accused of being sinful, so someone has to defend them.  Surely, it couldn't be an Adventist?  How, dare they stick up for the little guy instead of the hallowed doctor or dentist?

well actually

i doubt the Lady Interviewer had the mindset to be a hooker

and the sexual abuse and druged dependance and the pimp who charms her then seduces her then forces her and abuses her

 and a male who shares such misogynistic   stories with  such gaiety  :P

not counting the teased bleached hair and the BIG RED horse shoes

and snapping gum

That reminds me of a story:

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?"

GENERAL REINWALD: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery, and shooting." FEMALE INTERVIEWER: "Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?"

GENERAL REINWALD: "I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range." FEMALE

INTERVIEWER: "Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?"

GENERAL REINWALD: "I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm. "

FEMALE INTERVIEWER: "But you're equipping them to become violent killers."

GENERAL REINWALD: "Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you? "

And I doubt our members of the military have the mind of murderers either.  Checkmate.

amen

But as this thread is about killing and / or murder you are somewhat in contradiction to what we have found as the biblical view of the matter, Daniel. Killing being either involuntary or accidental as well as lawful - such as in death penalty ordered by court or during wars commanded by the Lord. Murder being personal and intentional to roughly sum it up.

The military will train men to be soldiers (I hope not children, but that's a different topic, too) and potentially killers. Hopefully not training murderers although. And yes, as your story's female interviewer suggested, the modality of killing will be violent in the armed forces (sic!).

By posting your story and in your reply to MFG equating "violent killer" to "murderer" you show that you really have not gotten the point of this thread.

I do not have time to go into the depth that your 2 in 1 question demands.  I will get you started in the right direction if you are willing to study the matter for yourself, and at some later point in time when I have more time to devote to study I will give you further assistance if you still need it.  

First, there is a clear biblical distinction between murder and killing, even the killing of another human.  Biblically you can even have blood guilt for the killing of a dumb animal, something that is not common in man's law.  The Bible makes a clear distinction between what man's law would call murder and manslaughter or negligent homicide.  The clearest distinctions are made in the law of the cities of refuge.  If someone is killed with malice or hate by the killer, it is murder and he must die.  If the killing is accidental the killer still has blood guilt, but if he reaches a city of refuge and remains inside the confines of that city until the death of the high priest he can live.  

The elders of the city of refuge are to hold a trial for every killer that arrives in their city.  If he is found to have committed murder according to God's law he must be handed over to the avenger of the blood.  Only the avenger of the blood has the right to execute the killer, the elders of the city do not have this right.  Thus our system, where the state reserves the right of execution for itself is immoral.  Once the killer is handed over to the avenger of the blood he is either killed or forgiven, at the discretion of the avenger of the blood, who is the only person who has the right to execute a killer, and is the only person who has the right to forgive the killer.  Our system violates God's laws in both these regards.

In the second part of your question you show a misunderstanding that is very common among Bible students.  Those babies, and other occupants of the cities and nations put "under the ban" by God are actually devoted to his service in the temple.  This was not always done under the Old Covenant due to the limitations of that covenant.  In that case, the Old Covenant form of death was used because lacking the New Covenant form of death, which is repentance, only the Old Covenant forms of death or actual slavery in the service of the temple, as happened with the Gibeonites, was available to assure that these people only serve God and not their own selfish desires.  

This is not difficult to prove.  I have written up this study before, but I think it has only been in long-hand or vague notes for one-on-one teaching.  I no longer have a copy of this study that I am aware of, and not time now to write it up again.  Perhaps Blessings has a copy, but I'm not sure I ever shared this entire study with her.  If she has it and reads this post I encourage her to share that study here.

Those people who are placed under this ban are MOST HOLY to God (Leviticus 27:28 & 29.  If someone is most holy to God I believe it would be a sin to say they are not going to be saved in the Kingdom.

The law tells the judges how they must rule.  We are also told there is to be no judgment without mercy, yet mercy is not something a judge is allowed to extend unless he plans to act as the redeemer, and pay the victim the portion of the penalty that has been forgiven.  Only the victim, or his next of kin if the victim is unable to collect, has the right to forgive all or part of the penalty for sins against them.  

In the case of murder, since the judge cannot restore the life of the victim, much less pay the 200% restitution required for most thefts or negligent destruction of property (murder is theft of life, manslaughter is negligent destruction of life) then the judges are instructed that they MUST rule for the death of the murder, and if the killer in a manslaughter case refuses to remain in the city of refuge, they cannot interfere with the avenger of blood.  Yet this restriction on the judges has absolutely no effect on the rights of the victims or their avengers to forgive any portion of the penalty the law requires.  

Most of you people here are SDA.  As such you constantly stress the importance of the Sabbath, but you none of you have any clue what the Sabbath means.  Aquila, with this post you have proven you are clueless and you are NOT a Sabbath keeper.  The primary purpose of the Sabbath since the time sin entered the world is to teach us mercy.  Man was sold into bond servitude for his sin.  The fourth commandment stresses that the bond holder has no right to take his own rest but refuse rest to the bondsman working for him.  On that one day he must extend mercy and allow the bondsman to work for his own benefit as well as that of God.  

In the Sabbath year, the bondsman is to be allowed to go out from his master's house, with pay.  The master must provide him with the means to sustain himself during that year, and all payments on his debt are suspended during that year.  This is a much greater level of mercy that is required by the law.  Finally, after the seventh Sabbath year we have the year of Jubilee.  This is the highest level of Sabbath and it requires the complete forgiveness of all debts, regardless of how large, and regardless of whether any portion of them have been left unpaid.  This is the ultimate in mercy.  At this time all men are to be returned to their inheritance and none are to be condemned to eternal penalties for those sins.

Anyone who refuses to show mercy even in the smallest amounts can honestly call himself a Sabbath keeper.  Furthermore, when one refuses to show mercy to others he is not eligible to receive mercy, and any mercy that has already been granted to him is to be rescinded (see Matthew 18).  The grace God gives to us is not completely unconditional, and will be removed from us if we refuse to learn this lesson.

Aquila, by this post you prove yourself to be unmerciful, thus not a Sabbath keeper, and not eligible to receive any mercy.  Thus grace can only be extended to you once you have paid the full penalty for your sins (see Matthew 18 again, specifically verses 34 & 35).  Is this really what you want?  You would be wise to follow Jesus words in Matthew 9:13 and 12:7 -- Go and learn what this means:  I desire mercy, not sacrifice (Hosea 6:6).  It's time to start worshiping the God of the bible, not the god of the letter of the law.

Also you should be more careful in your own choice of words.

The surviving victims could forgive, and doubtless should have, but the death sentence could not be revoked.

You end your post by contradicting yourself.  You have defined forgiveness as revoking the law when I spoke of it, then said the only person given the right by law to carry out the death sentence could forgive and should forgive.  Then you get stupid.  Forgiveness does not revoke the sentence and remains the right of the victim or his avenger at any point in the process.  There are two kinds of forgiveness; if given before the penalty is paid in full it cancels the remaining portion debt.  Once the debt is paid forgiveness is required and grace must be extended.  If the victims do not extend grace once the penalty is paid in full there is a new sin, and the former sinner is the new victim.  If you were not the victim and are not the legal avenger for the victim, if you refuse to extend grace to the sinner who has not sinned against you, you are sinning against him.  If you are going to insist so hard on the letter of the law perhaps you had better spend more time studying that law and learning what it requires.

I don't have to assume anything.  Your own words showed that you are much more interested in fulfilling the letter of the law in every judgment against sin than in showing any form of mercy.

The supposed contradictions in the law which you do not know, and on which you question me, are there.  I assure you, the Jews have known for centuries of their existence and this is why they have come to the conclusion that God only expect us to keep one law at a time.  SDA's have a similar belief, although they do not openly state it.  The Jew says that as long as he is consciously making an effort to keep this one mitzvat (law) he has no obligation to keep those others which so clearly conflict with his keeping of this one.  SDAs do the same thing when they are keeping the Sabbath.  

Furthermore, you misread my words, and I can only assume it was quite intentional.  I never once spoke of laws which allowed those convicted of murder to live.  The law of the cities of refuges specifically commands the judges in that city to hold a trial for all who seek refuge there.  If the refugee is found to have committed murder he is to be handed over to the avenger of the blood.  If he was found to have only committed manslaughter or negligent homicide he is granted refuge.  Those killings are not murder.  What you read in my words is not a man-made corruption of God's law, it was an Aquila-made corruption of what Myron wrote.  Myron never said any such thing.  Go read it again, then go read Numbers 35.

Myron what bible are you reading from ? 

Exodus 21

Personal Injuries

12 “Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death. 13 However, if it is not done intentionally, but God lets it happen, they are to flee to a place I will designate. 14 But if anyone schemes and kills someone deliberately, that person is to be taken from my altar and put to death.

15 “Anyone who attacks[c] their father or mother is to be put to death.

16 “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession.

17 “Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.

18 “If people quarrel and one person hits another with a stone or with their fist[d] and the victim does not die but is confined to bed, 19 the one who struck the blow will not be held liable if the other can get up and walk around outside with a staff; however, the guilty party must pay the injured person for any loss of time and see that the victim is completely healed.

these days we don't (following text) have this but we have Judges etc and we do forgive each other

22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

 

RSS

Site Sponsors

 

Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free


USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:
Amazon.com

 

© 2022   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service