I see where you're coming from. When I said that I think all killing is wrong, I was referring to humans killing humans. God can do whatever He wants in my book (and His). He's the only one equipped to make a truly good call on who stays and who goes.

Also, I agree with you about the story of the woman caught in adultery being about God's mercy.

As for the rest, I'm gonna be honest, I don't think I'm educated enough on the history or the Bible to say much more than I already have. But, my impression is that you're in the same boat I am, you're just being more dogmatic about your position. I could be wrong, that's just my impression based on an admittedly truncated exchange.

Steve used a quote from Pascal in a recent post that I think applies to this conversation…

"People do evil completely and cheerfully when they do it from religious conviction."

"I want to be clear on my position. From what I see of Jesus' teaching, I believe all killing is wrong."

You said all killing is wrong, so I showed you God killing. You sound like your OK with that idea, so what you really mean to say is not "All killing is wrong." Niether can it be that man killing man is always wrong, because that would say that man was wrong for killing when God told him to do it- both in the case of the holy wars and the laws in Leviticus. Jesus can't say that man killing man is always wrong either, because Jesus is the same person as the God that told them to do it in Leviticus.

The Law is not and never will be evil, it was a statement of the will of God for the people of Israel. It cannot teach evil.

Now at the time of the woman caught in adultery, Jesus had not yet fulfilled the Law (because had not died) but was keeping the law perfectly, and in that scene He wrote some things that caused people to walk away real quiet like. Seems probable to me that at least some of that stuff had to with things they should themselves have been to death for. Assuming that the woman did it, which seems implied by the language, Jesus asserts His equality with God here by an act of divine mercy. Which is what I think the lesson of the scene is: divine mercy. Which is the same lesson you find many times in the old testament, the book of Jonah for example.

Now if you believe in the old testament military messianic prophecies, or that Revelation teaches a future battle of the forces of light vs the forces of darkness in which God steps in at the last minute (also in the last chapters of Zachariah), then what you have is holy war after Jesus came.

On the other hand, If what you really mean to say is that man should never kill man unless God specifically calls for it even in cases where your family needs your protection, I think that's a much more arguable point. Which would lead to some question of if the founding fathers really did have and to what extent had God's leadership when the US was born. Perhaps you think that they didn't, at least as regards this. Regardless of all of that though, for you killing somebody even in protection of your own family would be a sin because you would not be doing it in faith.

In Acts, that was God killing, not God ordering men to kill. In a sense, God kills everyone eventually. The statistic is one out of one. But just because people eventually die, doesn't mean we should be involved in speeding up the process.

On the Old Testament reference, Jesus didn't teach against the Law, He fulfilled it. Remember when the righteous leaders saw their opportunity for a Biblical killing with the woman caught in adultery? Jesus did not affirm their intended Law-justified stoning; rather He directed them to consider their own evil hearts.

They were not righteous judges, and neither are we. Who gets to decide who's worthy of killing? You? That's another reason I believe God said our business is singular…to love…even our enemies. Leave the judgment and killing to the One righteous Judge.

In the old testament, the same God that prohibits murder in the ten commandments categorizes killing of people (intentional vs unintentional) in great detail and also commands wars. This really does not contradict Jesus teachings even for Mennonites, but it does cast aspersions on the reason why man declares war and kills. For Jesus to have taught against the Law with his "turn the other cheek" concept would be a huge theological problem. Especially in light of God Himself striking a couple of people dead in Acts.

There is a balance that God strikes concerning this, and He strikes it in all of its mind-boggling tension of justice vs mercy as early as Genesis 4. This is the same God as in the New Testament, and I see no reason in the First Coming for the divine position to have changed.

Now, you and I could determine that they were under orders and those orders supercede the other command which, we could assume, stays in effect normally. But then, we can extrapolate that it must be okay, in some situations (i.e., NOT a sin), to go ahead and kill. Now, moving further (and hopefully to avoid the infamous "slippery slope"), what was the specific circumstance?

Those He wanted killed were a blemish on the land, unholy, impurity in what He wanted to be a pure land. From that, it would not be too far of a jump to say, in the instant that our hypothetical killer has come into your house, said person also has become a blemish on the land, unholy and an impurity in what God wants to be a pure land (your house). If we are close in this, perhaps the only sin would be for you to not defend yourself and/or your family and kill the attacker.

I know its perhaps obtuse and maybe a stretch, but as I strongly believe, our God is so far beyond our comprehension and so often, from my point of view, operates in a tension that cannot be relieved (not to kill, clearly a Top 10, yet ordered to kill in specific circumstances. . .hmm??).

Carl,

I want to be clear on my position. From what I see of Jesus' teaching, I believe all killing is wrong.

With regard to the case of defending my family from an attacker; even if my choice came down to killing the assailant or watching my family be murdered, killing the attacker would be a sin.

But…

…from what I know about myself thus far, I would go ahead and disobey the teaching to love my enemy and kill the attacker to protect my family. I've certainly sinned for far less noble reasons, so I'm pretty sure this would be my course of action.

This doesn't mean I think killing the attacker would be right. It just means that I recognize my failure to live up to Jesus' divine ideal for humanity.

The reality of Ghandi and MLK is that, if you disagree with war as I described above (which, by the way, MLK did not generally and only turned against Vietnam in 1967, long after JFK sent our troops into the country), then you equally must say that you would stand by and allow the killer to take out your family. You might try to reason with them, you might even take the bullet for them, but you would do nothing to stop them.

Kidding aside, how do you demonize someone who has no compunction about using kids as bombs? I wouldn't know where to start. It's not my policy to dismiss or demean people I disagree with. Much more fun and stimulating to have a thoughtful discussion like we did last week instead.

I (we) do make fun of people and their choices, but that's a whole different thing and we only do that because first and foremost we laugh at ourselves. When it comes to things like being left-handed, using the metric system, or even praying to Mecca, I can respectfully agree to disagree with those do these things. But when it comes to abusing and/or killing helpless people, I think that's something we all can– and should– agree is wrong.

Matthew

Matthew