Wikileaks

[knotodiswrld]

Well, it's good to know that some of us are okay with breaking the 6th Commandment. As long as that person is a threat to national security.

Following that logic, Joshua and the Israelites broke the 6th commandment when they slew the men of Ai in Joshua chapter 8. And they sinned again when they slaughtered the Amorites in Joshua 10. And they sinned again when they massacred ... you know, Joshua and the Israelites killed alot of people.

And then there was David. Did he break the 6th commandment when he killed Goliath? Have you really read his story? His body count is fairly impressive. Did he break the 6th commandment?

You see, the KJV translators choose poorly when they translated 6th commandment as "thou shalt not kill". The Hebrew word here is "ratsach", which is used in reference to a criminal "manslayer". On the other hand, when God commanded the death penalty in Deuteronomy 13 for those who lead the people into idolatry, the word is "harag", which is much broader in scope.

So, the proper translation for the 6th commandment is, as we see in both the NIV and NASB, "You shall not murder". And of course, not all killing is murder.

You see, many Christians fail to understand the meaning of the seeming contradiction between the Old Testament code of "eye for an eye" and the New Testament code of "turn the other cheek". There is, in fact, no contradiction if you truly read The Torah (i.e Genesis through Deuteronomy) in it's entirety.

If you do so, you will see that The Law of the Torah is a legal system. There are rules for conducting trials, and the penalties are to be carried out not be the individual wronged, but by "the assembly".

The very same book, Leviticus commands in Lev 21:24 and in 24:20 "eye for eye, tooth for tooth", but then turns right around and says:

Leviticus 19:18
" `Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

So, what we see is the idea that the individual must forgive, while the state is not permitted to forgive without first administering justice.

We see this concept carried forward into The New Testament. Christ commands us to "turn the other cheek", but Paul says of the state:

Romans 13:3-4
3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Scripture authorizes the state to "bear the sword" as an agent of wrath to punish wrong. The individual must forgive, the state must punish.

Moreover, the state is authorized to "bear the sword" in order to do so. Now, a sword only has one purpose. It makes a lousy wood splitter, is too clumsy for surgery, and makes a mess of a steak you are trying to eat. But it kills people just fine. That is what a sword is for. In authorizing the state to "bear the sword", The New Testament is telling modern states that they may use lethal force to maintain order and protect their citizens. This is not murder, and it is not a violation of the 6th commandment.

Understanding this dichotomy between the code of conduct for individual believers and the code of conduct for the state also helps us understand that seeming contraction between the "Love of God" and the "Wrath of God". As our Father, God loves us and wants to forgive our every wrong. As our King, He cannot. As King, He must administer justice. And so, He sent His Messiah, His very power and essence made flesh; to pay the price for our sins so that as King, God could administer justice and then as our Father forgive us.

So, no, I would not be willing to break the 6th commandment. But the state eliminating an enemy spy to protect its own citizens is not a violation of that commandment. It is not murder, and in fact falls well within the state's scripturally defined authority. The scripture is quite clear on this.

You may well make a case that eliminating Assange is not "practical", or not "prudent". But I do not believe there is any case to be made that the elimination of enemy spies falls under the category of "sin".

[zak89]

Code: Select all

So, what we see is the idea that the individual must forgive, while the state is not permitted to forgive without first administering justice.

EXACTLY! The equivocation of individual vs state is maddening, as is the equally common equivocation of the Church vs Israel.

Understanding this dichotomy between the code of conduct for individual believers and the code of conduct for the state also helps us understand that seeming contraction between the "Love of God" and the "Wrath of God". As our Father, God loves us and wants to forgive our every wrong. As our King, He cannot. As King, He must administer justice. And so, He sent His Messiah, His very power and essence made flesh; to pay the price for our sins so that as King, God could administer justice and then as our Father forgive us.

You've said it better than I ever could - Merry Christmas all!

[executioner]

Knot,


You make a lot of good, strong points. Your reasoning is right.

[separateunion]

Well, it's good to know that some of us are okay with breaking the 6th Commandment. As long as that person is a threat to national security.

Following that logic, Joshua and the Israelites broke the 6th commandment when they slew the men of Ai in Joshua chapter 8. And they sinned again when they slaughtered the Amorites in Joshua 10. And they sinned again when they massacred ... you know, Joshua and the Israelites killed alot of people.

And then there was David. Did he break the 6th commandment when he killed Goliath? Have you really read his story? His body count is fairly impressive. Did he break the 6th commandment?

Two issues here:

1) These were acts within the context of war. Assange is not currently fighting a traditional war against the US.

2) Joshua was commanded by God to do what he did. When God directly tells you that murdering Assange is okay (because that's what it is), let me know.

You see, the KJV translators choose poorly when they translated 6th commandment as "thou shalt not kill". The Hebrew word here is "ratsach", which is used in reference to a criminal "manslayer". On the other hand, when God commanded the death penalty in Deuteronomy 13 for those who lead the people into idolatry, the word is "harag", which is much broader in scope.

So, the proper translation for the 6th commandment is, as we see in both the NIV and NASB, "You shall not murder". And of course, not all killing is murder.

I don't read the KJV, and I never used the word "kill" in my original post, but thanks for assuming. Also, in your scenario, Assange would be murdered. Having him be in an "accident" is not an act of just war, it's an act of murder.

You see, many Christians fail to understand the meaning of the seeming contradiction between the Old Testament code of "eye for an eye" and the New Testament code of "turn the other cheek". There is, in fact, no contradiction if you truly read The Torah (i.e Genesis through Deuteronomy) in it's entirety.

If you do so, you will see that The Law of the Torah is a legal system. There are rules for conducting trials, and the penalties are to be carried out not be the individual wronged, but by "the assembly".

The very same book, Leviticus commands in Lev 21:24 and in 24:20 "eye for eye, tooth for tooth", but then turns right around and says:

Leviticus 19:18
" `Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

So, what we see is the idea that the individual must forgive, while the state is not permitted to forgive without first administering justice.

We see this concept carried forward into The New Testament. Christ commands us to "turn the other cheek", but Paul says of the state:

Romans 13:3-4
3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Scripture authorizes the state to "bear the sword" as an agent of wrath to punish wrong. The individual must forgive, the state must punish.

First of all, most of this doesn't apply to the issue at hand. Secondly, even if we give your argument credence, it holds no water once we understand that Assange is not a citizen of the US. The US has no power or right to do anything to him. He does not fall under the laws of the US. So, we have three issues here:

1) You are okay with murdering Assange.

2) You are implying that all individuals should be submitted to the will of the US.

3) You are implying that anyone who tries to undermine the authority of the US deserves to be murdered, even non-US citizens.

So, no, I would not be willing to break the 6th commandment. But the state eliminating an enemy spy to protect its own citizens is not a violation of that commandment.

First of all, he isn't a spy. Generally speaking, spys are hired by governments to steal secrets from other governments. As far as I can see, Assange is nothing but a well connected man who has many informants, no different than someone in the military who works in gathering intelligence.

Secondly, the state is not authorized by Scripture to "eliminate an enemy spy". You can twist it all you want, but the Bible doesn't say that.

It is not murder

Yes it is.

and in fact falls well within the state's scripturally defined authority. The scripture is quite clear on this.

And no it isn't.

You may well make a case that eliminating Assange is not "practical", or not "prudent". But I do not believe there is any case to be made that the elimination of enemy spies falls under the category of "sin".

Murder is sin no matter how you slice it.

It's amazingly ironic how the people who were all over me for breaking the 8th Commandment because I download music off the internet are okay with rewriting Scripture so that they can break the 6th Commandment. I think some people need to get their priorities straight.

[knotodiswrld]

1) These were acts within the context of war. Assange is not currently fighting a traditional war against the US.

Really? He's not fighting a war? Could have fooled me! And who gets to decide what a "traditional war" is? The weapons of warfare change all the time. The first army to ever go up against firearms could have said, "Hey! That's not traditional war!" The first time airplanes were used to attack an infantry position, that was non-traditional war. So the fact that war is not "traditional" isn't really a relevant issue.

Cyber warfare is no less a part of war than bombers and tanks now. Assange is engaged in a very modern war against the U.S. Frankly, he's flashier than he is effective, but his actions are definitely an act of war.

2) Joshua was commanded by God to do what he did. When God directly tells you that murdering Assange is okay (because that's what it is), let me know.

What you are saying is that it is okay to violate the Word of God if God tells you to, right? Are you really saying that if the commandment says "You shall not murder", that it's still okay to murder if God says to do it?

That is a very troubling doctrine, and completely contrary to the Word of God. God cannot contradict Himself. At no point can God declare an action to be sinful, and then later tell a human being, "No, it's okay ... go ahead ... this is a special case." If He could do that, He would be contradicting His Own Word. That simply isn't possible.

This is the kind of thinking that leads to cult leaders saying, "Well, I know the Bible says not to commit adultery, but God told me I could have several brides under the age of 17, and a few others that are still legally married to other men, so I'm going to do it anyway".

Saying, "Well, it was okay for Joshua to murder people because God told him too," invalidates the 6th commandment itself. It is not possible for God to contradict himself in this way. I realize I did not make this point clear enough in my original post, but this is crucial to our understanding of scripture.

One of the primary assumptions, one of the most basic axioms we have in Biblical Exegesis, is that God simply does not ever contradict Himself. If it ever appears that He does, then we must assume that it is our understanding that is faulty, and not God's Word.

In this case, since God had already issued the commandment, "You shall not murder", and then instructed Joshua to slaughter various enemies, the only possible conclusion is that the actions of Joshua and his armies were not murder. Any other conclusion leads to God contradicting Himself, which is not a valid result.

Anyone who can say, "God told me it was okay to murder," is on his way to becoming a serial killer or a totalitarian dictator ... or both.

As far as God directly telling me anything about eliminating Assange, that is neither possible nor necessary. I am not an agent of the state. If I were the properly authorized agent of the state, God would have already given me permission to use lethal force to defend the citizens of my state in Romans 13 and in the totality of The Torah. Since I am not an agent of the state ... and if I were I couldn't tell you ... God won't be asking me to take any action against Assange, nor would it be appropriate for me to do so.

Also, in your scenario, Assange would be murdered. Having him be in an "accident" is not an act of just war, it's an act of murder.

I honestly don't follow. Assange is engaged in hostile acts against a particular country ... never mind which country it is. That nation has the right to stop him even if it requires lethal force. That nation also may find it expedient to conceal their involvement in his demise. I fail to see how this is any different than a soldier in the field shooting an enemy soldier or a counter intelligence officer shooting Russian spy. Neither actions are "murder".

First of all, most of this doesn't apply to the issue at hand.

Then I don't think we have the same understanding of "the issue at hand". These points are absolutely central to the issue at hand. The issue is, "Is it murder when a nation ... any nation ... eliminates someone who is a threat to it's citizens". My contention is that scripture clearly indicates that it is not murder.

In order to understand that, you must understand the difference between the standards God set for individuals, and the standards He set for states. Thus, that information was absolutely central to the issue at hand.

Secondly, even if we give your argument credence, it holds no water once we understand that Assange is not a citizen of the US.

Why does the fact that Assange is not a citizen of the U.S. have any bearing on the situation? If he were, he would have certain protections under the U.S. Constitution. We would need to apprehend him and hold a fair trial. But he is not, so that little technicality is done away with. He is a foreign, hostile agent. His actions are not just criminal, but are an act of either war or terrorism. So, the fact that he is not a US citizen actually gives us options we would not otherwise have.

The US has no power or right to do anything to anything to him

By your logic, the fact that Osama bin Laden is not a US citizen means we have no right to do anything to him either, right? I mean, he is not a US citizen, so by your logic, we have no power or right to do anything to him … correct?

Assange's citizenship is irrelevant. Every nation ... every nation ... on this planet has the right to take action, even lethal action, against those who pose genuine threats to their security. The US has that right. Britain has that right. China and Russia and Germany and Spain and Cuba and Albania and Lithuania all have that right.

So, we have three issues here:

1) You are okay with murdering Assange.

2) You are implying that all individuals should be submitted to the will of the US.

3) You are implying that anyone who tries to undermine the authority of the US deserves to be murdered, even non-US citizens.

1) Nope. I'm not talking about murder. Murder is sin. The state is authorized to use lethal force to defend itself as I have clearly demonstrated. That is not murder.

2) What does the U.S. have to do with this? I would say the same thing if it were British or Chinese documents he was leaking. The country under threat would have the right to resolve that threat by whatever means it had to employ.

3) First, he isn't just "undermining the authority" of the US. No, no. He is revealing classified information that could lead to loss of life and security for US citizens and interests at home and abroad.

Second, the fact that it is US documents he is revealing doesn't change anything. If they were French documents, I would full expect the French to deal with him. If they belonged to Spain, I would fully expect Spain to eliminate the threat to her security. The same would be true if they were Chinese or Russian documents.

It isn't about what Assange "deserves". Shucks, I never even considered whether he "deserved" to have action taken against him. Frankly, I find it irrelevant. I don't care about what he "deserves". The issue is what needs to be done to eliminate the threat. At this point, as I said, I'm not sure eliminating him is the most practical solution. From a practical point of view, there are better options at present. But a state ... any state ... has the right to use that option should it be necessary to defend themselves.

First of all, he isn't a spy. Generally speaking, spies are hired by governments to steal secrets from other governments.

That's a pretty narrow definition of "spy". Its not even accepted by intelligence agencies. First of all, there are "industrial spies", which work for private corporations not governments. The information they steal is often for use by those companies, not by any government. Also, many spies in the past were never hired by anyone. They were motivated, like Assange, by some sort of personal "cause" ... they sincerely believed that they were doing some sort of "good" by their work. Many were never paid a penny (or farthing, or drachma, or whatever) nor did they ask for one. They did what they did because of some personal crusade or motivation. Such spies are common, and Assange is just the latest one.

Assange is nothing but a well connected man who has many informants, no different than someone in the military who works in gathering intelligence.

The word for that is "Spy".

Secondly, the state is not authorized by Scripture to "eliminate an enemy spy". You can twist it all you want, but the Bible doesn't say that.

Really? You don't think nations are allowed to eliminate enemy spies? Curious. How would you suggest they deal with them?

So, what do you think Romans 13 means when it says the state is allowed to "bear the sword" if it does not mean using lethal force to keep order and defend itself? What other interpretation is there?

It is not murder

Yes it is.

Excellent come-back, Sport. Your logic is impeccable.

and in fact falls well within the state's scripturally defined authority. The scripture is quite clear on this.

And no it isn't.

I think I demonstrated with scripture and logic that it is. You haven't really addressed my points. So saying "no it isn't" just leaves me wondering why you think that.

Murder is sin no matter how you slice it.

True. No question. Thus, the question is, "Is it murder when the state bears the sword to punish wrong and defend its citizens?" Since scripture clearly authorizes this, I fail to see how this can be murder.

It's amazingly ironic how the people who were all over me for breaking the 8th Commandment because I download music off the internet are okay with rewriting Scripture so that they can break the 6th Commandment. I think some people need to get their priorities straight.

That's misdirection. The downloading issue has nothing to do with this. Let's keep the two issues separate.

[zak89]

At risk of the "me too" look, I find this point crucial:

What you are saying is that it is okay to violate the Word of God if God tells you to, right? Are you really saying that if the commandment says "You shall not murder", that it's still okay to murder if God says to do it?

So many Christians mess this one up, especially in apologetic situations (and it makes me cringe when I hear it). They try to argue that we can ignore the wartime actions of OT Israel because "God told them too" or "That's the "Old Covenant" etc etc.. That simply cannot be - God cannot deny Himself. It may be an easier way out of the "bind", but it's hardly a compelling, let alone Biblical, argument.

[knotodiswrld]

At risk of the "me too" look, I find this point crucial:

What you are saying is that it is okay to violate the Word of God if God tells you to, right? Are you really saying that if the commandment says "You shall not murder", that it's still okay to murder if God says to do it?

So many Christians mess this one up, especially in apologetic situations (and it makes me cringe when I hear it). They try to argue that we can ignore the wartime actions of OT Israel because "God told them too" or "That's the "Old Covenant" etc etc.. That simply cannot be - God cannot deny Himself. It may be an easier way out of the "bind", but it's hardly a compelling, let alone Biblical, argument.

Exactly. The argument is neither compelling nor even remotely Biblical. And it is used by atheists to ridicule the Christian faith. I can't count the number of times I have heard, "In the Bible, God says, 'Thou shalt not kill', but then He tells Joshua to kill all the Amorites. See ... the Bible contradicts itself so you can't really believe it!"

And without the understanding that the Scriptural rules for a state are different that the Scriptural rules for an individual, without the understanding that the word is "murder" not "kill", the only possible conclusion would be that the Bible contradicts itself.

This concept is absolutely necessary to the proper understanding of The Torah and the New Testament.

[Dan]

Assange bailed: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12005930

[p-freak]

At risk of the "me too" look, I find this point crucial:

What you are saying is that it is okay to violate the Word of God if God tells you to, right? Are you really saying that if the commandment says "You shall not murder", that it's still okay to murder if God says to do it?

So many Christians mess this one up, especially in apologetic situations (and it makes me cringe when I hear it). They try to argue that we can ignore the wartime actions of OT Israel because "God told them too" or "That's the "Old Covenant" etc etc.. That simply cannot be - God cannot deny Himself. It may be an easier way out of the "bind", but it's hardly a compelling, let alone Biblical, argument.

Exactly. The argument is neither compelling nor even remotely Biblical. And it is used by atheists to ridicule the Christian faith. I can't count the number of times I have heard, "In the Bible, God says, 'Thou shalt not kill', but then He tells Joshua to kill all the Amorites. See ... the Bible contradicts itself so you can't really believe it!"

And without the understanding that the Scriptural rules for a state are different that the Scriptural rules for an individual, without the understanding that the word is "murder" not "kill", the only possible conclusion would be that the Bible contradicts itself.

This concept is absolutely necessary to the proper understanding of The Torah and the New Testament.

But then in the OT it's God's judgment on the Amorites that is being executed by Joshua and the Israelites. This does not mean that any state at any time has the license to get rid of their enemies by killing them at will. It is only the people of Israel that in Biblical times is used by God to execute his judgment. (And besides, it's not clear if the Amorites were being killed because they were being judged or the other way around.) That God used Israel to execute judgment does not give the US government the license to kill someone who is annoying to them. So I fully agree with SU that killing Assange is in all cases murder.

[knotodiswrld]

But then in the OT it's God's judgment on the Amorites that is being executed by Joshua and the Israelites. This does not mean that any state at any time has the license to get rid of their enemies by killing them at will. It is only the people of Israel that in Biblical times is used by God to execute his judgment. (And besides, it's not clear if the Amorites were being killed because they were being judged or the other way around.) That God used Israel to execute judgment does not give the US government the license to kill someone who is annoying to them. So I fully agree with SU that killing Assange is in all cases murder.

That doesn't hold up any better. What you're saying is, "God was using Israel to execute judgement, so it was okay for them to commit murder". That isn't any better. It would still mean that God was contradicting Himself. God can only use a nation, such as Ancient Israel, to execute judgement if, in fact, a nation "bearing the sword" is completely different than an individual "bearing the sword". If it is murder for a nation to bear the sword just as it is for an individual, then God would have been asking Israel to sin when they "executed judgment". Israel cannot be allowed to "sin" just because they are Israel.

This argument is just another, slightly more elegant, way of saying, "It was okay for Joshua to break the 6th commandment because God told him too". That, quite simply, would be tantamount to accusing God of contradicting Himself. It simply cannot be. If the case of Joshua and the Israelites eliminating the Amorites is a special case because "God told them it was okay because they were special," then it invalidates the entire Torah, and thus the entire Bible. If a state cannot use lethal force to eliminate a threat, then God using the state of Israel to "execute judgment" is still murder and it is still sin.

The fact that God used Israel to execute judgment doesn't really mean anything special for the modern United States. But God could not have used Israel to execute judgment if it were "murder" for a nation to eliminate those who pose a threat to them. He cannot say, "Well, I'm really mad at these people, so I give you permission to murder them".

No!! To suggest He did such a thing is heresy bordering on blasphemy. The only reason that it was valid or possible for God to give such a command to the nation of Israel is because states have that right; they have the right to use lethal force to eliminate those individuals ... or other states ... which are a threat to them.

Now, does that mean that modern states can kill at will? Not exactly. Scripture lays down pretty clearly when a state is supposed to "wield the sword". Romans 13:4 states that the ruler "is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." Remember, Paul is speaking here of the Roman government, not the Israelite government. The Roman government was full of corruption and certainly committed it's share of what we would call "human rights violations". And yet, Paul stated that it was "God's servant" in this manner.

If this can apply to the government of the Roman Empire, surely it can apply to the modern U.S.

Also, we see the issue of the state's use of lethal force addressed by John the Baptist in Luke 3:14

Luke 3:14 Then some soldiers asked him, "And what should we do?" He replied, "Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely--be content with your pay."

John did not tell them to leave the army and stop being soldiers. Remember, these were Roman soldiers and could be ordered at any time to act with lethal force against those Rome considered a threat. But John did not expect them to stop serving in Rome's army. He knew that Rome had a right and a duty, before God, to use lethal force against those who were a threat to her.

And of course, in the Old Testament we see time and time again that the State of Israel is given God's blessing in acting against those who posed a threat.

But it is clear in the Old Testament that God even granted states the right of lethal action against a hostile threat even when that state was the Philistines!! For we see in 1 Samuel 27 that when David realized that Saul would not give up looking for him, he went and lived in the land of the Philistines. The Philistine King, Achish, was evidently no dummy. Instead of seeking revenge on David for all the Philistines David had killed, Achish realized, "Hey! He was just a soldier doing his job. And now he's willing to work for me!"

As an agent of the Philistine king, David frequently raided enemies of Philstia, even Judah ... launching preemptive attacks. God did not command him to stop and in fact blessed his efforts.

We read in 1 Samuel 27:10 - 12

1SA 27:10 When Achish asked, "Where did you go raiding today?" David would say, "Against the Negev of Judah" or "Against the Negev of Jerahmeel" or "Against the Negev of the Kenites." 11 He did not leave a man or woman alive to be brought to Gath, for he thought, "They might inform on us and say, `This is what David did.' " And such was his practice as long as he lived in Philistine territory. 12 Achish trusted David and said to himself, "He has become so odious to his people, the Israelites, that he will be my servant forever."

*Note: "Negev" refers to a southern desert region*

David was working, not for the state of Israel, but for the state of Philistia at that point. And God still blessed it because the state of Philistia had the same right to act against it's enemies as did the state of Israel.

If God gives that right to Philistia and Rome, what makes you think He does not give that right to the modern United States?

So, you are right in one sense. The fact that God used Israel to execute judgement is completely, totally, irrelevant to the conversation. What is relevant is that Israel could not have been so used if it were not for the fact that a state has the right to "bear the sword" and use lethal force against those who are a threat to it.

Also, Assange is not just "annoying" the United States. By revealing a willingness to expose classified documents to everyone with access to the web, Assange is just as much a threat to national security as Aldrich Ames ever was. But Ames was a U.S. citizen and had the legal protection of the Constitution. Assange is not, and does not.

Answer this. Is it murder for a US soldier or law enforcement officer, upon discovering an enemy spy in the process of transmitting classified information back to a hostile foreign government, to empty a clip into that agent to stop the transmission? [edit to add] Would it be murder if a British or Swedish soldier or law enforcement agent did the same thing in his or her own country?[/end edit]

If you consider that murder, then what exactly is your interpretation of Romans 13? And if it is not murder, then why would doing the same to Assange be murder? The only difference between Assange and Aldrich Ames is that Assange transmitted the intelligence he gathered to everyone, instead of just his Soviet handlers.

[executioner]

But then in the OT it's God's judgment on the Amorites that is being executed by Joshua and the Israelites. This does not mean that any state at any time has the license to get rid of their enemies by killing them at will. It is only the people of Israel that in Biblical times is used by God to execute his judgment. (And besides, it's not clear if the Amorites were being killed because they were being judged or the other way around.) That God used Israel to execute judgment does not give the US government the license to kill someone who is annoying to them. So I fully agree with SU that killing Assange is in all cases murder.

That doesn't hold up any better. What you're saying is, "God was using Israel to execute judgement, so it was okay for them to commit murder". That isn't any better. It would still mean that God was contradicting Himself. God can only use a nation, such as Ancient Israel, to execute judgement if, in fact, a nation "bearing the sword" is completely different than an individual "bearing the sword". If it is murder for a nation to bear the sword just as it is for an individual, then God would have been asking Israel to sin when they "executed judgment". Israel cannot be allowed to "sin" just because they are Israel.

This argument is just another, slightly more elegant, way of saying, "It was okay for Joshua to break the 6th commandment because God told him too". That, quite simply, would be tantamount to accusing God of contradicting Himself. It simply cannot be. If the case of Joshua and the Israelites eliminating the Amorites is a special case because "God told them it was okay because they were special," then it invalidates the entire Torah, and thus the entire Bible. If a state cannot use lethal force to eliminate a threat, then God using the state of Israel to "execute judgment" is still murder and it is still sin.

The fact that God used Israel to execute judgment doesn't really mean anything special for the modern United States. But God could not have used Israel to execute judgment if it were "murder" for a nation to eliminate those who pose a threat to them. He cannot say, "Well, I'm really mad at these people, so I give you permission to murder them".

No!! To suggest He did such a thing is heresy bordering on blasphemy. The only reason that it was valid or possible for God to give such a command to the nation of Israel is because states have that right; they have the right to use lethal force to eliminate those individuals ... or other states ... which are a threat to them.

Now, does that mean that modern states can kill at will? Not exactly. Scripture lays down pretty clearly when a state is supposed to "wield the sword". Romans 13:4 states that the ruler "is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." Remember, Paul is speaking here of the Roman government, not the Israelite government. The Roman government was full of corruption and certainly committed it's share of what we would call "human rights violations". And yet, Paul stated that it was "God's servant" in this manner.

If this can apply to the government of the Roman Empire, surely it can apply to the modern U.S.

Also, we see the issue of the state's use of lethal force addressed by John the Baptist in Luke 3:14

Luke 3:14 Then some soldiers asked him, "And what should we do?" He replied, "Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely--be content with your pay."

John did not tell them to leave the army and stop being soldiers. Remember, these were Roman soldiers and could be ordered at any time to act with lethal force against those Rome considered a threat. But John did not expect them to stop serving in Rome's army. He knew that Rome had a right and a duty, before God, to use lethal force against those who were a threat to her.

And of course, in the Old Testament we see time and time again that the State of Israel is given God's blessing in acting against those who posed a threat.

But it is clear in the Old Testament that God even granted states the right of lethal action against a hostile threat even when that state was the Philistines!! For we see in 1 Samuel 27 that when David realized that Saul would not give up looking for him, he went and lived in the land of the Philistines. The Philistine King, Achish, was evidently no dummy. Instead of seeking revenge on David for all the Philistines David had killed, Achish realized, "Hey! He was just a soldier doing his job. And now he's willing to work for me!"

As an agent of the Philistine king, David frequently raided enemies of Philstia, even Judah ... launching preemptive attacks. God did not command him to stop and in fact blessed his efforts.

We read in 1 Samuel 27:10 - 12

1SA 27:10 When Achish asked, "Where did you go raiding today?" David would say, "Against the Negev of Judah" or "Against the Negev of Jerahmeel" or "Against the Negev of the Kenites." 11 He did not leave a man or woman alive to be brought to Gath, for he thought, "They might inform on us and say, `This is what David did.' " And such was his practice as long as he lived in Philistine territory. 12 Achish trusted David and said to himself, "He has become so odious to his people, the Israelites, that he will be my servant forever."

*Note: "Negev" refers to a southern desert region*

David was working, not for the state of Israel, but for the state of Philistia at that point. And God still blessed it because the state of Philistia had the same right to act against it's enemies as did the state of Israel.

If God gives that right to Philistia and Rome, what makes you think He does not give that right to the modern United States?

So, you are right in one sense. The fact that God used Israel to execute judgement is completely, totally, irrelevant to the conversation. What is relevant is that Israel could not have been so used if it were not for the fact that a state has the right to "bear the sword" and use lethal force against those who are a threat to it.

Also, Assange is not just "annoying" the United States. By revealing a willingness to expose classified documents to everyone with access to the web, Assange is just as much a threat to national security as Aldrich Ames ever was. But Ames was a U.S. citizen and had the legal protection of the Constitution. Assange is not, and does not.

Answer this. Is it murder for a US soldier or law enforcement officer, upon discovering an enemy spy in the process of transmitting classified information back to a hostile foreign government, to empty a clip into that agent to stop the transmission? [edit to add] Would it be murder if a British or Swedish soldier or law enforcement agent did the same thing in his or her own country?[/end edit]

If you consider that murder, then what exactly is your interpretation of Romans 13? And if it is not murder, then why would doing the same to Assange be murder? The only difference between Assange and Aldrich Ames is that Assange transmitted the intelligence he gathered to everyone, instead of just his Soviet handlers.

This is clear as a nice sunny day in the dead of winter. If you all disagree with the above statements then I would really like to know what your interpatation of Romans 13 is.

[executioner]

This is a little off the subject but what about when an individual has to protect himself and family against maybe something like a home invasion, or someone stealing ones property?

[Jonathan]

What if this hypothetical state deploys lethal agents to carry out or defend an aggressive action that is of morally or spiritually questionable legality or premise?

[separateunion]

So, following the same logic, if Iran or North Korea started murdering Americans because they were a threat to the national security of said countries, that'd be okay.

Romans 13 does not give government carte blanche to kill as they deem fit. Being that both Paul and Jesus blatantly rebelled against certain authorities, Romans 13 cannot mean that it is never wrong to rebel. Otherwise, we have to concede that by being in rebellion against certain institutions (established by God), they were, in effect, in rebellion against God. Were the American Revolutionists sinning because they stood up for themselves against the establishment? If we are to always submit to the state, why fight against abortion or homosexual marriage? The state has authorized these so, by your interpretation of Romans 13, Christians should just submit to the authority of the government and accept whatever we are told.

I think the problem with this reading of Romans 13 is not considering the audience or the context. Christians in Rome were on the verge of rebelling against Rome. Paul saw this as problematic and was admonishing the Roman church to keep the peace. This is further backed up by the fact that this passage of Scripture immediately follows a section which re-emphasizes the Sermon on the Mount, a message of humbleness, meekness and gentleness. Paul is calling for those specific Christians (and, by extension, Christians in similar situations) to not be divisive, but to maintain community. It doesn't follow that Paul would expect all Christians to act this way in every situation and, as I've already pointed out, there are times when Christians should stand up to their governments. Paul did this. So did the other disciples. In Acts 4, Peter and John don't say, "sorry, Sadducees, you're right. We'll stop preaching about Jesus now." You complain that me saying that the Israelites killing all those people is okay because God told them too is an "out", yet you seem to think that the government, which is established by God, has been given authority, by God, to also break his commandments. This is pure hypocrisy.

You can try to twist it all you want, but killing Assange the way you've talked about IS murder. I'm not sure how you can see it any other way. And how you can even compare him to Osama Bin Laden blows my mind. A man who kills none is equivalent to a man who killed thousands? Give me a break.

[p-freak]

But then in the OT it's God's judgment on the Amorites that is being executed by Joshua and the Israelites. This does not mean that any state at any time has the license to get rid of their enemies by killing them at will. It is only the people of Israel that in Biblical times is used by God to execute his judgment. (And besides, it's not clear if the Amorites were being killed because they were being judged or the other way around.) That God used Israel to execute judgment does not give the US government the license to kill someone who is annoying to them. So I fully agree with SU that killing Assange is in all cases murder.

That doesn't hold up any better. What you're saying is, "God was using Israel to execute judgement, so it was okay for them to commit murder". That isn't any better. It would still mean that God was contradicting Himself. God can only use a nation, such as Ancient Israel, to execute judgement if, in fact, a nation "bearing the sword" is completely different than an individual "bearing the sword". If it is murder for a nation to bear the sword just as it is for an individual, then God would have been asking Israel to sin when they "executed judgment". Israel cannot be allowed to "sin" just because they are Israel.

This argument is just another, slightly more elegant, way of saying, "It was okay for Joshua to break the 6th commandment because God told him too". That, quite simply, would be tantamount to accusing God of contradicting Himself. It simply cannot be. If the case of Joshua and the Israelites eliminating the Amorites is a special case because "God told them it was okay because they were special," then it invalidates the entire Torah, and thus the entire Bible. If a state cannot use lethal force to eliminate a threat, then God using the state of Israel to "execute judgment" is still murder and it is still sin.

How about a short and to the point reply next time?

I never said what you're trying to make me say. Israel always had a special position and what applies to them doesn't apply to any state / people in the world. I do realize the apparent problem of Israel being commanded to kill the Amorites, and it is a difficult paradox, but your solution of then just applying this to all states in the world is just too easy. If God's command to Israel here seems to be in conflict with the 6th commandment, doesn't necessarily imply that if we work out the details here, we can apply it to every situation in the world. By desperately wanting to put the two together you seem to want to force God's judgment through Israel into your own ideas about how God should be bound by his own commandments. I think the picture is much wider and broader than this. I don't have a fixed solution for you, but I can assure you that killing anyone (either by a state or an individual) is undesirable and against God's idea of how people should deal with each other. At all costs this should be avoided. That is the practical outworking of the 6th commandment. And you want to use the way God has been using Israel to execute his judgment as a license for the US to kill Assange, even though that is utterly in contradiction with the sixth commandment.

Trying to fit all God's doing into our limited frame of mind has been the source of many problems. This sort of thinking historically has lead to crusades, religious wars, colonialism, slavery, racial segregation and many more undesirable things. People don't seem to be able to live with a God who is much bigger than our limited understanding.