Wikileaks

[knotodiswrld]

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?

This is much the same situation as a pastor abusing his position in the church. When he/she (and I bet that starts another argument) does this, it is up to his/her brothers and sisters to hold him/her accountable. Sometimes this results in something called a "church split". There's not much you can do about it.

Similarly, when a state abuses it's authority, other states must call it to task and hold it accountable. When this happens, it often results in something we call "war". There's not much you can do about it.

When a nation called "Germany" abused her authority in the 1930's, another nation called "Britain" called her on it and held her accountable, and was eventually joined by several other nations including one called "The United States". Eventually, those nations were able to stop Germany from continuing her abusive use of her authority.

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?

This goes back to the difference between "killing" and "murder". It is not "murder" to kill to protect your family. I am not sure about protecting your property if your life is not in danger. I don't think I could kill a man to keep him from stealing my car, but I would not hesitate to kill him to keep him from kidnapping my son.


Seperateunion:

You've gone into a long discussion about whether Christians should always submit to their governments. You very nearly tricked me this way, and almost got me off my major point. Nice move, but I've caught you at it.

You see, the issue is not whether Christians should always submit to their governments. That is irrelevant to this conversation. I will address your points just because they are interesting, but before I do, I want to make one thing very clear.

The question of whether Christians should always submit to their governments is completely and totally irrelevant to whether or not a nation has the the right to eliminate a threat.

The only relevant point is found in Romans 13:4.

Romans 13:4 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.

It states plainly that "he does not bear the sword for nothing" and that "he is God's servant, an agent of wrath". In any context, no matter who the audience is, this is a very clear, unambiguous assertion. The state is God's servant and it gets to use lethal force. This is stated as a plain and simple fact. Thus, even if your assertions about the context were correct, it would not change the fact that the state is authorized by God Himself to bear the sword as an agent of wrath.

The examples I posted from the Old Testament bear this out.

Now, on to your specific points.

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.

Yes!! Of course! Because, as I just said, the state is God's servant and His agent of wrath to bear the sword. I thought for a moment that you were starting to catch on! If you had stopped here, I would be quoting a line out of "Pygmalion".

He's got it! He's got it! By George I think he's got it!

Yes, Iran and North Korea have this right! No question. Of course, the United States has the right to, in turn, consider this action to be a threat against the US and to take appropriate action … even the use of lethal force. The idea is that the various states of the world act as a check and balance against each other. This keeps any one state from running amok with it's authority.

Romans 13 does not give government carte blanche to kill as they deem fit.

I didn't say "carte blanche" or "as they deem fit". In my last post, and to some degree in other posts, I showed pretty clearly when the state can use lethal force according to scripture. I pointed out specific scriptures to support my point. It would be redundant to do so again.

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.

It amazes me how often Christians say this. Where and when, exactly, did Paul or Jesus ever "rebel" against the Roman government!?!?! It never happened. Not once!!! Christ and His Apostles rebelled against religious authority, not governmental. And Christ and His Apostles were, after all, the new and higher religious authority ordained by God. So, they weren't really rebelling, merely asserting the primacy of their own authority.

It was really the established authorities that were rebelling against Christ and His Apostles.

It is only okay to disobey governmental authority when it runs afoul of God's law. Since God's law specifically authorizes the state to "bear the sword", then they do not run afoul of God's Law when they use lethal force to maintain order and punish evil. It is, in fact, their duty before God.

It is, in fact, a sin for the state to refuse to use lethal force when it is truly necessary.

 Were the American Revolutionists sinning because they stood up for themselves against the establishment? I

Now, that is an interesting conversation. We should really have a whole other thread dedicated to it. It could be very interesting.

Many great men of God of the past said that the American Revolutionist absolutely were sinning to rebel against Britain. Among them was be a personal hero of mine, one Rev. John Wesley. Certainly, on the face of it, the American Revolutionist would seem to be in violation of Romans 13.

However, their situation was a bit complex. They were, in fact, answering simultaneously to two separate governments. There was the British Crown on the other side of the Atlantic, but each also had a Colonial government to answer to on this side of the Atlantic. The question for them was, "Which government takes precedent?" In their minds, it was the closer Colonial government in which they actually participated and which dealt much more with day to day issues which held primacy. They believed that, when the Crown began to abuse it's authority that it was the job and duty of the more immediate state, the Colonial government, to bear the sword and take action against it.

Whether they were correct in this belief is a matter for debate, but they sincerely believed it. So, if their was sin, it was unintentional.

I lean in the same direction as the Revolutionists myself, though many devout and wise men of God have supported the other side. I will not judge either side, as I can clearly see good arguments for both.

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.

Yes and no. Certainly, we should not use violence or force to resist the idea of homosexual marriage. However, the ultimate authority in the United States is something called "The Constitution". This constitution overrides every other law and by law invalidates any law which contradicts it.

Ancient Rome was ruled by a man, Caesar. The United States is ruled not by a man, but by a written document, the Constitution. It is, essentially, our king; the ruler of Romans 13:3-4. All other governmental authority in our land must submit to it. And according to the Constitution, you have the legal right to speak out against any law we have. So in speaking out, even vehemently and loudly, against homosexual marriage or abortion, you are in no way rebelling against the U.S. Or any state government. You are, in fact, following the law to the letter.

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.

Again, this isn't really relevant to the conversation, but ...

Really? A rebellion? Honestly? Care to document this assertion? Where do you get this? Maybe it's true, but I've never read this. They simply didn't have the numbers or force to have any reasonable chance against Roman legions. Had this been the situation, Paul's response would have been, "Are you crazy? God's not in this. You'll be slaughtered!" This just doesn't make any sense.

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.

I don't see that. I see a call to love each other, but I'd hardly call that a re-emphasis on the Sermon on the Mount.

Paul is calling for those specific Christians (and, by extension, Christians in similar situations) to not be divisive, but to maintain community.

That's really a pretty minor point in this passage. It is much more a call to revive our faith and live in a way that glorifies Christ. This relates back to the v.3 when it says that if we do what is right, the ruler will commend us. The connection is to live right so that the church will have a good reputation in our society, even among the rulers. Note especially v. 11 through 12 below.

Romans 13:8-14
Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

RO 13:11 And do this, understanding the present time. The hour has come for you to wake up from your slumber, because our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed. 12 The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13 Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. 14 Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature.

It doesn't follow that Paul would expect all Christians to act this way in every situation and

Why not? Most Christians live in a country with a government that doesn't always do things our way. Unless you're a Somali Christian, you have a government to answer to. I think it applies.

 there are times when Christians should stand up to their governments. Paul did this. So did the other disciples.

There are times when we must obey God's law rather than man's. But as I said above, this is irrelevant to the question of whether states can use lethal force against enemy spies.

In Acts 4, Peter and John don't say, "sorry, Sadducees, you're right. We'll stop preaching about Jesus now."

Again, the Sadducees were religious authority. They should have been submitting to The Apostles, not the other way around.

You complain that me saying that the Israelites killing all those people is okay because God told them too is an "out",

No, I said it was "heresy bordering on blasphemy". It isn't an "out" at all.

yet you seem to think that the government, which is established by God, has been given authority, by God, to also break his commandments.

I'm not saying that at all. The commandment is "You shall not murder". The state using lethal force against it's enemies is not in any way "murder". To say that it is is to misunderstand the idea of what murder is. Even in the Old Testament, the word used in the 6th commandment for "murder" is different from the word used for killing during war.

A state defending itself with lethal force cannot be "murder". No society or religion, especially not Judaism or Christianity, has ever defined it that way.

Look, if you're going to insist that the state eliminating a threat is "murder", then yes, God lets the state break the commandment. Which means God contradicted himself. Which means the Bible is false.

You have two choices:

1.Reject the Bible.
2.Realize that the state using lethal force to defend itself is in no way "murder".

 And how you can even compare him to Osama Bin Laden blows my mind

The assumption was made that the fact that Assange is not a U.S. Citizen means we can't take action against him. I simply pointed out that if this were the case, it would mean we couldn't take action against Bin Laden. The relevant heinousness of the two men's crimes is irrelevant. If we can't take action against someone who is not a citizen, then Bin Laden is off the hook no matter what his crimes are.

If we can take action against someone like Bin Laden who is not a citizen, then Assange can't hide behind that anymore.

 A man who kills none is equivalent to a man who killed thousands? Give me a break.

The exposure of classified documents will very likely lead to the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of U.S. Soldiers, diplomats, intelligence agents, and private contractors. It is true that Assange is not personally killing those people, but Bin Laden has not personally killed any one either. Assange is just as much a murderer as Bin Laden. He does not care how many people he kills with his "leaks".

So, yes, I consider them equal. Assange simply uses a different weapon. The difference is that we know where Assange is.

P-Freak:

I'm working on yours.

[knotodiswrld]

I never said what you're trying to make me say.

Then I honestly still don't understand what you're trying to say. It sounds like you're trying to say, "Israel is special, so they can do things other nations can't do, like kill their enemies". If that's not what you're trying to say, then I simply don't get what you're saying at all.

Sorry.

 Israel always had a special position and what applies to them doesn't apply to any state / people in the world.

It terms of the Messianic Covenant, sure. In terms of affairs of state … not really. He allowed them to be conquered by other states many times. They are only special is that He preserves or prunes them in order to bring about His Messianic plan. They don't get to do things other nations don't get to do. Can you show something in scripture would indicate that?

I do realize the apparent problem of Israel being commanded to kill the Amorites, and it is a difficult paradox, 

It isn't difficult, and it is not remotely a "paradox". It seems like a "contradiction" to those with a shallow understanding of God's word, but if you really study even the Torah, you will see the solution is simple. Studying the New Testament just makes it even easier.

The Torah, the very same books that gives us the 6th commandment, makes it quite clear that a society may use the death penalty for punishment of crime. Romans 13 simply carries this forward into the New Testament era. As I showed through scripture, God has always allowed states to "bear the sword" and still does.

It's only difficult if you continue to insist that all killing is murder and inherently bad. That position simply isn't scriptural.

but your solution of then just applying this to all states in the world is just too easy.

"Too easy" doesn't mean "wrong".

If God's command to Israel here seems to be in conflict with the 6th commandment,

What I am saying is that it only appears to be in conflict with the 6th commandment if you believe that a state using lethal force to defend itself is "murder". That simply isn't borne out by scripture, as I have clearly shown. So, there is no conflict, nor would there seem to be.

By desperately wanting to put the two together

Desperately wanting to put the two … what … together? I'm lost.

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.

Actually, I'm saying that God cannot contradict His Own Word. God is, in fact, "bound by His Commandments", but that is not relevant to this discussion. The relevant assertion is that God cannot contradict His Word.

This is demonstrated in James 1:17 when it says that God "does not change like shifting shadows".

We also read:

Psalm 119:89 PS 119:89 Your word, O LORD, is eternal;
it stands firm in the heavens.

His Word is both eternal and firm. It can't be changed, not even in Heaven. Even there it is firm.

2 Timothy 2:13 If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannotdeny Himself. (NASB)

He is faithful and cannot deny Himself. He exalts His Word above all things (Psalm 138:2). His Word is the essence of Who He is. To contradict His Word He would have to deny Himself. He can't do that.

Hebrews 6:17 speaks of the "immutability of His Council", or "the unchangeable nature of His purpose". If He could contradict His own Word, it would not be "immutable". His purpose would not be "unchangeable".

The immutability of God's Word, and the idea that God cannot contradict His Own Word is not "my idea". It has been a standard doctrine of the Church since the time of the Apostles.

 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.

Then why does God's servant, the state, bear the sword as an agent of wrath? That has to be answered before you can make this assertion. If you cannot, then it must be concluded that there are times when killing is at least necessary and not a sin.

At all costs this should be avoided.

So, we should have just let Hitler conquer Europe? Because the only way to stop him was to kill German soldiers. Do you really think that killing should be avoided at all costs?

That is the practical outworking of the 6th commandment.

The 6th commandment says "You shall not murder". I don't see what needs to be "outworked". So, we don't murder. Simple. But a state using lethal force to defend itself is, by definition, not murder.

 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.

As I pointed out in my previous posts, God clearly allowed states other than Israel to use lethal force to defend themselves. You keep trying to bring this around to Israel, but I have proven by scripture that God endorsed this use of lethal force for both Rome and Philistia.

I am not really using the way God used Israel for anything.

Trying to fit all God's doing into our limited frame of mind has been the source of many problems.

And that is an attitude that leads to people simply believing whatever their clergy tell them without any critical analysis of the Scriptures for themselves. God has made certain things very, very clear to us and this is one of them. We are called to study God's word and to seek to understand.

This sort of thinking historically has lead to crusades, religious wars, colonialism, slavery, racial segregation and many more undesirable things.

No. Thirst for power and greed leads to crusades and religious wars. The people who start such wars do not concern themselves with whether it is right. Those statesmen who truly consider themselves God's servants will govern by His Word. Those who merely use the idea of being His servants as a grab for power would do so with or without this sort of thinking.

I cannot conceive of how this leads to racial segregation or slavery. And I reject the notion that "Colonialism" is inherently bad. But that is a subject for another thread.

People don't seem to be able to live with a God who is much bigger than our limited understanding.

Of course God is bigger than our limited understanding. What I have a problem with is people who don't want to understand what He has clearly revealed in His Word.

[zak89]

[roll credits]

[knotodiswrld]