1. I would warn them of their evil ways.

That might be asking for trouble right there. Why bother to confront them at all? Confrontation can only bring attention to yourself, you're "judging" their behavior to be "evil" by confronting them.

As far as 2 thur 4 go I agree. And because of my faith in God I know that these men would not attack my family.

But then Spider does present a deeper question. What do you do if there's a whole town here and you see these men going around raping your and murdering all your friends and neighbors?

Do you just assume that God is protecting you and your neighbors simply must not be "godly" and therefore God is allowing them to be harmed?

Just how far do you take this line of thinking before you are motivated to help protect your community?

In short, when does it become justified to become a policeman, or a soldier?

If you can justify police and support soldiers, then you should be able to become one to protect your loved ones.

Do you think that it's ungodly to become a police officer or a soldier? Do you think that all police officers and soldiers are heathens who are rejecting the teachings of Jesus?

Would you be a "consciousness objector" on religious grounds if your country called you to war?

That might be asking for trouble right there. Why bother to confront them at all? Confrontation can only bring attention to yourself, you're "judging" their behavior to be "evil" by confronting them.

Cowboy wrote:

The following verse tells us straight up one sin is not worse then another. How can one see another persons sin worse then their own?

Matthew 7:3
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Who said anything about "punishment"?

I asked if you would protect your family.

If a rabid bear was about to attack your family and chew them to pieces would you shoot it? If so, would you consider that you have "punished" it? Or did you simply do what needed to be done to protect your family.



Just because you were taught to believe such nonsense doesn't make it rational.

Who said anything about "punishment"?

I asked if you would protect your family.

If a rabid bear was about to attack your family and chew them to pieces would you shoot it? If so, would you consider that you have "punished" it? Or did you simply do what needed to be done to protect your family.

I totally disagree with your interpretation and conclusions about this verse.

This verse in no way tells us "straight up" that one sin is no worse than another. Not even close.

Being disobedient to our father is doing "evil". That is what evil is. Righteous is doing as our father has told us and doing evil is doing the opposite of what our father has told us. So no "judgement" made. It's just fact.

We would confront them in hopes to open their eyes.

Cowboy wrote:

The following verse tells us straight up one sin is not worse then another. How can one see another persons sin worse then their own?

Matthew 7:3
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

In light of the verse you've just posted, along with your own personal interpretation of it, you would be acting as a hypocrite then because you are just as big of a sinner as they are according to you.

.. ..than would not the answer be to rid the earth of such evil ..and then ask for forgiveness..

Not acting as a hypocrite. I would tell one of their trespasses as I would hope one would tell me.

Those people would have their punishment in time. It's not my place to instil the punishment I think they should have. Remember one is not better then the other. Just because this action(s) seems extremely wrong to you, ALL sins are equal, all sins but one are forgiveable. The only sin worse then the others is denying the lord thy God. Besides that ALL sins are just as bad. You steal something, you're no better then a murderer, you treat someone badly, you're no better then a rapist, ect ect. Just because YOU think this action is worse then another doesn't make it so, for it is not. Only YOUR interpretation of the action. I would take the passive route and let the lord sort it out.

Is there really justified killing? That would be the same as justified thievery, justified raping, justified hurting of another.

Murder is murder, reasons can not justify murder and or "killing" ALL killing of another is murder. We do not have the right to say who lives or who doesn't. We didn't create them nor have anything to do with the creating of them, so why would we have the power to kill something we never created?

You can't steal from somebody to prevent him from stealing from you. You can't rape somebody to prevent him from raping you. But you can kill someone to prevent him from killing you or your family. So I can't really see that your argument hold any water.

I understand what you are saying about us not having the right to decide who lives or dies, but you take it to absurd lengths. In fact, if someone is threatening your family and you decide to take no action, you HAVE decided who should live and who should die: you have decided that you and your family should die and the violent aggressor(s) should live.

Are you really advocating non-violence in all situations? So if someone broke into your house, you would passively allow them to steal, rape or murder without resistance? Jesus told his followers to arm themselves, because it was a dangerous world. Why should they be armed, if they couldn't use their weapons? I believe that Jesus taught that self-defense was justified, you see that throughout the Gospels. Yes, Jesus taught against vigilantism, but that's not what we are talking about. In a situation where nobody can come to your families rescue, you would allow evil men to have their way with them?

Jesus says to arm yourself with the word. He did not tell them to get weapons. And no he didn't teach "self-defence" Jesus has taught us to turn the other cheek.

He also said to them, "When I sent you out without money-bag, traveling bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Not a thing," they said. Then He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money-bag should take it, and also a traveling bag. And whoever doesn't have a sword should sell his robe and buy one.

Oh but not quite. Turning away from killing him is turning away from sinning. The only reward for sin is death, so who died and who didn't?

Luke 22:35-36


I admire your pluck and dedication, but your exegesis leaves something to be desired.

So you believe it is a sin to defend yourself and others?

I have to repeat Abracadabra's point from earlier, does that mean that all police officers are sinning by enforcing the law?

Cowboy wrote:

EVERYONE and anyone has the chance any day and any time of their life. So you can not say God didn't give them a "chance" to repent, they had their entire life at any moment.

Cowboy wrote:

Why would it be ok for the officer to act in a violent manner but not the one this act is being acted upon? Why does the officer have more privileges then the person they are punishing? Both actions are the same, so why is there a different outcome?

But that's not what I said Cowboy. I never said that God didn't give them a 'chance' to repent. I said that they didn't have as much of a chance as someone who had a longer life and therefore the system would not be equally fair for everyone, and if it's not equally fair for everyone then it's unjust and unrighteous.

So your objection doesn't apply to the point I made.