PDA

View Full Version : "I see nothing wrong with killing Christians" -a DUllard



GoneNutz
10-13-2008, 07:26 AM
from this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4227239


Blarch (1000+ posts) Mon Oct-13-08 07:12 AM
Response to Original message
28. I see nothing wrong with killing Christians.
After all ...they want me murdered. An eye for an eye.




What happened to peace, love, understanding, TOLERANCE, all that shit that the libs spew?

jinxmchue
10-13-2008, 10:02 AM
from this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4227239



What happened to peace, love, understanding, TOLERANCE, all that shit that the libs spew?

And the moron pulls out Deuteronomy 17 to prove his point! Predictable as always.

Hey, DUmp monkey, if Christians were still living under the old covenant, you'd be right. But Jesus Christ brought about a new covenant by shedding his blood on the cross at Calvary for YOUR SINS. That part of Deuteronomy 17 that calls for the deaths of people like you was paid for in full by Jesus perfect, sinless sacrifice. And you know what? The old covenant calls for the deaths of people like me, too. The difference between you and me, though, is that YOU are the one that has no problem with killing ME, not vice versa.

movie buff
10-13-2008, 10:32 AM
At least that was just one hate- mongering post, not a whole thread devoted to it.
It's still vile and hateful of course, but not as much as it could be.

Bill inGA
10-13-2008, 02:20 PM
from this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4227239



What happened to peace, love, understanding, TOLERANCE, all that shit that the libs spew?

Are they saying they want Barry Obama k*lled? As we all know he is not a Muslim, but a Christian.

I am just saying...

FlaGator
10-13-2008, 04:36 PM
And the moron pulls out Deuteronomy 17 to prove his point! Predictable as always.

Hey, DUmp monkey, if Christians were still living under the old covenant, you'd be right. But Jesus Christ brought about a new covenant by shedding his blood on the cross at Calvary for YOUR SINS. That part of Deuteronomy 17 that calls for the deaths of people like you was paid for in full by Jesus perfect, sinless sacrifice. And you know what? The old covenant calls for the deaths of people like me, too. The difference between you and me, though, is that YOU are the one that has no problem with killing ME, not vice versa.

Actually the eye for an eye reference is still in force. However, the libs have misused its intent... as usual. If that whole passage is read it refers to criminal and civil trials not to individual revenge. Allow me to quote my own blog.


One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.

“If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of a crime, the two men involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the Lord before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, then do to him as he intended to do to his brother. You must purge the evil from among you. The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you. Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot” (Deuteronomy 19:15-21).

This verse applies to a legal proceeding in which one of the accusers is giving false testimony against his neighbor and this is a direct violation of the ninth commandment in the Decalogue. Also this passage speaks not to retaliation by an individual but to the application of justice by a court of law. In short because you killed my son I can not in turn kill you or your son. You have to be tried by a legal proceeding, found guilty and then suffer the punishment declared by those sitting in judgment. I, as the accuser, must find a way to be satisfied with whatever penance the judges have decided upon. I can not take the law in to my own hands and give additional punishment. If the perpetrator is not being punished to my satisfaction then I must accept it. In normal circumstances this is not an easy teaching to follow.

If Christ paid for all sins for all time then why do we still lock up people in prison and send people to their death? Christ paid for the sins of those who have accepted Him as their savior but even Christians are not exempt from secular punishment. Christians have been exempted from the justice that God will deal out to the unbelievers. We will still face judgement but we will not be held accountable for our sinful past because we have been justified and made righteous by the blood of Christ.

Gingersnap
10-13-2008, 04:56 PM
Actually the eye for an eye reference is still in force. However, the libs have misused its intent... as usual. If that whole passage is read it refers to criminal and civil trials not to individual revenge.

Indeed. As FlaGator notes, the entire point of all those tedious social laws in the OT is to completely remove personal hatred, vindictiveness, and blood feuds out of human justice. That's the whole point. When a particular offense can be bought off, the lesson there isn't that your sister's virginity is worth a handful of coins, it's that no consensual or non-consensual sexual act is worth destroying two families over down through time. The law is a mercy, not a cruelty.

It's also about as impenetrable as Phoenician to the average DUer.

KingOfTorts
10-13-2008, 06:57 PM
And down the memory hole it goes...


Name removed (0 posts) Mon Oct-13-08 07:12 AM
Response to Original message
28. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.