XPost: alt.christnet.christianlife, alt.religion.christian.baptist,   
   england.religion.christian   
   From: shell-stamford@cox.net   
      
   "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"   
   <1stCenturyApostolic@Traditionalist.com> wrote in message   
   news:oPupk.6132$Mn3.2044@newsfe30.ams2...   
   >   
   > "Chuck Stamford"  wrote in message   
   > news:2_opk.32819$QX3.8628@newsfe02.iad...   
   >>   
   >> "A Watcher"  wrote in message   
   >> news:mhlpk.2607$Ft5.1124@newsfe29.ams2...   
   >   
   >>> Christ has given the commanded that his brethren must NOT to kill, and   
   >>> they  won't, even if they have to sacrifice their lives to be obedient.   
   >>> Thus anyone who does kill, it is murder [an unlawful killing] before   
   >>> God,   
   >>> as  Christ has forbidden to kill other humans during this Christian era.   
   >>   
   >> That's simply your understanding of the issue,   
   >   
   > Wasn't it Christ's teaching also...."And Jesus said unto him, Why   
   > callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God. 19 Thou   
   > knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do NOT KILL, Do not   
   > steal..." Mark 10:18-19 (KJV)   
   >   
   > And James understood it in the same way....."For he that said, Do not   
   > commit   
   > adultery, said also, Do NOT KILL. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet IF   
   > thou KILL, thou art become a transgressor of the law." James 2:11 (KJV)   
   > So who knows best, Christ and James, or you?   
   >   
   > I'd say it's time for a rethink Chuck.   
      
   The question is, by who?   
      
   There are PLENTY of commands to do no murder, i.e. killing for one's own   
   benefit.  We are taught to "turn to them the other cheek", rather than   
   slapping back, making it clear we are to suffer insults (slapping in the   
   face was an ANE insult, not considered a physical attack, and the   
   instruction should be seen in the context in which it was given) without   
   returning them on those who insult us.   
      
   We are given the sixth commandment in the OT, and Jesus reinforces and   
   expands it in the NT:   
      
   "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder, and   
   whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.' 22 "But I say to you   
   that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of   
   the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, 'Raca!' shall be in danger of   
   the council. But whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire.   
   Matt 5:21-22   
      
   But in expanding it, Jesus also explains its nature to some degree.  Here   
   Jesus says the one who is "angry with his brother without a cause" (the   
   obvious implication being what is a "just" cause before God's perfect   
   righteousness) is the "guilty" one; the one who is in danger of the   
   "judgment" for killing his brother.  Why is it you and others do not engage   
   this passage that so clearly teaches a distinction between types of killing?   
   That so clearly shows it is the motivation that makes killing either good or   
   evil, and not the act itself?  Why?  Why do you ignore it to accuse me of   
   condoning murder, when I've never even hinted at that?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)