You posted it and I think you know. You said you're not saying that. I thought it was good enough, but maybe not.Please be careful to fully quote the sentence, as it was confusing what you were responding to.
You posted it and I think you know. You said you're not saying that. I thought it was good enough, but maybe not.Please be careful to fully quote the sentence, as it was confusing what you were responding to.
Clete sometimes you surprise even me. all of the above I agree with you except the very last sentence..For only 8 people of the world survived Noah's Flood and only Lot and His family left Gomorrah while the rest were destroyed. All of both sites that died, went to Hell according to the WORD of God.God cannot commit murder. That’s not even possible. All life belongs to Him. He created us, He sustains us, and He has every right to end our physical lives whenever He chooses and for whatever reason He sees fit. Ending a person’s bodily life isn’t the same as destroying them. We’re eternal beings, and in the grand scheme of things, our short time in these bodies is just a sliver of our full existence.
Having said that, God doesn’t act randomly, out of spite or arbitrarily. If He wipes out a city, there’s a reason for it, likely one far bigger and more righteous than we can fully grasp and He doesn’t owe us an explanation, (although more often than not, He gives one anyway). The truth is, God is dealing with enormous issues against powerfully evil enemies, and with the salvation of billions of souls at stake. Sometimes that means making hard calls. If God had ended Adam and Eve on the spot, none of the people in that destroyed city would’ve ever existed to begin with, but He didn’t. He allowed history to unfold and that decision has consequences and God doesn't shirk His responsibility as the Sovereign of Earth but steps in when doing so makes sense, sometimes to rescue, other times to destroy, whichever is appropriate. If wiping out a population leads to a greater good, like preserving the line of Christ, or preventing a corrupting influence that would destroy others, then it’s a price worth paying. Especially when you realize that physical death isn’t the end. Everyone who died in that city or in Noah's flood kept on existing and they were judged by their Creator. Not arbitrarily, but with perfect justice. Not everyone who died in Gomorrah or drowned in the flood, necessarily, went to Hell.
Right and wrong are absolutes. I think all know this and deny it from evil in their heart, or the dead flesh.Why do you think it is wrong to murder?
And then there is the petty stuff as seen in the Jim Carrey movie Bruce Almighty.The truth is, God is dealing with enormous issues against powerfully evil enemies, and with the salvation of billions of souls at stake.
Never saw it so I don't understand the reference.And then there is the petty stuff as seen in the Jim Carrey movie Bruce Almighty.
Why?Right and wrong are absolutes.
Do you mean "what does that mean?" Because they are. That is what an absolute is.Why?
If both the plane and the building were full of pedophiles, and only pedophiles, and the hijacker were a government employee fighting to bring justice for minors who had been raped and murdered, would it wrong.Do you mean "what does that mean?" Because they are. That is what an absolute is.
It is absolutely wrong for a certain Saudi Arabian citizen to hijack a commercial airline and crash it into a building. Even if the building was full of pedophiles. If there was no God, it is still wrong. Your conscience tells you.
If both the plane and the building were full of pedophiles, and only pedophiles, and the hijacker were a government employee fighting to bring justice for minors who had been raped and murdered, would it wrong.
I mean that to simply say that it's absolutely wrong doesn't make it so. It's easy to make the claim but can you make the argument?Do you mean "what does that mean?" Because they are. That is what an absolute is.
It is absolutely wrong for a certain Saudi Arabian citizen to hijack a commercial airline and crash it into a building. Even if the building was full of pedophiles. If there was no God, it is still wrong. Your conscience tells you.
Why?Yes.
"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." (Rom 12:19)If both the plane and the building were full of pedophiles, and only pedophiles, and the hijacker were a government employee fighting to bring justice for minors who had been raped and murdered, would it wrong.
Romans 13:4 KJV — For he (the ruler or government) is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he (the ruler or government) is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." (Rom 12:19)
Why?
What if a vigilante(s) kill him that doeth evil? Is the vigilante party also a minister of God to thee for good? Is God thereby executing wrath upon him that doeth evil? Or, instead, did God thereby just get forever cheated out of a prerogative to -- by killing him that doeth evil at such and such time and place, and by means of such and such instrumentality as He would have chosen -- execute wrath upon him that doeth evil?Romans 13:4 KJV — For he (the ruler or government) is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he (the ruler or government) is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
What if the dearly beloved do avenge themselves, though, thereby not rather giving place unto wrath? Is that vengeance God's? Is the Lord repaying through/by means of the dearly beloveds' avenging themselves? Or, did the dearly beloved just cheat the Lord out of vengeance that is His?"Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." (Rom 12:19)
What if a vigilante(s) kill him that doeth evil? Is the vigilante party also a minister of God to thee for good? Is God thereby executing wrath upon him that doeth evil? Or, instead, did God thereby just get forever cheated out of a prerogative to -- by killing him that doeth evil at such and such time and place, and by means of such and such instrumentality as He would have chosen -- execute wrath upon him that doeth evil?
What if the dearly beloved do avenge themselves, though, thereby not rather giving place unto wrath? Is that vengeance God's? Is the Lord repaying through/by means of the dearly beloveds' avenging themselves? Or, did the dearly beloved just cheat the Lord out of vengeance that is His?
And, I would note that (as it seems to me, at least) Paul's imperative to the dearly beloved to not avenge themselves would indicate that the dearly beloved actually could/can* avenge -- and perhaps have avenged -- themselves on occasion.
*And be sure to not misread "can", here, as "should" or as "can by right" or "can righteously".
If he's part of the government, then isn't it within his authority, assuming it's the right part of the government?Acting outside of his authority.
Once you call him a vigilante, you define him as being outside of the proper authority. But a "hijacker" who hijacks a plane being flown by a criminal and full of criminals, could be a government operative who is vested by the state to commandeer the plane and kill the criminals.What if a vigilante(s) kill him that doeth evil? Is the vigilante party also a minister of God to thee for good? Is God thereby executing wrath upon him that doeth evil? Or, instead, did God thereby just get forever cheated out of a prerogative to -- by killing him that doeth evil at such and such time and place, and by means of such and such instrumentality as He would have chosen -- execute wrath upon him that doeth evil?
If he's part of the government, then isn't it within his authority, assuming it's the right part of the government?