Can someone take the law into their own hands ie. Kill someone who needs killin and remain moral or in line with Gods law? Why or why not? And I mean for the big stuff, killing murderers, rapists, drug dealers, pedophiles, stuff like that. I see SO many people that just need a good killin.

BrenLover

by all means it is moral. screw what god thinks. after all, if there was a god there would be no rapists, pedophiles,etc. At least according to the widely accepted belief of a caring, loving god. I'll be damned if someone is going to bring harm to one of my loved ones and i will stand by and let them get away with it due to some hokey fear of some old man in the sky.
-jay         [frag]

Yes,

Vigilanties got a bad name because people confused them with race mobs.  But historically, 19th century vigilance organizations in Butte, Montana; Bodie and San Francisco, California; and even in London, England during the Jack the Ripper scare, performed with great restraint and efficiency.

However, mobs and gangs, who called themselves vigilantes, but were formed only with the intent of brutilaising Blacks, Chinese, and Mexicans during the late 19th and early 20th century are all people remember- and all that the far left and minority groups talk about.

I'm not implying that i'm gonna go wack someone, just curious.

TheBeeKeeper, no I am in NY. I understand that shall not kill, BUT my question is it aloud in order to protect current or future victims and speed up the trip to hell for the offender without going one's self.

Apollojay, In MY view God is not here to control our lives with an iron fist, that is why he gave us free will, a free mind to do as we please but suffer whatever the consequences will be. He goal is for us to see ourselves and our acts for what they are and adjust ourselves to what is right because WE want to. I think God very well could abolish all evil and bad things, but what would that prove, that he could make fleshy robots? Free will is humanities major obstacle to peace and Gods test as to who is worthy in their heart to join him.

Sooo...Am I off base? Lets hear it. I know there are those of you more informed on Holy issues than I.

BrenLover

Correct my friend!  I had to do an exegesis for an Old Testament class on whatever passage out of the Bible (Old Testament of course) I wanted.  I chose "Thou shalt not kill".  

The short of it; it was meant for only the Jewish people; Thou shall not kill one of one's own faith.  Take it for whatever you will but after a week or two with my nose buried in Old Testament dictionaries & books, that is what I came up with.  FWIW

Also, I'm not talking about groups of people so much as a single person doing what they THINK is right.
BrenLover

You very funny guy apollojay
So the only way you would acknowledge there is a God, is if he was a communist liberal who dictates every action you or anyone else takes.

That being said, you are right about taking action agaist anyone bringing harm to a loved one. However, I believe that the old man in the sky would support your decision.

M16man

My only question is this.
If this person has not done something to you or your family/ loved ones, what authority do you have to dispense of this person?
I don't know that I disagree with your premis, just curious how we get around due process in this case, without disregard to the Constitution.
If we can decide for ourselves what part of the constitution to follow and what part to ignore, what makes us differant from the liberals trying to erode our rights?
In this case it sucks, but thats how I see it.

Are you absolutely certain that we all want to go there?

Very well, there is a apt quote in the Book of Hebrews, that goes -


Which is an allusion to the statement of God found in Deuteronomy 32:35 -


and found again in Psalms 94:1 -

That all being said, the matter of taking the law into your own hands is not an unpardonable sin, but a sin from which you may receive His forgiveness.

Insofar as man's law is concerned, unless you have a defense such as 'irresistable impulse',
'diminished capacity', 'defense of self or others', or something similar, it is a crime.

If you had dashed into the death chamber of Tim McVeigh as they were preparing his arm for the needle, and killed him, you would be charged with, and most likely be found guilty of, some degree of murder. The fact that he was going to be dead within minutes anyway, would not be a defense to the charge.

Why do you ask, got someone in mind?

Eric The(OnSecondThought,WeDon'tNeedToKnow)Hun[>]:)]

I figured I'd answer the original question posed in the subject very simply and easily.

Yes.  Yes.

Now, how else may I be of service?  [;)]

I think thinning of the flocks is natural. It's been going on for quite a few years now. How many deer do you think would be running around if we just quit deer hunting all together.(quit deerhunting for the children of course.)I think were going against nature to prevent death. It's way cheaper too! Look at Tim McVeigh. Defense lawyers fees from taxpayers=14 million dollars. 20 bucks or so for the drugs to kill him or maybe .03 cents for a .22 long rifle up side the head. (Gotta remember to send in my payment this month as the Feds didn't steal enough out of my check this past year.)Don't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. Gettin kinda crowded in China. Where will they all move to when they outgrow their country? [rolleyes]

[url]www.jpfo.org/rabbi335.htm[/url]

If you are deeply concerned about this, I would suggest that you "Ask the Rabbi".  I am not Jewish, but I do find his perspective on issues refreshing.

Actually, I believe that God and the Bible would allow such action under certain circumstances.

Anything I'm about to say will not be taken as an authorization to "do the thing" Or as beekeeper here said:

[B]...no illegal acts intended, suggested, implied, contemplated, or even thought of.[/B]

So I'll take that as my disclaimer!

The acts of murder, rape, etc (drug dealing I would say so as well, since it can lead to the deaths of those who consume the drug)

Now, since Christ himself proclaimed that the old laws of Moses still apply, take:

Ex:21:12: He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

Murder in the Ten Commandments is the Hebrew word "rasah" (Can be found in the Strong's Concordance #7523).  The Old Testament uses this legal term as a distinction between killing (manslaughter) or murder, which is the case in Ex. 20:13.

Or as follows (premeditation):
Ex:21:14: But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.

Rape can also be seen as taking the life away from a woman (the part that counts, anyways, your peace of mind).

So thats me spiel.  Will not be held responsible for anything that arises from this, whether it be mass killing or a damn cataclysm like we've never seen.

If anyone ver killed or raped any of my family. They would NOT make trial!!! That is a promise to my God!

Charge me, sure. Convict me, maybe. One way or another their deaths would be AVENGED!

I reckon the most of you would do the same thing.

At what point would these actions be warranted?  That question is the part that turns what some consider "justifiable" revenge, to something uglier.

Deciding what action to take against a murderer or rapist would be relatively easy.  No one here can tell you for sure how God will judge you though.  That's between you and God.  I'd guess it has a lot to do with what is in your heart when you pull the trigger.  Rage and Hate? or Grief and Pain?

Personally, if someone murdered a family member, I'd probably end up in jail and burn in hell (or be reincarnated as an intestinal worm).  

The world according to Stealth

This is actually a tought question for me as my wife was assulted a few years ago and the courts only gave the guy three months in jail [b] due to the fact he was on drugs at the time and "not in his right mind"!![/b].

My belief has always been that it was right to kill if someone elses life was in danger at the moment. Otherwise let the Authories handle it after the fact.  After what I have seen my wife go thru the last couple of years I can not honestly tell you what I would do if ever given the chance to meet this guy again.  But I do know this, if he ever does end up dead by my hands he [i]will[/i] have a gun on him at the time and it will be an act of self defense. Where the cheap throw away gun came from I will have no idea!

sgtar15

NO.

TREETOP FLYER, I did not mean to drag the constitution into this. I am concerned merely for whether it is right or not and how it would be ssn in gods eyes, %@$# the constitutional issues.

AMHSIX, yes I do rate drug dealers up there with the rest of the dung heap. If you or your loved ones wanna grow a little grass and smoke it at home, hey, thats fine with me. But when you sell it, your affecting those around you. There is a HUGE differnece between drug dealers and gun dealers. Yuo have to look at intent. Drug dealers knowingly sell a product that when USED AS INTENDED cause great harm to the user and those around them. Gun dealers (reputable ones) sell a product that when USED AS INTENDED is a tool or a means of personal protection. Selling your kid a new shotgun is NOT the same as finding him strung out on crack in a ER.

BrenLover

My God says it's A-OK.

Go to it with a vengeance.

Well, as AR15's SELF-APPOINTED chaplain, i guess I should weigh in on this issue. [:D]

SoCalGunner actually gave the issue the best Scriptural treatment.

let me add this -

In teh Old Testament, their is a certain RIGHT of vengeance implied.

If you ACCIDENTALLY killed another person, today known as manslaughter, the aggrieved was allowed vengeance, UNLESS the guilty party made it to a "city of refuge." The city opf refuge was a place designated in Hebrew law as a safe haven for those guilty of manslaughter. If the guilty party EVER was caught outside the city of refuge, the aggrieved would be guiltless if he killed him.

The justice in this is amazing - just as the dead person and their family lost a life, so the guilty party lost his "life" - everythign he was accustomed to. Family, employment, leisure activities, everything, as he could NOT leave the city, without jeopardizing his life. problem today is we use the same punishment (aka prison) for premeditated murderers. Scripturally, there is NO other punishment for murder other than death. Put plainly, God values INNOCENT life.

In the case of premeditated murder, i find it unlikely that God take a kinder view of it than He does manslaughter. IMO killing a murderer would be justified, in Old testament terms. I'll double check, and get back to you.

Now, some are of the opinion that with the advent of Christ, the OT laws have largely been negated / amended. That could quite possibly be true.  I'll double check, and get back to you.

That said, in todays society, taking justice into your own hands is illegal. Make wise decisions accordingly.

Actually, mtnpatriot, based upon other examples I have seen, i suspect what you came up with is the Jewish Talmud interpretation of Torah law.

In essence, the Jewish leadership kinda re-wrote the law to suit what they liked. The net effect being its OK to kill a "gentile dog" (their wordsa, NOT mine) but Jews are worth more than them, so don't kill them.

Let me give a Scriptural parralel. Christ did a whole sermon on this, giving numerous examples of Jewish misinterpretation and skeewing of the Torah. let me give ONE example - EXACTLY on point. The OT law said "thou shalt not kill" But the Jewish leadership said you can hate people, slander them, perform charachter assasination, that's all OK, as long as you don't KILL them. Christ said "whoever hates a person without cause is guilty of murder already."

Point being, be careful of misinterpretaions given in the talmud of what God really intended when He gave the law. Gods point was NOT to give a right and wrong checklist, but accomplishing a right heart attitude.

SoCalGunner said: "The acts of murder, rape, etc (drug dealing I would say so as well, since it can lead to the deaths of those who consume the drug)"

Try not to feed us back the media line here, there are a plethora of products when used exactly as intended will kill.  Tobacco, Alcohol, Fast Food, etc.  

Does this mean you advocate taking out the pimply faced 16 year old at the McDonalds drive thru?

How about Habib at the 7-11?

If people chose to put things into their body, they are ultimately responsible for themselves and any ill effects those things may have.

Yup, kids too.  It is a sad fact that a 7 year old ODing is going to die just like a 20 year old, does the kid have the cognizance of a 20 year old?  I think not, does he know not to harm himself?  I think so.  Is he ultimately responsible for his actions, that he is.

Is a drug pusher a lowly vermin that really needs to be taken out and shot, of course, but once it is legalized, we will remove the profit for these lowlives to prey on our children.

Of course if we can't get legalization passed, we can practice our sniping techniques...

Vigilantism may be fun like fornication, but both are wrong.  Keeping in mind the difference between self defense and vengeance, the biblical references to (after-the-fact) police actions were in the context of a community (body politic), not individuals.  The idea here is that justice is to be dispensed in the open, after due process, and with full disclosure.  If your theoretical vigilante catches someone in the act, that is different.

Moral and right as far as I'm concerned.  Whether it's right with god, well, he hasn't shared a lot with me lately, so I haven't a clue.  Nor do I care, much.

would you care to debate this in another thread???

[}:D]

M16MAN
My reference to the constitution was only used as another perspective.
If you remove that reference you are still left with the question, what gives you the authority? Mind you, I’m all for your idea. Murderers, rapist, drug dealers. But here’s the dig. Even on this thread there are people who don’t see drug dealers as likely candidates, so if we kill dealers, WE now become the murders in those people eyes.
I know, I know what does this have to do with God.
I believe others here have already covered scripture better than I could. I also believe that God wants us to consider our actions and how they affect others (in other words, use some common sense) As I stated earlier, Killing someone in the defense of others is only that. Killing someone only because they deserve it, becomes premeditated. That is what they call murder. The bible says that we should not judge, because we ourselves may be judged. If we act because we think its OK with God, what do we do when we are then called murderer?

Here again, what give us the authority?

And if do have that kind of authority, please let me know. I know some people who need a good killin’ too.

Not especially, g-man.  While I like a good debate, and have a lot of respect for your intelligence, I think debating religion is about as senseless as debating whether Pepsi is "better" than Coors.  We each, you and I, believe that the other proceeds from unbased assumptions, and there's nothing to be gained.
But thanks for the offer.

Actually, it would NOT be a debate about religion.

More a query and test of your ideas, without many religious references.

Anyone who who claims to know, personally, what God thinks or believes is either:

a) Prideful.

b) Having regular, one-on-one conversations with Him.

c) Basing these assumptions on thousands of years on Man-made constructs.

If you really, truly think you know what God thinks or approves of, see (a).  If (b), you need to talk to someone else.  If (c), welcome to the world of organized religion.

Sometimes we have to kill, but killing is bad for your soul.  You shouldn't need to ask God to know this.  Your conscience will tell you this.  Even "just" killing.  

Not exactly conversations, but definately correspondence. God talks to us thru the Bible. The Bible both claims, and has proven itself to be God's Word. it has survived 2,00 years of attempts to physically destroy it, as well as to discredit it. NO ONE has yet succeeded. No OTHER book has even come close.

I talk back to God in prayer.

Funny you should mention "conscience." God made that, too.  [}:D]

There's nothing wrong with talking to God.
If you claim to get replys, however( and I don't mean by reading the Bible), I bet it's not God.
It's probably schizophrenia.
...and God made that too, so I guess it IS God after all.

(...just don't listen to Him if he is in the form of your dog, and tells you to kill prostitutes)

You are probably right. God's done with using audible voices.

Faith is faith.
No need for proof.

Did He tell you this, personally? [:)]

I tend to rely on BOTH faith, and evidence.

I find Christians who rely on "faith only" in today society to be selling God short. They make Christians to appear to be simple minded idiots who couldn't argue their way out of a paper bag.

Scripture commands us to be defenders of "the faith" - not just people who bablle on about faith.

Scripture is REPLETE with examples of God's men and women who used both faith and evidence to 'defend the faith."

Anywho, that's MORE than you wanted to know [}:D] and a short summary of my approach.

Yes, thru the Bible.

[:D]

Difficult to imagine how that could be....your morals and ideals proceed from your religious beliefs.  I was a debater in school, back when the earth's crust was still cooling, and the first principle of (civilized) debate is that no meaningful debate can take place until both parties have agreed on a definition of the terms...something you and I never shall.

How about I take a raincheck until such time as we get on either side of a bottle of very dry red?

Actually, thta's what I wanted to do - figure out your "terms."  I can debate both froma logical base, AND a Scriptural base. these are NOT mutually exclusive approaches.

You didn't ACTUALLY think I drink alcohol, did you??? [:D] Actually, thats a personal choice, not particularly a Scriptural one.

Don't even "Take a little wine, for thy stomach's sake...."? [:)]

Didn't GOD say "An eye for an eye"?

Speaking of "defining terms"  we'd have to FIRST define what "wine" is, per the Bible (Short version - its BOTH fermented, AND unfermented grape juice, depending on the context.)

Secondly, I don't have stomach problems, which was the context of where this statement was made by Paul to his trainee Timothy.

Coors Light?  Not all that serious about this revenge thing, then, eh?  [:)]

Garandman...

Totally agree on the point with "faith" and "reason" combined.  There are far too many Christians today that rely purely on faith alone, which I think can be quite dangerous if you remove the element of the mind.  We are supposed to love God with our mind as well.  Reason and faith are not mutually exclusive, as you stated.  I've studied a lot of religious philosophical thought, and found that there are many ways to debate the existence of a superior being on logical basis as well.  

That being said, I'm with you if the occasion should ever arise.

Hielo,

Thats just a personal belief of mine, an ethical point that I believe in.  No, I don't believe in the premise that drug dealers are responsible for the problem alone, there are many MANY other factors that must be taken into account to see why the children in America choose to lead themselves down this road of destruction.

I'm not going to debate you on the aspect of legalization, as I am seeing the reason why this should be done.  However, the gripe I have with drug dealers is their total lack of any ethical or moral consience.  It is preposterous to state that they do not know the product they sell (be it drugs, tobacco), is not a cause of death.  Nor am i personally saying that death is the penalty for drug dealing (I'm just making a quick, albeit hastened connection).  To the point, I'm more disturbed with the fact that the merchants of these products don't have a clear consience.  That being said, I also am just as angry with those who choose to consume these products, as they are (in my relgiious conviction), destroying the temple of God, in which He has created.  I make no apologizes on my relgious convictions, but I'm more than willing to have an open dialogue on anything.  One thing I've pride myself upon is not being intolerant like many of the Christians today.  I couldn't give a (you know what) whether one takes my stance or not, I still am friends with them regardless.  (Unless they are an anti, which of course would NEVER work).

All in all, I just want to say...

[b]can't we all just get along?[/b][beer]

Would painting over graffiti count as vigilanteism?

Vigilantism OK?

Dude, the answer is simple!

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Then remember the vast spectrum of humanity you would be allowing to participate in this practice.  It [b]should[/b] scare the shit out of you to even contemplate this? [;)]

Hmmmmmm.  Well put.