So DK, Jeanne Assam is NOT a good Christian, correct?

...is a good example of how this principle applies, and in this case David who was a "man of war", showing the meaning of taking vengeance or avenging an insult. The whole chapter is a good read for context, but here's an excerpt that deals directly with the application.
====================================
And David said to Abigail, Blessed be the LORD God of Israel, which sent thee this day to meet me: 33 And blessed be thy advice, and blessed be thou, which hast kept me this day from coming to shed blood, and from avenging myself with mine own hand. 34 For in very deed, as the LORD God of Israel liveth, which hath kept me back from hurting thee, except thou hadst hasted and come to meet me, surely there had not been left unto Nabal by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall. 35 So David received of her hand that which she had brought him, and said unto her, Go up in peace to thine house; see, I have hearkened to thy voice, and have accepted thy person. 36 And Abigail came to Nabal; and, behold, he held a feast in his house, like the feast of a king; and Nabal's heart was merry within him, for he was very drunken: wherefore she told him nothing, less or more, until the morning light. 37 But it came to pass in the morning, when the wine was gone out of Nabal, and his wife had told him these things, that his heart died within him, and he became as a stone. 38 And it came to pass about ten days after, that the LORD smote Nabal, that he died. 39 And when David heard that Nabal was dead, he said, Blessed be the LORD, that hath pleaded the cause of my reproach from the hand of Nabal, and hath kept his servant from evil: for the LORD hath returned the wickedness of Nabal upon his own head.

Also, his nephew Joab came to a bad end on account of having only a military solution to every problem. Died in a fight he didn't have to pursue.

It's a common mistake so many make in understanding the meaning of "avenging oneself" and "taking vengeance" in the biblical sense. It refers to over reaction to an insult or minor injury, an escalation of violence. It never stands in the way of justice.

the contradictory acts of humans who have incomplete principles.

I have no doubt you see many contradictions in the bible.

Without convensing each other of anything. I think I'm done. I did find this interesting for awhile but now it's getting on my nerves. I'll see ya. This thread is untracked.

passage in question rather than lift another passage out of its context. The problem with taking things out of context is that you are usually trying to get the Bible, or other document, to say what you want it to say instead of letting it speak for itself.

If I see that I took something out of context, I will discuss it.

I've already said plainly where you did it. Where is your discussion of that point?

had flintlocks

2 Chr 20:17; Rev 16:14,16

2Ch 20:6 And said, O LORD God of our fathers, [art] not thou God in heaven? and rulest [not] thou over all the kingdoms of the heathen? and in thine hand [is there not] power and might, so that none is able to withstand thee?

Then, after the King's speech: Now as for Ja

Where do you get the term "blood guilt" from? Not a phrase in the Bible. The first place any guilt of blood is mentioned is where it tells us to kill the murderers.

Genesis 9:5 - And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Righteous judgement hasn't changed, neither God's expecting it of us, when able. If you see a killer of the innocent and he's about to do it again and you have the means to stop him before another innocent is wounded or killed, don't think it will be counted as righteousness to you when you fail to do so. It's more likely you will face condemnation later for not having done so.

yet people tell me it's in there, if only my church would let me look for it.

Depends on the translation:
Exodus 22:2
Geneva: If a thiefe bee founde breaking vp, and be smitten that he dye, no blood shall be shed for him
KJV: If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.
ASV: If the thief be found breaking in, and be smitten so that he dieth, there shall be no bloodguiltiness for him.
Darby: If the thief be encountered breaking in, and be smitten so that he die, there shall be no blood-guiltiness for him.
NWT: "If a thief should be found in the act of breaking in and he does get struck and die, there is no bloodguilt for him. [Lit. "bloods"]

22:3 says there is blood[guilt] if he's found in the daytime. IOW if the householder is surprised, or may not know if the thief is armed, he can strike, even fatally. But if there was opportunity to deal with the situation non-fatally, the householder must do so.

I apply this reasoning also to cases of personal assault. I can stop the crime with deadly force, but I may be accountable to Jehovah for the life of the perp. (N.b. "perp" not in the bible; use "malefactor".)

No doubt you've noticed this is all under the Law. Your cite from Genesis was also law from Jehovah, but not codified as later. But as always, "the things aforetime were written for our instruction".

"Bloodguilt", in turn, comes under the cities of refuge provisions, which I encourage you to research for yourself. There are direct applications there for the position of Christians today.

BTW, if you're still using the KJV as your main bible, you should stop. It will hold you back.

Little David was small, but Oh My!
Little David was small, but Oh My!
He smote big Goliath
who lay down and dieth.
Little David was small, but Oh My!

of an NRA-type slogan for Ms. Jeanne.
But on the serious side ...
Did you notice what happened when Peter actually used the sword? It became a negative object lesson. (And Jesus wasn't playing games- John 17:12; 18:8,9)

It's the duty of Christians to be armed, for the sake of Christ ...
Mt 26:53
... for the sake of justice ...
Rom 12:17-19
... even when the law is against it.
Mt 22:21; Rom 13:1-7

The duties of a Christian: Mt 28:19,20; Mr 13:35,37; John 13:34,35.

See, my question stems from the fact that DK has previously said... well, I guess I shouldn't repeat what DK previously said, because the last time I did that, one of SE's first-rate Mods deleted my post... Suffice to say that DK has made posts on the topic of Christians and the use of lethal (vis-a-vis non-lethal) force. Ms. Assam employed lethal force and purports to be a Christian, thus my question to DK.

Your question to me stems from...? - Mark

CBS) When CBS News Correspondent Wyatt Andews first started looking into police use of the TASER stun gun a year ago, the weapon had been connected to more than 40 deaths. The company that makes the weapon insisted that none of the deaths was the TASER's fault.

So, says Andrews, "We began asking, simply, how could that be? What was the real safety record of this weapon?"

"Today, in what clearly is a law-enforcement revolution, tens of thousands of police officers see the TASER as a godsend.

"The gun shoots two barbed fish hooks into the body, bringing 50 thousand volts. Most of the time, the suspect goes down--and the cop's revolver stays put."

"You can use it before you would have to use the revolver," asserts Rick Smith, CEO of TASER International. "If you have someone who has a knife, who is threatening other people but isn't quite at the level where you'd use lethal force, you'd pre-empt with the TASER, get them safely under control before it escalates."


not so non lethal


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/12/earlyshow/main648859.shtml

the better part of a clip into him, but he had to kill himself after all. Just my little play on words.

would you rather she didnt try?

Anyway, she's entitled to do what she wants. Myself, I'm getting ready to start a position in uniformed security at a local [secular] college. I made certain it was an unarmed position before I applied. That's what she should have done.

Sheep? What about this:
Mt 10:16-23; 25:31-34

wolf gets fed

... unless ...

Lu 14:14b

Are you saying that wolves kill for the sake of killing?

alive would now be dead. The Bible fully supports the right to defend life from those seeking to take it.

On what basis do you argue that she was wrong to defend life?

BTW, neither of the Matthew passages you cited speak to the subject at hand.

Did you want something more than that from her? Perhaps she wasn't trying to kill him.

He had multiple wounds (presumably fired by her) and she wasn't trying to kill him?

Trying to wound him to death?

Trying to scare him to death?

Perhaps she is a terrible shot?

Perhaps he shot himself, THEN she filled him full of lead?

I though she was a former police officer...they don't shoot to wound.