Original Message:   It ain't complicated, so why do some folks insist on making it so?
Guns or Roses?
Submitted by: Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com

 
Scripture assumes a theology of protection. Consider the nuanced laws regarding whether a woman’s cry can be heard if she is attacked (Deut. 22:22-27). There is no command for her rescue. It is assumed that the community would save her upon hearing her scream. It seems some moral obligations are so obvious that God doesn’t need to command them.

He simply expects others to rescue as He rescues when hearing their cries: “You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him . . . . You shall not mistreat any widow or fatherless child. If you do mistreat them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry, and my wrath will burn, and I will kill you with the sword”
 

Comment by: PHORTO (1/16/2022)
"Perhaps in the name of self-sacrifice (Matt. 16:24) the Christian should let himself or herself be killed rather than take the intruder’s life. No doubt, this would be morally permissible and even commendable."

Only in the abstract. In reality, it is rubbish.


BackPost Reply

 Name

  Register
 Password
 E-Mail  
 Topic  
 Reply optionsNotify original author     Private reply   All replies are private  


 
M
E
S
S
A
G
E

HTML tags allowed in message body.   Browser view     Display HTML as text.
 Link URL
 Link Title
 Image URL