what happen to kong hee dishonesty case?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BM,
You didnt respond?
1. Vigilante justice on babies and children too? Hmm thats what the Exodus book recorded. The "people of god" metted their own justice on the babies and children.
2. So you do agree that it is ok to kill because someone is sinful?
3. "Should I wallk up to him and stab him in the neck with a pencil ? Sure. Of course." --- Oh no. You will be in deep trouble if you take justice into your own hands! The civilised and proper way is to go to the police today, not to use vigilante justice and take justice into your own hands!! How warped is your thinking?
First of all,its assuming that all legal and authorative remedies have been exhausted and yes. Lets say we are peace loving compassionate people. N you know how my story goes.. yada yada yada.. and they come back again.. and again.. and again.
Just because another 'sins' does not mean we have to kill. Like that we have to kill everyone because we are all sinners. So to answer your question on that part 2. NO.
Like I said already, there will be those that wont br violent, but there are those that believe that enough is enough and with a different interpretation to the words.
Vigilante justice happens when the law fails and that all have failed and a combination of emotions and what nots force a person to go down in a blaze of glory
Your question is so broad but the answers seem simple. Not to mention just quoting some bible verses and asking me on vigilantism.
I might as well ask you, if you have a gun in your hand, will u save the bus full of nuns and children, or just let the terrorist blow it up because you are a non-violent person. Either question is one of morality and ethics too.And religion such as Christianity will also affect the manner you make your choice. Such philosophy have been debated since time immemorial.
And just want to add. Have u finished University already ?
-
Originally posted by charlize:
Wah say.
Pikachu suddenly pop up out of nowhere.
Ninja! I just learn deh ways of ninja from japan! I originated from japan anyway lol
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
First of all,its assuming that all legal and authorative remedies have been exhausted and yes. Lets say we are peace loving compassionate people. N you know how my story goes.. yada yada yada.. and they come back again.. and again.. and again.
Just because another 'sins' does not mean we have to kill. Like that we have to kill everyone because we are all sinners. So to answer your question on that part 2. NO.
Like I said already, there will be those that wont br violent, but there are those that believe that enough is enough and with a different interpretation to the words.
Vigilante justice happens when the law fails and that all have failed and a combination of emotions and what nots force a person to go down in a blaze of glory
Your question is so broad but the answers seem simple. Not to mention just quoting some bible verses and asking me on vigilantism.
I might as well ask you, if you have a gun in your hand, will u save the bus full of nuns and children, or just let the terrorist blow it up because you are a non-violent person. Either question is one of morality and ethics too.And religion such as Christianity will also affect the manner you make your choice. Such philosophy have been debated since time immemorial.
And just want to add. Have u finished University already ?
BadMaroz,
You said a lot, but you didnt even answer my question. I really doubt you academic capabilities.
I was specifically referring to babies, children and defenseless old people.
Do you also kill them because they are sinful? I am referring to the form of "vigilante justice" used by the "people of god" in the old testament where they killed EVERYONE because they think they were "sinful".
Your analogy of the gun in my hand. Of course I wll shoot the terrorist and not let him blow up the bus. But your analogy is deeply irrelevant to what we are discussing now.
The terrorist is an adult who who has premeditated to kill and harm. Of course it is right to stop him from taking OTHER innocent lives.
But babies, children killed by the "people of god" in the book of exodus are NOT terrorists. And i serioulsy dunno how a baby can do bad things and deserving of death.
You justifying infanticide and genocide just makes me doubt your morality
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BadMaroz,
You said a lot, but you didnt even answer my question. I really doubt you academic capabilities.
I was specifically referring to babies, children and defenseless old people.
Do you also kill them because they are sinful? I am referring to the form of "vigilante justice" used by the "people of god" in the old testament where they killed EVERYONE because they think they were "sinful".
Your analogy of the gun in my hand. Of course I wll shoot the terrorist and not let him blow up the bus. But your analogy is deeply irrelevant to what we are discussing now.
The terrorist is an adult who who has premeditated to kill and harm. Of course it is right to stop him from taking OTHER innocent lives.
But babies, children killed by the "people of god" in the book of exodus are NOT terrorists. And i serioulsy dunno how a baby can do bad things and deserving of death.
You justifying infanticide and genocide just makes me doubt your morality
Well, I was going to suggest some books or whether you have come across philosophy papers that deals with a specific philosophy question.
Fair enough my analogies are a bit off. Let me re read the question.. again...and this was your question:
"
But I see a lot of instances of "vigilante" in the bible. For example, in the bible, it records that the "jewish people of god" were vigilantes when they claimed that "god spoke to them to annihilate amalek babies, women and children" because they were too "sinful".
Hmm so are you for or against being a vigilante? "
I guess I am for Vigilante under the circumstances.
Given the Amalekites have been raiding the Israelites when they were IN and OUT of Egypt and killing them for 300 years.
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Well, I was going to suggest some books or whether you have come across philosophy papers that deals with a specific philosophy question.
Fair enough my analogies are a bit off. Let me re read the question.. again...and this was your question:
"
But I see a lot of instances of "vigilante" in the bible. For example, in the bible, it records that the "jewish people of god" were vigilantes when they claimed that "god spoke to them to annihilate amalek babies, women and children" because they were too "sinful".
Hmm so are you for or against being a vigilante? "
I guess I am for Vigilante under the circumstances.
Given the Amalekites have been raiding the Israelites when they were IN and OUT of Egypt and killing them for 300 years.
1. "Given the Amalekites have been raiding the Israelites when they were IN and OUT of Egypt and killing them for 300 years".
The bible is just a one-sided report. It doesnt record what the israelites do to the amaleks that might have incurred their wrath. Wars dont happen overnight. Wars also happen because of many reasons. You cant just claim that the israelites were totally innocent because the bible said so. It is one-sided.
2. "I guess I am for Vigilante under the circumstances."
Are you saying under the Old testament context, you would kill babies and children ?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
1. "Given the Amalekites have been raiding the Israelites when they were IN and OUT of Egypt and killing them for 300 years".
The bible is just a one-sided report. It doesnt record what the israelites do to the amaleks that might have incurred their wrath. Wars dont happen overnight. Wars also happen because of many reasons. You cant just claim that the israelites were totally innocent because the bible said so. It is one-sided.
2. "I guess I am for Vigilante under the circumstances."
Are you saying under the Old testament context, you would kill babies and children ?
I never said the Israelites were innocent. The bible have even recorded their misdeeds in a great very detail.
Given that if we are talking about an Omniscient being here, that knows and can see ahead and commands thee. Not particular Old testament context, but like I said, given the circumstances as I understand it to be, Yes, I will kill woman, children and babies. Its going to be hard.. its gonna be tough, but somebody's gotta do it.
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
I never said the Israelites were innocent. The bible have even recorded their misdeeds in a great very detail.
Given that if we are talking about an Omniscient being here, that knows and can see ahead and commands thee. Not particular Old testament context, but like I said, given the circumstances as I understand it to be, Yes, I will kill woman, children and babies. Its going to be hard.. its gonna be tough, but somebody's gotta do it.
BadzMaro
1. I am saying the israelites might NOT be innocent with regards to the amaleks. They might have attacked the amaleks first and so the amaleks had to attack the israelites. The bible is one-sided.
2. You sound very scary. . . . because you say if god tells you to kill, you will. But then, isnt that what terrorists say too? What you think?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BadzMaro
1. I am saying the israelites might NOT be innocent with regards to the amaleks. They might have attacked the amaleks first and so the amaleks had to attack the israelites. The bible is one-sided.
2. You sound very scary. . . . If you can say "if god tells me to kill i wll", you can be a terrorist anytime.
LoL.. come on. Like that you can say anything is one sided and not to be believed. I might as well say you are being one sided too.
Might as well say all history is fabricated by the victor and that there are no truths to them all.
- Soon thereafter, Amalek also makes a frontal attack on Israel, in spite of the distance, and without provocation:
"The Amalekites lived in the desert, south of Canaan around Kadesh (Gen 14:7), otherwise known as the northern part of the Negev (Num 13:29; 14:25, 43). Amalek was the son of Eliphaz (Esau's eldest boy) by a concubine named Timna (Gen 36:12) and became a "clan" or "chief" in the tribe of Esau (Gen 36:15). Thus the Amalekites were distant cousins to the Israelites. There is every possibility that they had known about the promise of the land of Canaan that had been given to Esau's twin brother, Jacob; therefore, they should not have felt any threat to their interests in the Negev had this promise been remembered and taken seriously. After all, the promise was to be a means of blessing Amalek along with all the other nations (Gen 12:3) if only they, like Abraham, would have believed. Instead they "came" (wayyabo') and attacked Israel at Rephidim--some distance south of the north-central district of the Sinai where they lived. [EBCOT, Ex 17]
Indeed, given the travel path of Israel, there would have been no reason to even suspect that Israel would have tried to invade Palestine--this attack was altogether an act of aggression and attempted violation.
- At that point God pronounces judgment on Amalek (including a prophetic allusion to continued conflict from Amalek: "from generation to generation"), to oppose them as a nation and to destroy them as a national entity sometime in the future. This has the effect of 'expanding' the original judicial charge from only the initial atrocity to one including recurring patterns of atrocity ('from gen to gen') [we will also see this in the discussion below on the 'walking in the sins of the fathers'.]
- Israel sins against God in Num 14, and so they are beaten by Amalek in a presumptuous attack (note: the issue is not ethnic background!)
- Israel wanders around for 40 years in the wilderness, while information about the power of Israel's God permeates the Land.
- As Israel is about to enter the Land, God reminds them of the instruction to destroy the Amalek nation.
- Also at this time, Balaam the Mesopotamian prophet specifically prophesizes to the King of Moab of the destruction of Amalek (Num 24.20). Moab and Midian were closes allies of Amalek throughout biblical history, and this prophesy would have been well known by the leadership of Amalek before they started the next couple of centuries of oppression and violence against Israel. [That Balaam was a famous prophet in this area has been confirmed by archeology.]
- The Amalekites undoubtedly saw the conquests of Joshua, but there is no mention of them in the biblical record during this 10-25 year period.
- Then, beginning with the period of the judges, Amalek continues the behavior of their forefathers--oppressing and attacking Israel for between 200 and 400 years (Judges 3,6,7, 10) and actually even AFTER the 'annihilation' of the main group of Amalekites (1 Sam 30).
- But--during
these same 200-400 years--Amalekites were welcomed into Israel as
immigrants! (See the discussion on 2 Sam 1 below). There was a
period of 'amnesty' and 'clemency' unparalleled in ancient history up
to this time. God gave the individuals within the
nation centuries to 'get out' (or maybe even time to
reform the nation; it is possible that this judgment
pronouncement was conditional without being stated so explicitly, as
was the case with Nineveh in Jonah 3.4 and as embedded in the general
principle of Jer 26.1-6 and Jer 18.7-8: "At
one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to
uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; 8 if that nation
against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent
concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. ") As with the vast majority of the Canaanite population,
the sensible Amalekites would have migrated somewhere else. All that
would have been left at the time of Saul would have been a leadership
raised and steeped in anti-Israel violence and hatred. This is NOT some
innocent nation, protecting its homeland from an invading and greedy
people. This is the sins of the fathers being continued by their children.
- It is only after 200-400 years of
opportunity and influences to change, and after 200-400 years of
continued (and actually escalating) violence against Israel (who had
not even been sanctioned or ordered to occupy Amalekite territory!),
that God decides to execute the judgment given earlier.
- The execution of the king of the Amalekites by Samuel (in 1 Samuel 15) shows that the judgment on the Amalekites was not SOLELY due to the ancient, initial savagery against Israel, but also included PRESENT atrocities as well. In fact, the initial atrocity is not mentioned at all in this judgment.
This above is just a cut and paste. Now I am not so well versed, but thanks to you I now get to understand it more. So again, given the circumstances. Of course.
Stop nit picking small little points. Gotta look at the bigger picture. Gotta understand the context.
U already said. Old Testamemant. But we are now in the New Testament age.
-
The Amalekites were not PART of Canaan (which would have had a million plus folks)--they were a nomadic tribe of marauding bands, living in the southern Negev (desert region).
The archeological data we have of sites in the Negev around the time of this event indicates a very sporadic population--although mostly in the mid-central Negev-- although widely spread out.
We have evidence of about 50 'fortresses' at this time, ranging in diameter from 25-70 meters. Isolated houses were scattered between the settlements, but we would be hard pressed to get a total population above 10,000 people.
The large numbers of troops Saul mustered would have been due to (1) political needs to have all the tribes represented (a theme that pops up in other places in the OT); and (2) needs to cover the wide geographical area described, even though sparsely populated.
The 'city of Amalek' was likely a cult center, not a population center per se. David had combat with them with only 600 men later.
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
LoL.. come on. Like that you can say anything is one sided and not to be believed. I might as well say you are being one sided too.
Might as well say all history is fabricated by the victor and that there are no truths to them all.
- Soon thereafter, Amalek also makes a frontal attack on Israel, in spite of the distance, and without provocation:
"The Amalekites lived in the desert, south of Canaan around Kadesh (Gen 14:7), otherwise known as the northern part of the Negev (Num 13:29; 14:25, 43). Amalek was the son of Eliphaz (Esau's eldest boy) by a concubine named Timna (Gen 36:12) and became a "clan" or "chief" in the tribe of Esau (Gen 36:15). Thus the Amalekites were distant cousins to the Israelites. There is every possibility that they had known about the promise of the land of Canaan that had been given to Esau's twin brother, Jacob; therefore, they should not have felt any threat to their interests in the Negev had this promise been remembered and taken seriously. After all, the promise was to be a means of blessing Amalek along with all the other nations (Gen 12:3) if only they, like Abraham, would have believed. Instead they "came" (wayyabo') and attacked Israel at Rephidim--some distance south of the north-central district of the Sinai where they lived. [EBCOT, Ex 17]
Indeed, given the travel path of Israel, there would have been no reason to even suspect that Israel would have tried to invade Palestine--this attack was altogether an act of aggression and attempted violation.
- At that point God pronounces judgment on Amalek (including a prophetic allusion to continued conflict from Amalek: "from generation to generation"), to oppose them as a nation and to destroy them as a national entity sometime in the future. This has the effect of 'expanding' the original judicial charge from only the initial atrocity to one including recurring patterns of atrocity ('from gen to gen') [we will also see this in the discussion below on the 'walking in the sins of the fathers'.]
- Israel sins against God in Num 14, and so they are beaten by Amalek in a presumptuous attack (note: the issue is not ethnic background!)
- Israel wanders around for 40 years in the wilderness, while information about the power of Israel's God permeates the Land.
- As Israel is about to enter the Land, God reminds them of the instruction to destroy the Amalek nation.
- Also at this time, Balaam the Mesopotamian prophet specifically prophesizes to the King of Moab of the destruction of Amalek (Num 24.20). Moab and Midian were closes allies of Amalek throughout biblical history, and this prophesy would have been well known by the leadership of Amalek before they started the next couple of centuries of oppression and violence against Israel. [That Balaam was a famous prophet in this area has been confirmed by archeology.]
- The Amalekites undoubtedly saw the conquests of Joshua, but there is no mention of them in the biblical record during this 10-25 year period.
- Then, beginning with the period of the judges, Amalek continues the behavior of their forefathers--oppressing and attacking Israel for between 200 and 400 years (Judges 3,6,7, 10) and actually even AFTER the 'annihilation' of the main group of Amalekites (1 Sam 30).
- But--during these same 200-400 years--Amalekites
were welcomed into Israel as immigrants! (See the discussion on 2
Sam 1 below). There was a period of 'amnesty' and
'clemency' unparalleled in ancient history up to this
time. God gave the individuals within the
nation centuries to 'get out' (or maybe even
time to reform the nation; it is possible that this
judgment pronouncement was conditional without being stated so
explicitly, as was the case with Nineveh in Jonah 3.4 and as
embedded in the general principle of Jer 26.1-6 and Jer 18.7-8:
"At one moment I might speak concerning a nation
or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to
destroy it; 8 if that nation against which I have
spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I
planned to bring on it. ") As with the
vast majority of the Canaanite population, the sensible Amalekites
would have migrated somewhere else. All that would have been left
at the time of Saul would have been a leadership raised and steeped
in anti-Israel violence and hatred. This is NOT some innocent
nation, protecting its homeland from an invading and greedy people.
This is the sins of the fathers being continued by their children.
- It is only after 200-400 years of opportunity and
influences to change, and after 200-400 years of continued (and
actually escalating) violence against Israel (who had not even been
sanctioned or ordered to occupy Amalekite territory!), that God
decides to execute the judgment given earlier.
- The execution of the king of the Amalekites by Samuel (in 1 Samuel 15) shows that the judgment on the Amalekites was not SOLELY due to the ancient, initial savagery against Israel, but also included PRESENT atrocities as well. In fact, the initial atrocity is not mentioned at all in this judgment.
This above is just a cut and paste. Now I am not so well versed, but thanks to you I now get to understand it more. So again, given the circumstances. Of course.
Stop nit picking small little points. Gotta look at the bigger picture. Gotta understand the context.
U already said. Old Testamemant. But we are now in the New Testament age.
BadMaroz
1. No. I am not one-sided. I agree that the amaleks might be the ones who started it. BUT I also consider that the israelites might be the ones who started it.
Do you consider both sides, to be neutral and objective?
All the sources you quote are from the bible. Like I said, the bible is a one-sided report. Why dont you try to be more objective and neutral?
2. Now you twist your words.
Just now you said "Not particular Old testament context, but like I said, given the circumstances as I understand it to be, "
But now you say "U already said. Old Testamemant. But we are now in the New Testament age."
Just now you imply that it is not just old testament time. Under any circumstance as you understand it to be, you will kill if god told you to.
Now you say its just for the OT.
So is it just for the OT, to clarify?
-
Although we have no extrabiblical records of these people at all, this 'cultural profile' of marauding bands and slave-traders is common in the ANE. Nomadic and marauding bands were sources of constant terror to peoples in the ANE (indeed even up to modern times!) and the wider Asian geography. Look at some of the non-biblical mentions and descriptions of the nomadic terror:
And scholars point out that these groups (and some of their near-modern descendents) LIVED by violent exploitation of the sedentary population.
Look at the middle east of now. And slowly look back at the history. Look at the Central Asian nomadic tribes.
In summary, the only data we have--scattered throughout the biblical record and in many cases in incidental mentions--supports the view of the Amalekites as being a malicious and persistent oppressor and menace to Israel. And we don't have the traditional earmarks of a self-glorification or political-justification document (like many of the stelae of ancient rulers).
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BadMaroz
1. No. I am not one-sided. I agree that the amaleks might be the ones who started it. BUT I also consider that the israelites might be the ones who started it.
Do you consider both sides, to be neutral and objective?
All the sources you quote are from the bible. Like I said, the bible is a one-sided report. Why dont you try to be more objective and neutral?
2. Now you twist your words.
Just now you said "Not particular Old testament context, but like I said, given the circumstances as I understand it to be, "
But now you say "U already said. Old Testamemant. But we are now in the New Testament age."
Just now you imply that it is not just old testament time. Under any circumstance as you understand it to be, you will kill if god told you to.
Now you say its just for the OT.
So is it just for the OT, to clarify?
U asked me and I replied that under the circumstances I will. So what do u want me to say.
U just want me to say that I will kill when an omniscient omnipotent supreme being appears before me and commands me to right ?
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
U asked me and I replied that under the circumstances I will. So what do u want me to say.
U just want me to say that I will kill when an omniscient omnipotent supreme being appears before me and commands me to right ?
BM
You assume.
I am just clarifying cos your comments were unclear.
So you should clarify. WHy you so defensive?
Just clarify : Is "killing for god" just for the OT?
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Although we have no extrabiblical records of these people at all, this 'cultural profile' of marauding bands and slave-traders is common in the ANE. Nomadic and marauding bands were sources of constant terror to peoples in the ANE (indeed even up to modern times!) and the wider Asian geography. Look at some of the non-biblical mentions and descriptions of the nomadic terror:
And scholars point out that these groups (and some of their near-modern descendents) LIVED by violent exploitation of the sedentary population.
Look at the middle east of now. And slowly look back at the history. Look at the Central Asian nomadic tribes.
In summary, the only data we have--scattered throughout the biblical record and in many cases in incidental mentions--supports the view of the Amalekites as being a malicious and persistent oppressor and menace to Israel. And we don't have the traditional earmarks of a self-glorification or political-justification document (like many of the stelae of ancient rulers).
BM
So you are insisting that the amaleks are the bad guys , just because you read the bible and christian sources?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BM
You assume.
I am just clarifying cos your comments were unclear.
So you should clarify. WHy you so defensive?
Just clarify : Is "killing for god" just for the OT?
Nope. Not just reserved to the OT. People still doing it now.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BM
So you are insisting that the amaleks are the bad guys , just because you read the bible and christian sources?
Well, until you come up with a well reasoned explaination founded with some archeological or some historical text, yes.
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Nope. Not just reserved to the OT. People still doing it now.
Clairfy : "People" refers to who?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Clairfy : "People" refers to who?
Extremists, fundamantelists of all categories. Conservatives ? Hell I dont know. But its happening.
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Well, until you come up with a well reasoned explaination founded with some archeological or some historical tex, yes.
LOL
You yourself said there are no extra-biblical sources about these people. And now you ask me to find a source? Are you taunting or what?
yes there are no extra-biblical sources, only the bible source. But it doesnt mean because only the bible talks about the amalek, we have to believe it 100%? You dont make sense?
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Extremists, fundamantelists of all categories. Conservatives ? Hell I dont know. But its happening.
No. I am not talking about extremists or fundamentalists from other religions.
I am asking if the Bible God asking people to kill sinners STILL APPLIES today. The bible records many instances of God asking his people to kill babies in the OT.
Will he still ask his people to kill sinners today, or is it just in the OT?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
LOL
You yourself said there are no extra-biblical sources about these people. And now you ask me to find a source? Are you taunting or what?
yes there are no extra-biblical sources, only the bible source. But it doesnt mean because only the bible talks about the amalek, we have to believe it 100%? You dont make sense?
Well, at least I got some sort of source. How about u ?I am not taunting you. You are the one here saying the Amalekites are innocent. But I pointed to you some historical facts digged up by Archeology. Not to mention our understanding of Nomadic tribes in the region. Unlesss you say that they are all wrong. These people never existed, and that there are no violent nomadic tribes roaming the middle east and central asia, then I stand by what I said.
Like I said, I look at the BIGGER picture. You are the one here telling it never happened.. and that they were innocent. So again, until you have some form of credible archelogical source to prove it, I might as well say that you are being one-sided right ?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
No. I am not talking about extremists or fundamentalists from other religions.
I am asking if the Bible God asking people to kill sinners STILL APPLIES today. The bible records many instances of God asking his people to kill babies in the OT.
Will he still ask his people to kill sinners today, or is it just in the OT?
To my understanding, Old Testament is Old Testament. New Testament is New Testament. So I guess not ? But again, you can't take my word for it.
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
To my understanding, Old Testament is Old Testament. New Testament is New Testament. So I guess not ? But again, you can't take my word for it.
SO there is MIGHT be a chance of your God asking you (or his people) to kill sinners today?
Cos you said "But again, you can't take my word for it."
-
Originally posted by BadzMaro:
Well, at least I got some sort of source. How about u ?I am not taunting you. You are the one here saying the Amalekites are innocent. But I pointed to you some historical facts digged up by Archeology. Not to mention our understanding of Nomadic tribes in the region. Unlesss you say that they are all wrong. These people never existed, and that there are no violent nomadic tribes roaming the middle east and central asia, then I stand by what I said.
Like I said, I look at the BIGGER picture. You are the one here telling it never happened.. and that they were innocent. So again, until you have some form of credible archelogical source to prove it, I might as well say that you are being one-sided right ?
Lol.
You fail to read.
I never say it never happened. I am saying
1. Israelites might be innocent yes.
2. Israelites might be the ones who started the wars.
I am saying both are possible and you should consider both possibilities.
Why dont you?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
SO there is MIGHT be a chance of your God asking you (or his people) to kill sinners today?
Cos you said "But again, you can't take my word for it."
Anything is possible.