Would you shoot a home invader?

[Duckybill]

So does that mean there is no promise or that David and Solomon were mis-identified as righteous?

No, it does not.

lol, when someone breaks into your house to steal a TV or rape your daughter you should know that you are not being religiously persecuted. You are not being hated for what you believe. It is not God or your belief in Jesus that these things are taking place. They want what you have, and are willing to harm you to get it. If you live in a state with a castle law then those who breaking in are willing to take a chance that they maybe forfeiting their lives, Do you not think they take this into consideration before they invade your home? Or do you think they are willing to peacefully hand their life over to you? If someone forces themselves into your home the mentality is me or you...

Violence is violence. God either protects us or He doesn't.

It was you who spoke of promises, so you tell me.

God's promises of protection. Will He or won't He protect His own who believe? And why wouldn't He want to?

 

[drich0150]

Will He or won't He protect His own who believe? And why wouldn't He want to?

This was my question.. If God "protected" those who believe, as you define it, then why did David arm himself with a sling? Why did the nation of Israel have to have a standing army when David and Solomon ruled??

My point is that "God's Protection" and an unwillingness to acknowledge or defend against danger is not the same thing. Otherwise David and Solomon (The one who identified this protection) Did not practice what they preached. And since this is not the case (According to your testimony) then it must be your definition of protection that is inaccurate.

 

[aphemix]

This was my question.. If God "protected" those who believe, as you define it, then why did David arm himself with a sling? Why did the nation of Israel have to have a standing army when David and Solomon ruled??

My point is that "God's Protection" and an unwillingness to acknowledge or defend against danger is not the same thing. Otherwise David and Solomon (The one who identified this protection) Did not practice what they preached. And since this is not the case (According to your testimony) then it must be your definition of protection that is inaccurate.

no, no, that's false. The sling and the standing armies were the avenues through which God protected his people. He permitted both David and Solomon to engage in the warfare they engaged in. Such is not the case with a Christian instructed by the Bible protecting his home. We're talking about entirely different types of circumstances.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

no, no, that's false. The sling and the standing armies were the avenues through which God protected his people. He permitted both David and Solomon to engage in the warfare they engaged in. Such is not the case with a Christian instructed by the Bible protecting his home. We're talking about entirely different types of circumstances.

If a sling is an avenue, why isn't a gun or any other more modern mode of protection? Was God's protection different for the people in the OT versus the NT??

 

[drich0150]

If a sling is an avenue, why isn't a gun or any other more modern mode of protection? Was God's protection different for the people in the OT versus the NT??

Somebody get it!!!

 

[Duckybill]

This was my question.. If God "protected" those who believe, as you define it, then why did David arm himself with a sling? Why did the nation of Israel have to have a standing army when David and Solomon ruled??

Israel was NOT under the New Covenant.

Matthew 5:39 (NKJV)
39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

My point is that "God's Protection" and an unwillingness to acknowledge or defend against danger is not the same thing. Otherwise David and Solomon (The one who identified this protection) Did not practice what they preached. And since this is not the case (According to your testimony) then it must be your definition of protection that is inaccurate.

You need to stick with the NT. Unless you are living in Israel and under the Law of Moses as David was.

Matthew 5:44-45 (NKJV)
44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven

 

[Duckybill]

Still waiting for someone to show us where any Christian in the NT killed anyone.

Acts 8:1-3 (NKJV)
1 Now Saul was consenting to his death. At that time a great persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. 2 And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him. 3 As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering every house, and dragging off men and women, committing them to prison.

 

[drich0150]

Israel was NOT under the New Covenant.

Then I ask again why did you use proverbs to Sell your position? The only reason I am speaking of David and Solomon is because of the passage in proverbs. If i had wished to make a case using OT Law I would have left Exo 22:2-3 which openly approves to death of the home invader (At night)

Matthew 5:39 (NKJV)
39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
You need to stick with the NT. Unless you are living in Israel and under the Law of Moses as David was

.

Is this why you dropped the verse in proverbs?
Try reading the verse again. This is about insulting people not about home invasion or life threating situations.
remember sin is anything not in the expressed will of God. Evil is Malicious intent to commit sin. So evil as described in this verse is not a dark force that wishes you death or destruction. Evil is merely someone looking to unrighteously insult or slap you in the face..
This is a long long way from threating a life or the lives of your family.
Try again.

Matthew 5:44-45 (NKJV)
44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven

Again, when someone looks to break in your home to steal rape or destroy it is not a matter of persecution for religious beliefs. These people are not enemies. They do not hate, they do not persecute. At best They covet what is yours to the point of action.

try again.

 

[Duckybill]

Then I ask again why did you use proverbs to Sell your position?

Why shouldn't I use Proverbs? I'm not 'Selling' anything.

Is this why you dropped the verse in proverbs?

What are you talking about???

Try reading the verse again. This is about insulting people not about home invasion or life threating situations.

It's about physical violence.

This is a long long way from threating a life or the lives of your family.
Try again.

Nope!

Again, when someone looks to break in your home to steal rape or destroy it is not a matter of persecution for religious beliefs. These people are not enemies. They do not hate, they do not persecute. At best They covet what is yours to the point of action.

try again.

You won't find an excuse to kill or injure others in the NT.

"Overcome evil with good"

 

[drich0150]

Still waiting for someone to show us where any Christian in the NT killed anyone.

We are not commanded to Kill anyone, but that is not the issue being discussed. We are not looking for a command to kill anyone. We are specifically looking for a command to arm ourselves and use those arms in the defense of our families and homes against those who would do us harm.

Such as: Luke 22 when Jesus tells his disciples to arm themselves with swords and if they did not have any swords. He commanded them to sell their cloaks, and buy them.. What do you suppose this was for if not for defending one's self? To give up a cloak was a pretty big deal for a nomad especially at night in the early spring in that part of the world. why put one at risk for sickness, frost bite, or even death if buying a sword was not to defend one from a greater threat?


36He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'[b]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." 38The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"That is enough," he replied.

Jesus knew of the dangers to come and instructed the disciples to arm themselves, because what they face went beyond insults and religious persecutions.

Now it is your turn to answer the call of scripture.
Because you speak of a "Thou Shalt Not Defend One's Home From a Home Invader." It Is Time For You To Produce This Command.

On this side of the argument we have an OT command showing the permissibility of Killing a Home Invader in Exo 22, and we have an example of Christ arming the disciples for self defense. So far you have shown verses that speak of digression and management of wounded pride.

 

[Communion]

If I believed my family was in danger then yes I would shoot repeatedly until threat was neutralized...I generally have a loaded firearm and knives/machetes within reach around the house and am licensed to carry. As a father I do not have the luxury of living as I would if I were single. Security is as much a provision as food.

1Ti 5:8 NKJV
But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

If I was alone then I do believe it would be a different matter altogether and would pursue a peaceful or at least less violent resolution.

While I can pursue peace with others as an individual I cannot stand by and allow wolves to assault the weak and vulnerable and then stand idly by...if it is sinful and evil in the eyes of God to protect the weak then He will judge me for it.

 

[Duckybill]

We are not commanded to Kill anyone, but that is not the issue being discussed. We are not looking for a command to kill anyone. We are specifically looking for a command to arm ourselves and use those arms in the defense of our families and homes against those who would do us harm.

Such as: Luke 22 when Jesus tells his disciples to arm themselves with swords and if they did not have any swords. He commanded them to sell their cloaks, and buy them.. What do you suppose this was for if not for defending one's self? To give up a cloak was a pretty big deal for a nomad especially at night in the early spring in that part of the world. why put one at risk for sickness, frost bite, or even death if buying a sword was not to defend one from a greater threat?

If you had continued reading you would have found the reason. It was to fulfill prophecy.

Luke 22:37 (NKJV)
37 For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: 'And He was numbered with the transgressors.'

In fact He specifically told them NOT to use their swords.

Matthew 26:52 (NKJV)
52 But Jesus said to him, "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

Jesus knew of the dangers to come and instructed the disciples to arm themselves, because what they face went beyond insults and religious persecutions.

Jesus came to die for our sins. Do you think He told the disciples to prevent it???

Now it is your turn to answer the call of scripture.
Because you speak of a "Thou Shalt Not Defend One's Home From a Home Invader." It Is Time For You To Produce This Command.

"Love your enemies" "Do good to those who hate you" "Overcome evil with good" "Do not resist the evil person" "The Son of man did not come to destroy men's lives but to save them"

How many do you need?

On this side of the argument we have an OT command showing the permissibility of Killing a Home Invader in Exo 22, and we have an example of Christ arming the disciples for self defense. So far you have shown verses that speak of digression and management of wounded pride.

Anyone who is looking for excuses to kill will find them. But not in the NT.

 

[Duckybill]

If I believed my family was in danger then yes I would shoot repeatedly until threat was neutralized...I generally have a loaded firearm and knives/machetes within reach around the house and am licensed to carry. As a father I do not have the luxury of living as I would if I were single. Security is as much a provision as food.

1Ti 5:8 NKJV
But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

If I was alone then I do believe it would be a different matter altogether and would pursue a peaceful or at least less violent resolution.

While I can pursue peace with others as an individual I cannot stand by and allow wolves to assault the weak and vulnerable and then stand idly by...if it is sinful and evil in the eyes of God to protect the weak then He will judge me for it.

So it's ok to kill, steal, anything to survive? Those are Satan's ways.

 

[Communion]

So it's ok to kill, steal, anything to survive? Those are Satan's ways.

As stated, if it is sin then I will stand in judgement. As for now I cannot stand by and allow the weak, vulnerable, and innocent to be violated, injured, or abused. If it requires a tool (gun, knife, stick) to stop it then I will. Romans 13 provides for the gov't to wield the sword against the evil...perhaps I'm doing what the police would do if they were available. And since the gov't legally issued the license I carry then it could be an extension of Rom 13 to an individual.

I have to make as best a judgment as I can with regards to Scripture and the traditions of the Church...and if I am wrong then I will be judged in like manner. As a father I don't have the luxury I had as a single to live like I would, single minded devotion in the manner of saints & monks cool; as a husband and parent I have taken on some other responsibilities.

Just now I have loaded my .38 S&W and put it on my hip as I take my 10 y/o out to do the grocery shopping~be around later

 

[Duckybill]

As stated, if it is sin then I will stand in judgement. As for now I cannot stand by and allow the weak, vulnerable, and innocent to be violated, injured, or abused. If it requires a tool (gun, knife, stick) to stop it then I will. Romans 13 provides for the gov't to wield the sword against the evil...perhaps I'm doing what the police would do if they were available. And since the gov't legally issued the license I carry then it could be an extension of Rom 13 to an individual.

I have to make as best a judgment as I can with regards to Scripture and the traditions of the Church...and if I am wrong then I will be judged in like manner. As a father I don't have the luxury I had as a single to live like I would, single minded devotion in the manner of saints & monks cool; as a husband and parent I have taken on some other responsibilities.

Just now I have loaded my .38 S&W and put it on my hip as I take my 10 y/o out to do the grocery shopping~be around later

I guess if God doesn't show up you might need your gun. I don't.

 

[drich0150]

If you had continued reading you would have found the reason. It was to fulfill prophecy.


Luke 22:37 (NKJV)
37 For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: 'And He was numbered with the transgressors.'

In fact He specifically told them NOT to use their swords.

If you stay in the context of scripture found in Luke Jesus does not in fact say anything of the sort. (Your statement is a complete misrepresentation of the account of Luke.) Your actions here should be a BIG RED FLAG to anyone look for proper exegesis of scripture. The only way for you derive that message from the text is if you mix and match Books chapters verses.

now, Speaking to the "full fillment of prophesy" the prophesy you are referencing can be found in Isaiah 53, No where in the prophesy is it mentioned the "He" should command his disciples to take up arms. So Yes Christ was fulling Prophesy in His actions, but the Call to Arms was not apart of the fulfillment. Eitherway you look at it, a fulfillment of prophesy does not mean that He was apposed to the command that you are questioning. If God in the fulfillment of prophesy did not want us to pick up arms doesn't it stand to reason He would have changed the original prophesy to read that way? Or do you contend that God is powerless to defend his righteousness against the words of a prophet?

This is a weak argument no matter which end you look at, try again.

Matthew 26:52 (NKJV)
52 But Jesus said to him, "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.
Jesus came to die for our sins. Do you think He told the disciples to prevent it???
"Love your enemies" "Do good to those who hate you" "Overcome evil with good" "Do not resist the evil person" "The Son of man did not come to destroy men's lives but to save them"

How many do you need?

Just one clear passage. That it.. I am waiting for your verse in the NT that gives a clear thou shalt not, without any non related examples or mitigating circumstances. Otherwise know you teach where the bible does not.

If you look at this passage Jesus is speaking of the aggressive stance Peter took against the high priest's guards. Christ Specifically denounces His action by saying if it was in His will He could call 12 legions of angels. And that if you pull your sword here (In this specific instance) you will surly die by the sword... Modern philosophers and ultra pacifists have corrupted this passage to speak to a point that it was never intended to speak to. Jesus was directly saying He would not be able to Protect peter in this instance as He did in other times. This is the reason why Peter's courage left him and he denied Christ 3 times before the rooster crowed.

Peter though himself to be invincible, because of all that He lived through, after Christ's warning He had a change of Heart. That is all that is being represented here. This is not a passage devoted to a pacifists life choices. although if taken out of context it can be your anthem.

Take another look a the unmolested account found in Mt.

50Jesus replied, "Friend, do what you came for."[d]
Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. 51With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. 52"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"

If you will note verse 54 speak directly against what Peter did in the full fill ment of prophesy, so having and using the swords were in direct violation of prophesy, otherwise there would not have been a rebuke.

Christ commanded that they arm themselves so as to be able to protect themselves after He had been taken. Not to defend Him against those who wish to have taken Him.

Anyone who is looking for excuses to kill will find them. But not in the NT

I will rewrite this for you so as to read truthfully:
Anyone who is looking for a reason to defend himself and or family in their homes will find it, just not in my interpretation of the New testament.

Or are you saying that you do indeed have Book Chapter and verse that says it is a sin to shoot or kill a home invader? At best what you have represented thus far is only a show of imagination and your personal ability to stretch your interpretation of scripture.

Before you answer anything else I want to see Book Chapter and Verse that prohibits the destruction of a home invader.. Otherwise know that anything else will only prove that you speak where the bible does not.

I have shown in the OT and In the New where arming one's self for personal defense is permitted.

 

[ivebeenshown]

38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Home invader = evil person. Jesus tells us not to resist home invaders.

 

[Duckybill]

If you stay in the context of scripture found in Luke Jesus does not in fact say anything of the sort. (Your statement is a complete misrepresentation of the account of Luke.) Your actions here should be a BIG RED FLAG to anyone look for proper exegesis of scripture. The only way for you derive that message from the text is if you mix and match Books chapters verses.

Nah.

now, Speaking to the "full fillment of prophesy" the prophesy you are referencing can be found in Isaiah 53, No where in the prophesy is it mentioned the "He" should command his disciples to take up arms.

You misunderstood. The fulfillment was:

Isaiah 53:12 (NKJV)
12 And He was numbered with the transgressors,

Luke 22:37 (NKJV)
37 For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: 'And He was numbered with the transgressors.'

So Yes Christ was fulling Prophesy in His actions, but the Call to Arms was not apart of the fulfillment. Eitherway you look at it, a fulfillment of prophesy does not mean that He was apposed to the command that you are questioning. If God in the fulfillment of prophesy did not want us to pick up arms doesn't it stand to reason He would have changed the original prophesy to read that way? Or do you contend that God is powerless to defend his righteousness against the words of a prophet?

Guess you missed this:

Matthew 26:52 (NKJV)
52 But Jesus said to him, "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

They didn't kill anyone.

This is a weak argument no matter which end you look at, try again.

Just one clear passage. That it.. I am waiting for your verse in the NT that gives a clear thou shalt not, without any non related examples or mitigating circumstances. Otherwise know you teach where the bible does not.

You got it backwards. You better have absolute proof that it's ok to kill someone. And you don't have it.

"Blessed are the merciful, they shall obtain mercy"

If you look at this passage Jesus is speaking of the aggressive stance Peter took against the high priest's guards. Christ Specifically denounces His action by saying if it was in His will He could call 12 legions of angels. And that if you pull your sword here (In this specific instance) you will surly die by the sword... Modern philosophers and ultra pacifists have corrupted this passage to speak to a point that it was never intended to speak to. Jesus was directly saying He would not be able to Protect peter in this instance as He did in other times. This is the reason why Peter's courage left him and he denied Christ 3 times before the rooster crowed.

Peter though himself to be invincible, because of all that He lived through, after Christ's warning He had a change of Heart. That is all that is being represented here. This is not a passage devoted to a pacifists life choices. although if taken out of context it can be your anthem.

Take another look a the unmolested account found in Mt.
If you will note verse 54 speak directly against what Peter did in the full fill ment of prophesy, so having and using the swords were in direct violation of prophesy, otherwise there would not have been a rebuke.

Christ commanded that they arm themselves so as to be able to protect themselves after He had been taken. Not to defend Him against those who wish to have taken Him.

I will rewrite this for you so as to read truthfully:
Anyone who is looking for a reason to defend himself and or family in their homes will find it, just not in my interpretation of the New testament.

Or are you saying that you do indeed have Book Chapter and verse that says it is a sin to shoot or kill a home invader? At best what you have represented thus far is only a show of imagination and your personal ability to stretch your interpretation of scripture.

Before you answer anything else I want to see Book Chapter and Verse that prohibits the destruction of a home invader.. Otherwise know that anything else will only prove that you speak where the bible does not.

I have shown in the OT and In the New where arming one's self of personal defense is permitted.

Well if God doesn't show up to help you then you'll need your gun. God's always shown up for me. All the excuses won't hold up on Judgment Day. God is faithful to protect His own who trust in Him, not merciless weapons of violence. Did I mention mercy?

 

[drich0150]

Nah.

Yeah.
It's convenient how you simply dismiss or ignore any part of God's word that does not defend you self righteous position. I would think someone looking to scripture for guidance would consider all that is written and not just what he can use to defend the life philosophy he has built for himself.

You misunderstood. The fulfillment was:

Isaiah 53:12 (NKJV)
12 And He was numbered with the transgressors,

In turn you misinterpret, given you refusal to acknowledge anything not profitable to your argument, Perhaps intentionally. (Given your opening response)This is a shameful behavior for anyone who claims to follow Christ.

Luke 22:37 (NKJV)
37 For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: 'And He was numbered with the transgressors.'
Guess you missed this:

Matthew 26:52 (NKJV)
52 But Jesus said to him, "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

They didn't kill anyone.

you are missing the point,and i can see why. because to you it doesn't make sense. so you can not look at it any other way. I see both sides of the argument clearly and again I say you have missed the point. Christ Armed his disciples not as a means to fulfill prophesy, but so they may defend themselves in his absents. The events recorded in Luke and Mathew both speak to this point. There was no recorded death because discretion was used, and there was not an instance where deadly force was needed. You are arguing as if I am using these verses as a command to kill. Confused brother, know that this is your interpretation of our intentions. We only look to kill if it is required. to speak only in absolutes is a foolish endeavor especially when the bible does not.

You got it back wards. You better have absolute proof that it's OK to kill someone. And you don't have it.

Actually no I am not the one teaching a thou shalt never defend one's home or family you are, so using the same measure you us against me it is up to you to show the same proof you expect from me...

As I have shown several time in scripture that it is indeed OK to arm one's self for self defense.

SO AGAIN IT IS YOUR TURN.

"Blessed are the merciful, they shall obtain mercy"
Well if God doesn't show up to help you then you'll need your gun. God's always shown up for me. All the excuses won't hold up on Judgment Day. God is faithful to protect His own who trust in Him, not merciless weapons of violence. Did I mention mercy?

Your opening sentence screams of a man who has been sheltered and protected all of his life, and knows no reason for anyone to do him harm, let alone for him to be placed in a situation where he would have to harm another for the sake of himself or his loved ones. Your words are empty and meaningless until you have walk a mile in the shoes of a man who is in the position daily. It is easy to teach "trust in God for your daily bread," with a full stomach.

My confused brother your righteous observation is indeed a double edged sword, meaning it cuts both ways. For instance if you demand that I show you book chapter and verse then the demand is also on you to show book chapter and verse.. As of yet You have NOT been able to provide anything that teach what you specifically have decided to represent.

As far as mercy is concerned you have shown no quarter in your argument, this reflects poorly on the heart that permits a do whatever or say whatever it takes attitude to win an argument. It is your heart that will be judged merciful not whether or not you kill another man.

So perhaps you should mention mercy a few more time in the mirror each morning, before you try and preach about it. Because it seems to me when you are indeed placed in a position of confrontation you do willing and intentionally defend yourself.. Now it is with words, it is just a matter of time and circumstance before you willing do so, with whatever means necessary.

What we speak of is a matter of the Heart First. Your Actions Here Have Proven It Is In Your Heart To Lash Out At Anyone Imposing Themselves In Your Comfort Zone. This itself Proves you have the heart for self defense, all you need is circumstance, and like Peter, conformation that God isn't going to "Show up for you" and divinely intervene, and you like the rest of us will fight tooth and nail for our loved ones and or ourselves..

That is unless you think your faith is greater than the Faith of the Apostle Peter who knew Jesus.

 

[drich0150]

38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Home invader = evil person. Jesus tells us not to resist home invaders.

Take another look at:

Sin, anything not in the expressed will of God.
Evil, Malicious intent to commit sin.

Now lets look at how this applies to this scripture.

When Christ is telling us to "Do not resist an Evil Person" He is not saying Do not Resist anyone or anything that can be classified as Evil. We know this because He follows up with an example: When someone on slaps you in the face (Which was one of the highest insult you could issue to another back then) we are told to turn the other cheek.

So in context when we are told to not to resist an evil person, and that command is immediately followed up with an example of someone who has a malicious intent to unrighteously slap you or insult you, this is not the same as handing your daughter over to a home invader, when/if he asks for her.

Resisting evil here is a command to not defend against broken or bruised pride. Not Defending your family isn't in anyway apart of this command.

So,
One who insults or unrighteously attacks pride= The Evil person Jesus is speaking about.
Home invader= Not mentioned in this or any passage.

The Command= Do not defend pride for the sake of a proud life.
Not a command= Thou shalt allow a home Invader to do whatever he or she wishes to you or your family while in your home.