|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted April 27, 2011 05:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@Elodin
Most of what you hold dear, I do too, but (imovho) this sword business is a serious error. If only you alone held it but I've seen a very unhealthy split in His church and have met many that agree with you.
Are you saying you think people only had the right of self-defense during the Old Covenant? If a home invader breaks into your house will you stand by and let him rape your wife or children or you for that matter?
I certainly don't think a person should "live by the sword" ie meet every confrontation with violence but violence is the only solution in some instances.
If my life is threatened because I am will not deny Christ I will chose to die. If my life s threatened by a human predator or he is a threat to my family I will respond with violence as necessary.
Personal vengeance is not allowed by God but self defense is not revenge.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted April 27, 2011 06:05 PM |
|
|
Are you saying you think people only had the right of self-defense during the Old Covenant? If a home invader breaks into your house will you stand by and let him rape your wife or children or you for that matter?
I cannot make any judgment to that. I know what I would probably do but will not say that it is a right at least not under my new mgmt. Anyway, you're equating this hopefully rare situation with the Lord's follower's carrying swords?
Quote:
I certainly don't think a person should "live by the sword" ie meet every confrontation with violence but violence is the only solution in some instances.
What I add now , is not your problem, because it's mine too and <IMO> belongs to US all.
How can there ever be peace if killing is always an option? Using any sound logic or valid reason. Because...therein lies the difficulty. Whose logic or reason or validity? And...as I see it this leads directly to "eye for an eye". What's the logical result? Well, it's not peace.
Nothing I've been saying is about some lofty perch I am sitting on. It is just my serious look at the problem that arises every time the sword is swung.
If I was ordered to swing it and my family will die if I do not? May I never face that, but yet I know far too many have. That's why I cannot judge, but my spirit still sees somthing within Christ "to me" that flies in the face of it. As I said a difficulty for me.
I've posted my take, nothing more...no mandates
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 27, 2011 06:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
How can there ever be peace if killing is always an option? Using any sound logic or valid reason. Because...therein lies the difficulty. Whose logic or reason or validity? And...as I see it this leads directly to "eye for an eye". What's the logical result? Well, it's not peace.
No, it's more accurate to say, how can there be peace when killing is not an option? If people refused to take the necessary measures to defend themselves, others would take advantage of it. Pacifism is bad for the pacifists. If you know that trying to make me lose an eye could well cost you an eye, you'll think twice.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted April 27, 2011 07:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, it's more accurate to say, how can there be peace when killing is not an option?
Well, clearly, I am a dreamer.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 27, 2011 07:23 PM |
|
|
|
No Markkur, I don't think you're dreamer. I think mvass is short sighted.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted April 27, 2011 07:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No Markkur, I don't think you're dreamer. I think mvass is short sighted.
I wish it was that easy but <imo> it's not. I do think I am a dreamer and think mvass is just stating the obvious "reality".
What's the way out for mankind? I know mine but even that road is very difficult, even on the easiest part of the path. I know that at any moment I may fail.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 27, 2011 07:46 PM |
|
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 27, 2011 08:15 PM |
bonus applied by angelito on 28 Apr 2011. |
Edited by Corribus at 20:24, 27 Apr 2011.
|
Greetings, Earthlings.
I am an alien being who is visiting Earth. I have hijacked this account. The user previously known as Corribus is currently undergoing Anal Spelunking Procedure Delta so that my species can learn more about human rectal anatomy. It will cause intense pain receptor overload for user named Corribus, but science demands sacrifice.
I have been sent on an information gathering quest. I am curious about this thing called "Bible". I have been scanning information packets you humans call "posts" for the past three day-night solar cycles and have learned curious things about this work. I am particular interested in user known as Elodin, who seems to write about Bible exclusively and with great frequency of exhaustive repetition. Our Proctonaut Expedition Team will pick him up shortly to confirm that user named Elodin is not automated government computer program designed for propoganda, but urgent short-term confirmation is needed about Bible contents for urgent report to the Alien Elder. Elder feels our species may learn something from your primitive moral/ethical algorithms.
From information gathering I have summarized user named Elodin's interpretation of Bible. According to user named Elodin, all such humans who follow this system of self-governance are known locally as "Christians". Summary is
If enemy enters human domicile without advance permission and human feels threatened, it is human's right to defend human's self and property. Human is authorized to remove projectile weapon from secure storage facility, aim weapon at intruder, and decorate domicile structural features - known locally as walls - with intruder's intracranial thinking organ - known locally as brain. Interestingly, though human terminates intruder in heightened adverse emotional state - known locally as anger - human claims to care for intruder's wellbeing (known locally as love)."
Query for other Earthlings. State of "love" seems to be in contradiction with prejudicial termination of intruder. Reply?
In any case, I thank Earthlings for entertaining my species for many years. It is an unfortunate circumstance that requires us to remove all resources from your planet. Humans would have made terrific domestic entertainment species, known locally as pets. My species understands that your species extinction may be distressing. However, I shall recommend to Alien Elder that our species take wisdom from this user named Elodin and proclaim to your species that though we will be terminating every one of you, we aliens have decided to proclaim care for your wellbeing. Yes, humans, we very much love your species, even though we are compelled to wipe you utterly from your rocky planet with iron core. We hope that this declaration of love improves your emotional state prior to your disintegration.
In the words of user named Elodin: Can I get an halleluja?
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted April 27, 2011 08:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Reality of today? Yes, likely. But only because we don't have the ressources and technology necessary yet.
Edit: here are my thoughts on the subject: http://heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?TID=33166&pagenumber=3
Quote:
I'd prefer the best of the best techology, automated systems, in stead of humans, were applied to prevent the danger. I do however respect if people will risk the danger for bettering the world. What I can't respect, nor accept, is that some people are forced to take that risk, eventhough they don't want to.
Ok, you're the dreamer (good way) and I only scratch the surface
I don't want any more machines but I'm an old dog and sick of the ones we have. (cept for my pc and editor) The world is moving on. Hopefully not in the "invader" fashion. But you may be right and we may end up with the big robot.
@Corribus
2112 came to mind. "...We have assumed control"
Back to fun
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 27, 2011 08:42 PM |
|
|
So Earth was the property of aliens all along? Oh nooo!
Quote:
The user previously known as Corribus is currently undergoing Anal Spelunking Procedure Delta so that my species can learn more about human rectal anatomy.
Some might have voluntered also what's up with aliens always wanting to put stuff up in peoples bum? They did it on south park as well!
Quote:
State of "love" seems to be in contradiction with prejudicial termination of intruder. Reply?
I don't know if we should reply.., to be honest, how long can we keep you on hold before you destroy our planet?
Oh who am I to resist? Speaking on behalf of mankind I must inform you of heaven. Heaven is this wonderful place you go after you've lived on Earth. You see, heaven is not for everyone, but only those who'd want heaven in the first place, is heaven for. We live on Earth and our thoughts and actions, together, determines if we're for heaven and if heaven is for us. We do know however, that there's no short cut to heaven, you can't just commit suicide, however if you're killed, and heaven is for you, then that must be the greatest act of love there is!
Now I must admit I do not know the details, but I have an idea that the killing must be what user Elodin call "just". I cannot say this for sure and maybe he'll elaborate on this. So I am most certain if the killing is just, the killed can go to heaven, should heaven be the place for him! And since heaven is better than Earth and should heaven be for him, it's where he wants to go, giving people what they want, sacrificing yourself doing so, is there any greater way to show love? Well, the rectum thing you're doing might be one..., but otherwise?
Quote:
In any case, I thank Earthlings for entertaining my species for many years. It is an unfortunate circumstance that requires us to remove all resources from your planet. Humans would have made terrific domestic entertainment species, known locally as pets. My species understands that your species extinction may be distressing. However, I shall recommend to Alien Elder that our species take wisdom from this user named Elodin and proclaim to your species that though we will be terminating every one of you, we aliens have decided to proclaim care for your wellbeing.
So you're gonna take our ressources and exterminate us? Well that sounds fair, but just one question, can't we please get Corribus back first?
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 27, 2011 08:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
just one question, can't we please get Corribus back first?
Our most heart-felt apologies to your species, but user named Corribus has been ASSimilated.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 27, 2011 09:00 PM |
|
|
With weapons of MASS destruction, I suppose.
Now, I don't know if and how you aliens multiply, but having a look at those may be even funnier.
You could greatly enrich your intrusion scenario, if you add what is called a rape of the daughter - this will justify terminating the intruder for intruding into the daughter as well as into the house, but it will not justify the removal of any resulting intruder into the body of said daughter.
All out of love, of course.
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted April 28, 2011 02:52 AM |
|
|
@ Griff:
Quote:
A)Because most people are limited enough to unquestionably believe whatever nonsense their religious/cultural upbringing implanted in their brains.
B)Because the Church is a too wealthy and politically influential/manipulative mafia to be taken down easily. Illegalising and getting rid of the Church is just as impossible as doing so with other drugs like weed/cigarettes/alcohol/cocaine/amphetamine and so on.
And insulting them is a way to make them see their folly? Let me tell you something... I would have been a Christian or Buddhist if I had been born in soviet Russia and had atheist parents. I came to my own decision based on logic and the ideal that I wish to follow. Please stop generalizing so much.
Also, to counter a potential argument, what are the ideal of atheism? What does everyone in your lack of faith hold true?
Quote:
I don't deny Jesus' existence either, but he was nothing more than a good, but mentally-ill man.
You forgot to mention that he had more charisma than you will ever have in the grime under his pinky finger. 
@ Elodin:
Your attempts at humor are like a mugger walking up to someone and bashing in their skull with a steel rod while smiling. You are doing more harm than good.
On your behavior in general, you have, by all appearances, ignored every part of a post put into the OSM that doesn't have some insult directed at you or your perception of our religion and take everything directed at you out of context. I also notice that you say one of two things in almost every post with some words switched around...
1: You're wrong. Stop insulting me. God said this, so I will take it literally and defend it with:
Quote:
Bible quote 1
Bible quote 2
etc.
I hope you see how you are wrong.
((Note, the problem with this is that basically everyone sees a hidden meaning to the passages that you put there, gets angry at you for taking the quotes out of context or just thinks that you are spewing out gibberish.))
2: You're wrong. Stop insulting the American democratic party. I haven't taken the time to look at what is happening in the rest of the world/ other political parties for the last thirty years, but I'm right because of
Quote:
Historical happening A
Historical happening B
Historical happening C
etc
Now you know that you are wrong.
((Note, the problem with this one
is that the information you are giving makes you look like this: I haven't taken the time to look at what is happening in the rest of the world/ other political parties for the last thirty years.))
Some original arguments, plz.
@ Both:
Please stop constantly tearing away at each other. HC is a rather nice place until I come to the OSM because some posters seem to be trying to infuriate everyone in every thread...
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 28, 2011 04:21 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 04:24, 28 Apr 2011.
|
@Alien
Quote:
If enemy enters human domicile without advance permission and human feels threatened, it is human's right to defend human's self and property. Human is authorized to remove projectile weapon from secure storage facility, aim weapon at intruder, and decorate domicile structural features - known locally as walls - with intruder's intracranial thinking organ - known locally as brain. Interestingly, though human terminates intruder in heightened adverse emotional state - known locally as anger - human claims to care for intruder's wellbeing (known locally as love)."
Query for other Earthlings. State of "love" seems to be in contradiction with prejudicial termination of intruder. Reply?
Capital Punishment, Justice, Love, and Self-defense in the Bible
Capital Punishment and Justice
The same God who says "Thou shalt not murder" set certain instances when it is ok to kill. Not all killing of human beings is murder. The deliberate unjust killing of a person is murder.
We see that after God judged the wicked through the Great Flood he told Noah that if a man killed another man he was to be put to death by the community. This command was repeated to Moses when the Mosaic Law was given. God has said man is to take the responsibility of carrying out justice. An individual was not to take this into his own hands, it was to be done by the community and after a fair trial. The responsibility of man to carry out justice is for the protection of society as well as providing the victims of the crime with justice. We see that this responsibility was given to ALL societies, not just the nation of Israel since this commandment was given when Noah left the ark. This was a command to the entire human race. This was one of the foundations of society that would make society function as it should. Society was not to tolerate human predators. The death penalty protects the innocent.
Quote:
Gen 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.
Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
There had to be more than one witness in the trial to carry out capital punishment. There were cities of refuge a person could flee to if they killed someone where they would be safe until a trial was held.
Quote:
Num 35:30 Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die.
Num 35:31 Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death.
Num 35:32 And ye shall take no satisfaction [ransom] for him that is fled to the city of his refuge, that he should come again to dwell in the land, until the death of the priest.
Num 35:33 So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.
Num 35:34 Defile not therefore the land which ye shall inhabit, wherein I dwell: for I the LORD dwell among the children of Israel.
Accidental killing was not considered murder. Those who killed a person on purpose were to be shown no mercy if the killing was not in self defence.
Quote:
Deu 19:11 But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities:
Deu 19:12 Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die.
Deu 19:13 Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee.
Killing in self defense, such as killing a thief who broke into your house was not considered murder.
Quote:
Exo 22:2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.
As Christians we are to love everyone. That does not mean that we are to ignore justice. God loves everyone but will cast those who bear their own sin into hell. Capital punishment is not un-Christian.
As Christians we are to love everyone. That does not mean that we have to let our wives and children be raped if someone breaks into our house. We are to love our families and the potential future victims of the criminal as well. In fact we have a greater obligation to those who are under our care. Standing by while someone rapes my child is not love.
You will notice that the civil Law God gave Israel focused on the rights of society and the rights of the victims who suffered wrong at the hands of criminals. The criminal did have the right to a fair trial (false witness in a trial was a death penalty offense.)
The law cannot be merciful to the criminal and the victim (and future potential victims) at the same time. If the law shows mercy to criminals it is being unfair to the current victim and is enabling the criminal to make others victims in the future.
Watered down "justice" is destructive to society and spits in the face of the victims of crime. Watered down justice is not love.
The New Testament says the government is to be a "terror" to evil-doers and that it does not bear "the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." The government has the responsibility of administering justice. You will note that Paul wrote in the verses below that the government's administration of justice is "to thee for good" for the innocent. The government's execution of wrath on the evil-doers is for the good of those who are not evil-doers.
Oh, the sword was not used to rehabilitate a criminal but to kill him.
Quote:
Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Peter wrote something similar.
Quote:
1Pe 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
1Pe 2:14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
As I said, justice is the God-given responsibility of the government. Administering justice is not the responsibility of an individual citizen. Additionally, the Bible forbids an individual from seeking revenge (but not from seeking justice through the proper channels.)
Quote:
Rom 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
Self-Defense
Some parents teach their children that all conflict is wrong on the basis of the teaching of Jesus to "turn the other cheek." That they should be the punching bag of bullies rather than stand up and defend themselves. That this somehow brings peace and is Christian behavior. I propose to you that making peace very often involves conflict and that allowing yourself to be abused enables the abuser. The Bible does not require Christians to be doormats or to stand by while their daughter is raped. Protecting oneself or others is not vengeance. "Turning the other cheek" means that we are to not respond to evil with evil. Not that we are to turn a blind eye to evil or allow evil to go unrestrained. In fact I propose that standing by while evil preys upon a person and it is in your power to stop it is not in fact the behavior that God expects of people.
Followers of Christ are neither to be pacifists nor Jihadists. We are to bear the truth with our lives and our speech no matter what it costs us personally. We are to endure persecution for bearing that truth. We are not called to suffer evil at the hands of those who are simply human predators. We are to use force justly and wisely to protect those under our care and to protect ourselves. Martyrdom is not dying to a robber but dying for the message of Christ.
Rising to protect others even to the point where your own life may be forfeit is one of the greatest forms of love according to Jesus.
Quote:
Joh 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
For me to stand by and watch my daughter be raped would to me be a sin. It certainly would not be showing love for my daughter or love to the God who demands justice. Defending someone who is being attacked is good, not evil.
Quote:
Jer 22:3 Thus saith the LORD; Execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood in this place.
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 28, 2011 08:08 AM |
|
|
I will answer this, Elodin, because, again, you are missing the point.
There are two problems, one of which is what his meant here, the other(1) is a more general one.
I suppose, no one contests your - or anyone else's - right of self-defense((1), see below). The problem comes with loving those you kill. If a "predator" breaks into your house, intent on robbing, raping, maiming, slashing, I - and everyone else - would wager, that it is impossible to love him, as it is impossible to love an earthquake, a tornado, a nuclear explosion, or the Alien. In fact, you will hate him, whether a Christian hates or not, since he is threatening not only to destroy everything you hold dear and love, but testing your faith and your capacity to kill, maim and slash as well, which is a chalice everyone would rather pass on.
Love comes from the heart - you cannot force yourself to do it rationally, so you cannot love "generally" or "prophylactically". You would have to know what you can love - you cannot love what you don't know. (Note: God certainly did NOT love the people when he destroyed them, excluding Noah and his own - if he HAD loved them, he wouldn't have killed them.)
There was a slight theoretical chance that you simply felt something like sadness in a case like that - a very calm man MIGHT simply be sad about how this predator who has once been a child must have been abused in his childhood, how desastrous his socialization must have been to now be like this; however, you've made it clear often enough that you don't accept parental or societal guilt and hold the perp personally responsible, since he can - your words - always choose, what he does, so this option is out for you.
In short: you do not love your enemies, and if you say otherwise, it's wishful thinking AT BEST.
(1) No definition is ever clear. "Self-defense" isn't clear either, especially when we look at self-defense, when it comes to conflicts between whole nations. Here, for example, the idea of "preventive" self-defense is one, that you would support: the allied attack on Iraq would probably something you'd sum up that way: "preventive", to prevent greater harm that might have come via WoMDs or support of terror organizations (I'm just summing up the "points", this is not my opinion).
If you allow preventive self-defense for nations you should necessarily accept the validity of the point for individuals as well. Does an individual really have to wait until the bullets are flying, or can they act preventively? Is the declared intention to harm you - i.e. a substantial threat ("I will kill you and your family") - reason enough to act in self-defense and kill the threatener?
I can remember you saying, that Israel has been threatened often enough by Iran, and if we'll wait until they have the necessary weapons, they will nuke Israel, so action is necessary to prevent this.
Same rules for individuals, right?
Of course, the more we act on extrapolations based on informations and expectations, the bigger the error margin.
And even if you make it simple - there is no preventive self-defense; self-defense is only, when you are PHYSICALLY attacked, whether as an individual or as a nation -, WHO is the attacker? As it is possible for a nation to blame "supporting nations", when victim of a terror attack, so would it be possible to do the same in case of an individual robbery (an ill-willing business rival?) Proof seems to be a necessary prerequisite to act - but proof may legally not to come by or not even exist, so will the wicked be able to ever escape justice?
You see, Elodin, since humans are NOT all-knowing and will never be, complete and full justification is not the rule. Most of the time there is an error margin, making it debatable, whether something has been a justified killing or a cold-blooded murder, and while the perp WILL know the truth, sometimes people only believe to have been doing the right thing, but did in fact the wrong.
Before I close this, allow me a last remark with regard to this:
Quote:
We see that this responsibility was given to ALL societies, not just the nation of Israel since this commandment was given when Noah left the ark. This was a command to the entire human race. This was one of the foundations of society that would make society function as it should.
There may have been times, when the God of Israel has been acceptable, morally, when the human race was in the process of forming. I'm entertaining the idea, however, that humanity has developed from that, and from from my position in the 21st century I'd say that the God of Israel is lacking the moral qualifications to give commands to the entire human race. We can and should do better than that.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 28, 2011 01:19 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 13:26, 28 Apr 2011.
|
@JJ
Quote:
In short: you do not love your enemies, and if you say otherwise, it's wishful thinking AT BEST.
Oh, so you claim to be a mind reader now, eh?
You are wrong. I love all people, even people who wrong me or my family. I can separate a person's actions from the person and hate the actions and still love the person. It looks like you need to work on your psychic abilities.
OK, my turn to read your mind now....Any non-believers please leave the room so your negative vibes don't interfere....
Ah, I see quite clearly...You continually say that I am making false statements about loving everyone because you want so desperately to believe that it is not possible to love everyone because such love is evidence that God exists.
Ah, after reading your mind I find that it is **your** statement that is wishful thinking. Unfortunately for you your wish is one that can never be fulfilled.
Quote:
(1) No definition is ever clear. "Self-defense" isn't clear either, especially when we look at self-defense, when it comes to conflicts between whole nations. Here, for example, the idea of "preventive" self-defense is one, that you would support: the allied attack on Iraq would probably something you'd sum up that way: "preventive", to prevent greater harm that might have come via WoMDs or support of terror organizations (I'm just summing up the "points", this is not my opinion).
Sure, self defense is clear.
And we know for a fact that Saddam provided financial support to terrorists and the widows of suicide bombers and allowed terrorist training camps in Iraq. It is the duty of the US government to protect US citizens and to administer justice for those who are wronged. And we know for a fact that Saddam was a mass murderer. And we know for a fact that Saddam wanted to take over Kawait. The US intervened and repelled him. Sadaam surrendered and it is a fact that he did not live up to the terms of surrender.
The Butcher of Baghdad was an evil man and there are many justifications for taking him out.
Quote:
If you allow preventive self-defense for nations you should necessarily accept the validity of the point for individuals as well. Does an individual really have to wait until the bullets are flying, or can they act preventively? Is the declared intention to harm you - i.e. a substantial threat ("I will kill you and your family") - reason enough to act in self-defense and kill the threatener?
I can remember you saying, that Israel has been threatened often enough by Iran, and if we'll wait until they have the necessary weapons, they will nuke Israel, so action is necessary to prevent this.
Same rules for individuals, right?
No, if an individual is threatened he he does not have to wait for the first bullet to be fired before he acts to protect himself or his family. The same applies to nations. Iran has vowed to turn Israel into a nuclear wasteland. Israel would be justified in acting first to defend itself.
Quote:
And even if you make it simple - there is no preventive self-defense; self-defense is only, when you are PHYSICALLY attacked, whether as an individual or as a nation -, WHO is the attacker?
Oh really? So if someone breaks into your house carrying a gun you will let him take the first shot huh? That means you will die and your family will die after the intruder is done raping them. It means you failed those who were depending on you for protection in order to pretend that the home invader was not carrying the gun to harm you with. Heck, the intruder may kidnap your little girl instead of killing her and carry her away to be his sex slave for years. But she can always look back and remember what a loving man Daddy was for letting her be raped for years instead of protecting her. Yes, a fond memory of a loving man indeed.
Quote:
You see, Elodin, since humans are NOT all-knowing and will never be, complete and full justification is not the rule. Most of the time there is an error margin, making it debatable, whether something has been a justified killing or a cold-blooded murder, and while the perp WILL know the truth, sometimes people only believe to have been doing the right thing, but did in fact the wrong.
Reasonable places have a "castle" law. If someone breaks in your house you can kill them and are legally considered to be innocent of any wrongdoing. It does not take a genius to know someone breaking into your house is up to no good.
Quote:
Quote:
We see that this responsibility was given to ALL societies, not just the nation of Israel since this commandment was given when Noah left the ark. This was a command to the entire human race. This was one of the foundations of society that would make society function as it should.
There may have been times, when the God of Israel has been acceptable, morally, when the human race was in the process of forming. I'm entertaining the idea, however, that humanity has developed from that, and from from my position in the 21st century I'd say that the God of Israel is lacking the moral qualifications to give commands to the entire human race. We can and should do better than that.
**shrugs** We have different morals obviously. I don't think it is moral to require a person to be shot at before he can defend himself. You do. I don't see your morals as being "more advanced" though. I love everyone. You don't. I don't see your position as being more moral.
I think justice should be one of the foundations of any society. You don't. I don't see your morals as being superior.
The God of Israel laid down his human life to save us. You don't see that as being love. I do. Again, I don't see your morals as superior.
God holds people accountable for their actions. You don't consider that to be moral. I do. I'm not sure what the moral basis is of you judging God, however.
____________
Revelation
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted April 28, 2011 03:22 PM |
|
Edited by angelito at 20:21, 28 Apr 2011.
|
So Elodin shoots someone to death who comes into his house in the night, even though this person doesn't want to harm him, but only wants to "steal" a piece of bread, because the bible says he is allowed to protect his family (and his bread?), but still loves the victim, because he is his enemy.
Or is he just allowed to shoot him dead because he is NOT his enemy?
The bible says you should LOVE your enemy. Is the Christian way of expressing love to someone to SHOOT HIM TO DEATH?
Interesting....but of course we won't get a reply to this contradiction
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 28, 2011 03:33 PM |
|
|
I will make only two comments to this last post of Elodin's.
One is, the oh so funny, Quote:
Oh, so you claim to be a mind-reader now, eh?
the answer starts with, is already enough to *facepalm*,
and, two, when I read Quote:
I love everyone.
it sounds more like a threat to me than anything else.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 28, 2011 04:22 PM |
|
|
@Angelito
Quote:
So Eldoin shoots someone to death who comes into his house in the night, even though this person doesn't want to harm him, but only wants to "steal" a piece of bread, because the bible says he is allowed to protect his family (and his bread?), but still loves the victim, because he is his enemy.
Or is he just allowed to shoot him dead because he is NOT his enemy?
The bible says you should LOVE your enemy. Is the Christian way of expressing love to someone to SHOOT HIM TO DEATH?
Interesting....but of course we won't get a reply to this contradiction
If he is climbing through my window or kicks my door down or if he is already in my house when I first see him he is a dead man. If I can clearly see his hands and he is not holding a gun and he makes no sudden moves he might have a chance to live. But if he is a perceived threat in any way he dies so my family can live.
I love everyone but I love my family more and have an obligation to protect them. If a person is breaking in my house I am going to defend my family. You and JJ may chose to let him rape your children but I love my children enough to defend them.
Please actually read my last rather long post (the one just abovve your post,which answers the question) and address each and every comment in the post to prove you are not a troll as per the feedback thread.
@JJ
Quote:
Quote:
I love everyone.
it sounds more like a threat to me than anything else.
Don't be afraid to love or be loved, JJ. You'll find life a lot more enjoyable. Love is not a threat.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 28, 2011 05:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Jesus told his disciples to buy a sword.
Stop ignoring things you dont like.
Stop ignoring things you dont like.
Stop ignoring things you dont like.
Stop ignoring things you dont like.
Stop ignoring things you dont like.
Stop ignoring things you dont like.
Quote:
Luk 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
The article you posted claimed this was some metaphysical parable of Jesus rather than an instruction of Jesus to his disciples to actually buy a sword. That claim doe not hold water.
When you read Luke 22 you will find the setting of this instruction of Christ.
1) Judas had made arrangements to betray Christ.
2) Jesus instructed his disciples where to go to set up the Passover meal.
3) Jesus during the last supper told his disciples he was about to be betrayed by one of them and that he would suffer and die and that things would get very nasty for them.
4) Jesus warned Peter that Satan wants to destroy him.
5) Jesus again says he is about to die and that in light of this each disciple should buy a sword.
Quote:
Luk 22:35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
Luk 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Luk 22:37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
Clearly the claim of the author of the article that the "sword" in the verse is "the Word of God" is pure bunk. This is a practical teaching of Jesus about them needing to defend themselves soon and that they would need to buy provisions as they traveled around because they would not be welcomed into the houses of their fellow Jews as they traveled. Previously as they traveled people would welcome Jesus and the disciples into their house and provide for their needs. Now they would need to buy provisions to carry with them. They would need swords for self defense. The times they are a changing.
____________
Revelation
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
