Re: Death penalty

>>Nobody here said or implied that the life of a murderer is "more
> worthy of protection" than anyone else. Introducing a ludicrous
> argument that nobody has made is unhelpful.<
>
> Straw man again.  I didn't anyone implied it.

I didn't accuse you of that. I accused you of introducing a ludicrous
argument that nobody has made.  :)

> It was directed at Thurman's rather blithe statement about prison guards, to the
> effect that "they knew wha they were getting into".  To me it demonstrated a
> rather cavalier attitude about a guards safety in juxtaposition to his
> overwhelming concern about the safety of a convicted and unequivocally guilty
> murderer.  Accordingly I don't think my inference is unreasonable at all.

I disagree. Voluntarily taking a job with known risk factors has no
analogy to being executed.

>>Er, no. I've already explained why it amounts to vengeance. You've yet
> to explain what other purpose it serves.<
>
> And I reject your explanation.  You saying it is vengeance doesn't make it so.
> I think the difference between our positions is that I acknowledge that my
> saying something doesn't make it so, whereas you seem to keep insisting that
> your saying it does.

I don't know how to respond to this. I'm not "just saying it." I've
laid out my position very clearly, several times over. You *still*
haven't answered the question that is fundamental to my position.
Until you do that, I don't know what else I can do.

>>>You don't get to determine when God's grace is finished. To be so
>> presumptuous is not only terrifying, but contemptible. It's truly
>> difficult for me to imagine greater hubris. God commanded you not to
>> murder, and you're going to demand that He step aside while we exact
>> our vengeance? Count me out, please.<
>>
>> So you get to speak for God, but I don't.
>
>>How am I "speaking for God," please?<
>
> C'mon.  If I don't get to determine when God's grace is finished neither do you,
> yet your position is obviously that it doesn't end until someone's life is
> over.  Are you so enlightened on the metaphysical realities of God, time,
> eternity, etc. that you can say that with any certainty?  That you are willing
> to seems to indicate that you are comfortable, if not speaking for him, then at
> least pronouncing upon things that are within His purview.

You're really, *really* grasping at straws, here. By allowing someone
to live out their natural life, I am somehow imposing on God?
*Seriously?*

>>>Of course. Make your position clear, please: does our obedience to God
>> end where our lives are endangered?<
>>
>> Again your willingness to speak for God, especially as it pertains to me is
>> rather disconcerting.  Not only would you choose pacifism but you would force
>> that choice on me.  (Talking about the self-defense aspect).
>
>>You're leaping to all *sorts* of conclusions today. At what point did
> I say I would force my choice on you?<
>
> If you aren't then please choose your words more carefully.  What else are you
> doing but judging my position on an issue when you include me in your question
> of what constitutes obedience to God.

Yes, I am judging your position. Of course I am. But I'm not going to
force my own conscience on you.

> If you only mean it to apply to yourself then make that clear.
> As it was you used the word "our", and I'm assuming that
> includes me.

No, I believe Christ's instructions apply to all of us. Whether we
obey them, or how we interpret them, is obviously up to each of us.

> As to the verse: Jesus also told his disciples to carry a sword

Yeah, he also told them to take a purse and cloak or whatever --
essentially all the things they didn't need before. Why was he saying
this to them, do you think?

> In short, I don't believe
> that verse can be used to make the point that self defense, deadly or no, is
> unequivocally, disobedience to God

Neither can it be dismissed. How do you square it with your position?

> and I believe there is a fair amount of
> historical context which defies a simplistic approach to the passage.

On this point, I certainly agree, though I suspect we have different
ideas about that context.

>>Yeah, you've made this argument before, and it still doesn't hold any
> water. .<
>
> Keep bailing there's plenty of water in this boat.

Heh.

>>If a burgler breaks into my house and the cops come and *kill*
> him, I'd be rather upset, and so would lots of other people<
>
> Yet, knowing that is a possibility

I would *not* expect this to be a possibility. It's not the cops' job
to shoot people, it's their job to apprehend them. I realize there's
more that could be said about this, but I'm going to end my response
here, as it's tangiential to the topic at hand, and I don't want to
get too far off track.

-- 
-pcg
 [email protected]

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot