On the omniscience of God

[Clete]

But that's why I said "the right part of government". That can be taken to mean whatever part of the government that has the proper authority to go after criminals with deadly force, if appropriate. Is deadly force appropriate for pedophiles?

Not without due process. They must be convicted of a capital crime before the government can kill them at all and even then it would be weird for the government to send out a posse to just kill them on sight, especially if it were a large number of them.

1 Thessalonians 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.​

If nothing else, doing so would rob the victims (and their families) the right to participate in the execution, should they desire to do so.

 

[Clete]

In the OT, "an eye for an eye" was in full effect. Yet, God chooses to establish sanctuary cites where this vengeance was not permissible. What does this say your thoughts?

Sanctuary cities (also called cities of refuge) were established in ancient Israel to provide temporary protection for someone who accidentally killed another person.

• The law recognized that emotions run high when someone dies. The avenger of blood (a family member of the victim) might seek revenge before the facts were fully known. Sanctuary cities prevented revenge killings before a fair trial.
• Once the killer reached a sanctuary city, he had to stand trial before the congregation (elders or judges). If it was ruled an accident (i.e. not murder), then he was spared from execution.
• Even if found innocent of murder, the manslayer was not free to return home. He had to remain in the sanctuary city until the death of the high priest. This served as a form of ongoing consequence and public accountability.

 

[Right Divider]

I agree that it can be used as a figure of speech in that not every crime it's used in reference to has anything to do with eyes, but don't you agree that if someone causes someone else to lose an eye because of either negligence or overt criminal behavior that the offender must forfeit his own eye?

I certainly was not saying that it can't also be taken literally.

 

[Derf]

Not without due process.

Since there's no history on the scenario, we don't know whether that has been done already.

They must be convicted of a capital crime before the government can kill them at all and even then it would be weird for the government to send out a posse to just kill them on sight, especially if it were a large number of them.

I never suggested the scenario, which wasn't originally mine, was realistic.

1 Thessalonians 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.​

If nothing else, doing so would rob the victims (and their families) the right to participate in the execution, should they desire to do so.

Agreed, but we don't currently have that here, except that victims can view the executions. Not the same as throwing a rock.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Agreed, but we don't currently have that here, except that victims can view the executions. Not the same as throwing a rock.

Your scenario was posed as a "What should be done?" question.

Clete said what should be done.

"But we don't have that currently!!!1!" is irrelevant, because the question wasn't about what we currently have.

 

[Clete]

Since there's no history on the scenario, we don't know whether that has been done already.

This is non-responsive.

It's a hypothetical scenario. If there's no due process then my point stands, if there is then it doesn't apply.

I never suggested the scenario, which wasn't originally mine, was realistic.

Which is why my due process point works.

Agreed, but we don't currently have that here, except that victims can view the executions. Not the same as throwing a rock.

How is that relevant? We don't have mass executions of pedophiles either, right?

 

[Bladerunner]

"Eye for an eye" is simply stating that punishment should be consistent with the crime. Harsh crimes... harsh punishment... etc. etc. etc.

Why is this so difficult for so many Christians to understand... It is a FIGURE OF SPEECH!

Then you of all people should understand what I was saying!

 

[Bladerunner]

tri

Sanctuary cities (also called cities of refuge) were established in ancient Israel to provide temporary protection for someone who accidentally killed another person.

• The law recognized that emotions run high when someone dies. The avenger of blood (a family member of the victim) might seek revenge before the facts were fully known. Sanctuary cities prevented revenge killings before a fair trial.
• Once the killer reached a sanctuary city, he had to stand trial before the congregation (elders or judges). If it was ruled an accident (i.e. not murder), then he was spared from execution.
• Even if found innocent of murder, the manslayer was not free to return home. He had to remain in the sanctuary city until the death of the high priest. This served as a form of ongoing consequence and public accountability.

There was not trials necessary. as long as the murderer (accidental or otherwise for as you said it was to avenge a family member)stayed in the city he was safe. Even years after a life in the city did not keep the avenger from spilling the killers blood if he left the city. Would like to know where you got your information via references.

 

[Derf]

This is non-responsive.

It's a hypothetical scenario. If there's no due process then my point stands, if there is then it doesn't apply.

If they are known to be pedophiles by the executioner, then hasn't due process already been served?

Which is why my due process point works.


How is that relevant? We don't have mass executions of pedophiles either, right?

Maybe we should. God endorsed mass executions here:
Genesis 6:13 KJV — And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Here:
Deuteronomy 11:6 KJV — And what he did unto Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, the son of Reuben: how the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their households, and their tents, and all the substance that was in their possession, in the midst of all Israel:

And here:
Genesis 19:24 KJV — Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

 

[JudgeRightly]

If they are known to be pedophiles by the executioner, then hasn't due process already been served?

We all know Biden stole the election.

But due process for that theft hasn't happened yet.

Maybe we should. God endorsed mass executions here:
Genesis 6:13 KJV — And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Here:
Deuteronomy 11:6 KJV — And what he did unto Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, the son of Reuben: how the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their households, and their tents, and all the substance that was in their possession, in the midst of all Israel:

And here:
Genesis 19:24 KJV — Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

.... By God... Not by men.

I daresay God has the right to do so, since He is the Creator and the Judge of all the earth. But He never gave men (human governments) the right to enact mass executions without due process.

 

[Idolater]

If they are known to be pedophiles by the executioner, then hasn't due process already been served?

Maybe we should. God endorsed mass executions here:
Genesis 6:13 KJV — And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Here:
Deuteronomy 11:6 KJV — And what he did unto Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, the son of Reuben: how the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their households, and their tents, and all the substance that was in their possession, in the midst of all Israel:

And here:
Genesis 19:24 KJV — Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

I believe in the absolute right to self defense, and so do all conservatives. It is the closest thing to a guaranteed sacred and holy thing that is not in the Bible. I mean there are lots of examples, the right to self defense isn't the only thing, but it is a holy right, even though it's not explicitly in the Bible.

There's no way to guarantee that you can only exercise this right in accord with any kind of due process. So obv we need to be careful with what we consider murder. It's never murder when we use lethal force in our own defense when it's justified. This has nothing to do with our defect, but it has everything to do with the aggressor and attackers. They started it, they escalated without justification. We have a right to defend ourselves, it's an absolute, natural, inalienable (meaning even if you outlaw it, it still exists) God-given indivisible universal human right. It has nothing to do with laws. Except to JUDGE laws which infringe or abridge it, and especially laws which condemn and punish its justified exercise.

===
And so your hypothetical needs only some mechanism to choose between flying the plane into the building, and missing the building, which immediately results in these child rapists—raping children. It's for some reason within your power, it's your choice, your opportunity, to fly the plane into the empty building, which you know will not result in the harm or death of any innocent people. If you don't do this, they all start raping children. I know this isn't a realistic scenario, I'm just riffing off your example, there are better examples if we use our imagination.

What I mean is, don't say, "How could a plane-ful of child rapists start raping children all at once?" ofc it's not an Earthly scenario. I'm more just saying, syllogisms and propositions don't really need to be realistic, you can join terms together that are virtually impossible to imagine or envision, it doesn't make it pointless. So you have a unique opportunity to save hundreds of children from being raped. It requires you to die, by flying your plane right into a building which is vacant and there are no innocent people anywhere nearby, so nobody else is at risk. If you do this, the child rapists will die, and the children will not be raped.

No due process.

 

[Clete]

If they are known to be pedophiles by the executioner, then hasn't due process already been served?

Again, my point was predicated on the lack of due process. You can make up stuff for the hypothetical all you want, it doesn't change the point. Those killed by the government agent without due process are murder victims.

Maybe we should. God endorsed mass executions here:
Genesis 6:13 KJV — And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Here:
Deuteronomy 11:6 KJV — And what he did unto Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, the son of Reuben: how the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their households, and their tents, and all the substance that was in their possession, in the midst of all Israel:

And here:
Genesis 19:24 KJV — Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

Please read the following...

Moving the goalposts


Are we talking about the government enforcing criminal justice or are we talking about God dealing with His creation?

The two are not the same subject.

 

[Clete]

I believe in the absolute right to self defense, and so do all conservatives. It is the closest thing to a guaranteed sacred and holy thing that is not in the Bible. I mean there are lots of examples, the right to self defense isn't the only thing, but it is a holy right, even though it's not explicitly in the Bible.

There's no way to guarantee that you can only exercise this right in accord with any kind of due process. So obv we need to be careful with what we consider murder. It's never murder when we use lethal force in our own defense when it's justified. This has nothing to do with our defect, but it has everything to do with the aggressor and attackers. They started it, they escalated without justification. We have a right to defend ourselves, it's an absolute, natural, inalienable (meaning even if you outlaw it, it still exists) God-given indivisible universal human right. It has nothing to do with laws. Except to JUDGE laws which infringe or abridge it, and especially laws which condemn and punish its justified exercise.

===
And so your hypothetical needs only some mechanism to choose between flying the plane into the building, and missing the building, which immediately results in these child rapists—raping children. It's for some reason within your power, it's your choice, your opportunity, to fly the plane into the empty building, which you know will not result in the harm or death of any innocent people. If you don't do this, they all start raping children. I know this isn't a realistic scenario, I'm just riffing off your example, there are better examples if we use our imagination.

What I mean is, don't say, "How could a plane-ful of child rapists start raping children all at once?" ofc it's not an Earthly scenario. I'm more just saying, syllogisms and propositions don't really need to be realistic, you can join terms together that are virtually impossible to imagine or envision, it doesn't make it pointless. So you have a unique opportunity to save hundreds of children from being raped. It requires you to die, by flying your plane right into a building which is vacant and there are no innocent people anywhere nearby, so nobody else is at risk. If you do this, the child rapists will die, and the children will not be raped.

No due process.

I swear it's as if you guys cannot follow what is a very linear and quite simple line of reasoning.

If you killed someone (or a whole group of someones) in self-defense then it is you who would get the legal due process in order to establish that it was self-defense and that you had, therefore, not committed any crime.

In other words, changing the subject to self-defense is just that, changing the subject. If you kill someone in defense of yourself or others, you are not performing an execution, you're simply stopping a threat. An execution is the carrying out of a court's judgment or sentence.

 

[Derf]

Again, my point was predicated on the lack of due process. You can make up stuff for the hypothetical all you want,

True! And I did.

it doesn't change the point. Those killed by the government agent without due process are murder victims.

True.

Please read the following...

Moving the goalposts

It was more defining the goalposts in the first place.

Are we talking about the government enforcing criminal justice or are we talking about God dealing with His creation?

The two are not the same subject.

They are if the Lord installed government to wield the sword for Him.

 

[Clete]

They are if the Lord installed government to wield the sword for Him.

No they are not!

The authority to enforce criminal justice is a delegated authority that is limited. God did not give the government carte blanche to do anything that God Himself has the authority to do. The government was not placed in a position equal with God in authority, not even close!

Indeed, quite the contrary, in fact. In addition to its deterrent effects on society, one of the major points of having someone executed by the government has to do with the fact that we humans are not able to truly deal with certain crimes to the degree that they really should be. An execution is, in effect, a way of saying, "God, this guy is guilty of things we can't begin to fully grasp the ramifications of! He's all Yours!".

In short, human governments have been given the authority to do certain things under certain circumstances. And, since it was God who gave that authority, then we can know that it is the wisest possible course of action, that will lead to the least amount of death in this sinfully fallen and spiritually broken world so long as we remain with the bounds set by God when He gave us the authority.

As for God's own actions, there is no trial needed. God knows us better than we know ourselves. He can know instantly what we are and are not guilty of and even if we haven't committed a criminal offense, we certainly have committed offenses against the living God who not only gave us life but is Life itself and we thus can count every breath we take as a mercy, especially those humans who happen to hate God! What God haters (and really all of us) deserve is instant and complete annihilation and if He sees fit to end the corporeal existence of some set of people then we can trust that He's wise enough to know when such an action is called for because God isn't arbitrary but just.