On the omniscience of God

[Nick M]

and the hijacker were a government employee fighting to bring justice for minors who had been raped and murdered, would it wrong.

The hijacker part tells you he is wrong. If a sovereign government pays him to execute pedophiles, that is ok. The video of the pedo getting shot in the head in the airport by a father of a victim does not bother me, even though it is murder.

 

[Nick M]

It's easy to make the claim but can you make the argument?

I don't need to make an argument for an absolute. Water is wet is an absolute. It is our description of what is.

 

[Nick M]

If both the plane and the building were full of pedophiles, and only pedophiles, and the hijacker were a government employee fighting to bring justice for minors who had been raped and murdered, would it wrong.

Just like when muslims blow themselves up and a bunch of other muslims who desire to do harm to others it is still wrong.

 

[Derf]

The hijacker part tells you he is wrong. If a sovereign government pays him to execute pedophiles, that is ok. The video of the pedo getting shot in the head in the airport by a father of a victim does not bother me, even though it is murder.

Can't a force for good hijack a plane belonging to the force for evil?

 

[7djengo7]

Once you call him a vigilante, you define him as being outside of the proper authority. But a "hijacker" who hijacks a plane being flown by a criminal and full of criminals, could be a government operative who is vested by the state to commandeer the plane and kill the criminals.

Someone who hijacks a plane is a hijacker, not a "hijacker". And, if hijacking is unlawfully seizing (an aircraft, ship, or vehicle) in transit and force it to go to a different destination or use it for one's own purposes, I assume not many people would hesitate to describe hijackers by a phrase such as "being outside of the proper authority".

 

[Nick M]

Can't a force for good hijack a plane belonging to the force for evil?

If he is hijacking the plane then he is destroying other people‘s private property. People that try to claim right and wrong are not absolute are the ones who tell you the ship is sinking and there is room for five and there’s six of you. They also say black and white, not right and wrong so they can say there is a gray area.

 

[Derf]

If he is hijacking the plane then he is destroying other people‘s private property.

Yes, but whose? If the government is able to claim the property of criminals because it is illicitly obtained in the first place, then the government official can destroy such property.

People that try to claim right and wrong are not absolute are the ones who tell you the ship is sinking and there is room for five and there’s six of you.

I'm not claiming that.

They also say black and white, not right and wrong so they can say there is a gray area.

Which goes back to an earlier question. Does God have moral authority to kill in judgment? And does He also have authority to give the spoils to others? If God does, does the government?

Someone who hijacks a plane is a hijacker, not a "hijacker". And, if hijacking is unlawfully seizing (an aircraft, ship, or vehicle) in transit and force it to go to a different destination or use it for one's own purposes, I assume not many people would hesitate to describe hijackers by a phrase such as "being outside of the proper authority".

Depends on which dictionary you use, but some offer "commandeer" without the "unlawful" part as a definition. As such, it could actually be exactly what I wrote, as commandeer is a term that conveys proper authority.

Hijack b: to commandeer (a vehicle in transit)

Commandeer: officially take possession or control of (something), especially for military purposes.

 

[Bladerunner]

Romans 13:4 KJV — For he (the ruler or government) 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 (the ruler or government) is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

There is the vengence of the Law and the vengence of GOD...a Little different.

 

[Clete]

I don't need to make an argument for an absolute. Water is wet is an absolute. It is our description of what is.

Well, of course you have to make the argument! Just because something is absolute, doesn't mean that its self-evident. "Absolute" and "Self-evident" aren't synonyms. Even if they were, saying that something is self-evident does make it so either! Never treat any issue as though it's axiomatic unless and until you know with certainty that it is. Otherwise, someone could come around with something that shakes your whole worldview and you'll be caught flat footed. And, the absolute nature of morality is very definitely not axiomatic. You definitely want an argument at hand!

My business has gotten quite busy these last couple of weeks and so I don't have the extra time to make long posts as much as I did before. I'm completely out of time this morning but should have some time this afternoon or tomorrow. I'll present an argument that I think you'll appreciate and then the next time it comes up, you'll have some extra ammo.

 

[Derf]

There is the vengence of the Law and the vengence of GOD...a Little different.

I don't know what to make of that. Of course the vengeance of God belongs to God. I think you've admitted my point much more than I.