toldailytopic: Is it always wrong to kill another human?

[Silent Hunter]

Well...Yeah, the guy might have to stop to stick a knife in your liver or something.

And I'm supposed to stop a person with a weapon with . . . bare hands. Yeah, right.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Let's see - a 250 pound attacker on crack determined to assault an innocent vs some gadfly crying out "stop that this instant" and stamping her foot at him. :think:

No, probably not.

You'd just get yourself killed along with the child.

Then you see the dilemma then . . . or not.

But you would have shown mercy to the rapist/murderer so it's all good, right?

I could testify at the trial that locks the person up for life . . . couldn't I?

 

[Silent Hunter]

Seriously ... after claiming *I* am overly emotional, your response is this?

Are you claiming my reply is overly emotional?

The only thing that *sucks* about this whole discussion is when individuals care more about protecting violent criminals rather than their victims and making excuses for them.

Who's protecting the criminal? Let the Klingon die . . . in prison.

It's bad enough that THE victim loses their life.

Exactly. So you wish to compound the insult with more killing. That's :kookoo:.

What even makes matters worse is that the victim's family (who are secondary victims via the tremendous grief they have to live with) are spit on by a justice system that values the criminals life more than their family member.

A side has to be chosen ... either that of the victim and victim's loved ones OR that of the criminal. I will always be on the side of the victims.

Argument by outrage . . . :sigh:

 

[resurrected]

I could testify at the trial that locks the person up for life . . . couldn't I?

Two possible outcomes.

In one, the criminal is dead, you are alive and the child is alive.

In the other, the criminal is alive, you are alive and the child is dead.


choose

 

[Silent Hunter]

Two possible outcomes.

In one, the criminal is dead, you are alive and the child is alive.

In the other, the criminal is alive, you are alive and the child is dead.


choose

False dichotomy . . . :sigh:.

There are at least six possibilities.

 

[resurrected]

Not in the scenario I'm positing.

you have two choices:

1. Stop the attacker with deadly force, in which case the outcome is the criminal is dead, you are alive and the child is alive.

2. Refuse to use deadly force, in which case you fail to stop the attacker and the outcome is the criminal is alive, you are alive and the child is dead.




choose

 

[Silent Hunter]

Not in the scenario I'm positing.

you have two choices:

1. Stop the attacker with deadly force, in which case the outcome is the criminal is dead, you are alive and the child is alive.

2. Refuse to use deadly force, in which case you fail to stop the attacker and the outcome is the criminal is alive, you are alive and the child is dead.

choose

I'm not in the mood to play your goal post moving game . . . :wave2:

 

[resurrected]

most people would have no problem choosing :idunno:

 

[TomO]

And I'm supposed to stop a person with a weapon with . . . bare hands. Yeah, right.

Now you understand why I carry a gun.

 

[Eeset]

" Is it always wrong to kill another human?"

I am an avowed pacifist and I used to struggle with this question. But having read the Bible the answer is clearly no. Moses, Elijah, David and countless other leaders as well as followers clearly killed other humans. God put countless humans to death both in the flood as well as many other times. He drowned Pharaoh's army to cite one other example. It is clearly right (not wrong) to kill human beings. To take any other position is to deny the Bible. In fact Jesus tells his own disciples they will be persecuted and killed. He does not label it "wrong".

 

[GuySmiley]

No, there's an obvious difference between murder and killing, by definition.

But be careful about justifying killing because God did. We aren't God and He has authority we dont have. Our only authority is when it is handed down from Him.

 

[kmoney]

toldailytopic: Is it always wrong to kill another human?


No.

 

[eameece]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for January 29th, 2013 06:00 AM

toldailytopic: Is it always wrong to kill another human?

Yes.

 

[eameece]

Not in the scenario I'm positing.

you have two choices:

1. Stop the attacker with deadly force, in which case the outcome is the criminal is dead, you are alive and the child is alive.

2. Refuse to use deadly force, in which case you fail to stop the attacker and the outcome is the criminal is alive, you are alive and the child is dead.

choose

Third choice: injure and decapacitate the attacker long enough to escape with your child, and report the attacker to the law.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Third choice: injure and decapacitate the attacker long enough to escape with your child, and report the attacker to the law.

I didn't recognize the word, so I googled it, and got this result:

Did you mean: decapitate​

Which brings us back to choice #1

1. Stop the attacker with deadly force, in which case the outcome is the criminal is dead, you are alive and the child is alive.

 

[resurrected]

Why do libs refuse to follow the scenario as posited? :idunno:

 

[TomO]

Third choice: injure and decapacitate the attacker long enough to escape with your child, and report the attacker to the law.

Your injury and incapacitation causes the attacker to fall striking his head on the curb...he is killed instantly.

Enjoy your manslaughter charge you killer.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Third choice: injure . . . the attacker

Now he has grounds to sue.

 

[TomO]

Why do libs refuse to follow the scenario as posited? :idunno:

That would expose their hypocrisy too easily. lain:

 

[PureX]

If God thinks it's OK to kill those who attack others, then why doesn't He?