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.
On the omniscience of God
- Thread starter JudgeRightly
- Start date
I don't need to make an argument for an absolute. Water is wet is an absolute. It is our description of what is.
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
Well-known member
Can't a force for good hijack a plane belonging to the force for evil?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
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".
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
Well-known member
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.
I'm not claiming that.
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?
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
Active member
There is the vengence of the Law and the vengence of GOD...a Little different.
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
Well-known member
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.
Yes, including what we think are innocent people. Because they are not.
The spoils? Expound on your question.
Authority means you have the right to do something. And it flows one way, which is down hill from him. Governments have authority given by him to act in his name. Of course governments usually profane him, his words, and is why the Messiah will shoulder the government when doesn't come as a baby. As much as I love the United States of America and where it came from and what it is supposed to stand for, the Founding Fathers got one thing wrong in a big way. The government's authority does not come from consent, it comes from God. As mentioned, to act in his name.
As stated above.
Derf
Well-known member
Ok. But God wouldn't dispense judgment for pedophilia on those not guilty of it.
Like the airplane in the example. It belongs to someone outside the government that is allowing pedophiles to use it.
Which means they have His authority in those things designated to them.
So if a government is given authority to act in God's name, and God might cause the plane with the pedophiles to crash (in judgment) then the government could cause that plane to crash.
Technically it belongs to God. I'm not following what you are trying to get it. The government cannot sanction an airliner to crash and kill criminals.
Derf
Well-known member
Then the government can't fire missiles at enemy aircraft. Why not?
It seems to me that you guys are more or less talking past one another because one's response is formulated from a different paradigm than what it being responded too.
Criminal justice is about just that, JUSTICE! God has given it to the governing official to enforce justice - not vengeance (not in the sense that the word is commonly used, anyway). The difference being that the later is performed emotionally, even arbitrarily, where the later is performed dispassionately and with clear intention after the facts have been clearly established before a disinterested third party (i.e. a judge with no conflicts of interest). The point being there, not that vengeance is evil per se but simply that if we are permitted to take vengeance, we'll screw it up and innocent people will be getting murdered, which would counter productive and lead to more death, not less.
As for the method of punishment, the government could very well decide to collect a bunch of CONVICTED pedophiles into a condemned building and blow it up with the convicted criminals inside. It could just as easily run them all off of a cliff. The bible does not condone torture but short of that, whatever works!
The problem with the idea of a mass execution of pedophiles is that in a society that actually executed those who had been convicted of such crimes, there wouldn't be enough pedophiles around to fill a building with them. The hypothetical could only ever exist within a society that would never execute a pedophile at all. A society that starts putting pedophiles on trial and quickly executing those convicted of the crime would very quickly find itself free of not only pedophiles but of homosexuals in general. They would either all leave to find a more tolerant (of evil) society to live in or they'd stop committing their sexual crimes.
Criminal justice is about just that, JUSTICE! God has given it to the governing official to enforce justice - not vengeance (not in the sense that the word is commonly used, anyway). The difference being that the later is performed emotionally, even arbitrarily, where the later is performed dispassionately and with clear intention after the facts have been clearly established before a disinterested third party (i.e. a judge with no conflicts of interest). The point being there, not that vengeance is evil per se but simply that if we are permitted to take vengeance, we'll screw it up and innocent people will be getting murdered, which would counter productive and lead to more death, not less.
As for the method of punishment, the government could very well decide to collect a bunch of CONVICTED pedophiles into a condemned building and blow it up with the convicted criminals inside. It could just as easily run them all off of a cliff. The bible does not condone torture but short of that, whatever works!
The problem with the idea of a mass execution of pedophiles is that in a society that actually executed those who had been convicted of such crimes, there wouldn't be enough pedophiles around to fill a building with them. The hypothetical could only ever exist within a society that would never execute a pedophile at all. A society that starts putting pedophiles on trial and quickly executing those convicted of the crime would very quickly find itself free of not only pedophiles but of homosexuals in general. They would either all leave to find a more tolerant (of evil) society to live in or they'd stop committing their sexual crimes.
Bladerunner
Active member
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?
Right Divider
Body part
"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!
Derf
Well-known member
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?
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?