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?