Hypocrisy on the Left!

[rsc2a]

Did I say that?

I find it best to ask questions of clarification from you because you seem to like to equivocate, obfuscate, and/or deflect, sort of like you just did with that question.

So, short answer: no.

But then, you wouldn't be equivocating, obfuscating or deflecting, would you?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Yes. Like murder...which is what you'd be doing if you unloaded on a guy who was jimmying your locks to get your radio....That part there...it doesn't mean you get to knock someone off because they are stealing your TV.

The point has clearly enough been made by those on the opposite side of the aisle from you, there are times when a person in their home will not know of the intent of the home invader.  If they were merely there to take stuff, your point would <potentially> be morally valid, but by you denying that there is an element of uncertainty as to the homeowner's ability reasonably discern with certainty that the thief is MERELY a thief (and not a drugged up murderer wannabe), then you are ignoring the reality that a person can act without malice towards the invader by using sufficient force that could result in death.[/quote]

No...I have made that allowance. I made that allowance in how I said I would personally respond. I also am aware of how ridiculously low the death rate is during robberies. (In case you don't feel like clicking, the study gives the actual statistic as 4.9 per 1000 robberies or less than one half of one percent of robberies result in a fatality. In fact, the researchers believe this number is significantly higher statistically than it is in real life.)

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

God also said, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

I'm not advocating the death penalty for adultery.  Apples to oranges, and your willingness to use such Scriptures in defense of your weak position only highlights your inability to properly apply the word.[/quote]

No...you're advocating for a de facto death penalty for someone taking a TV, a far worse position. And you get there by ignoring the very next verse beside you "supporting" verse for your position, the verse that clearly shows that killing someone just because they are after your junk is wrong.

 

[prophet]

In the State of Indiana, Home invasion is a class 'A' felony, carrying 20+ years sentence guideline.  In the State of Indiana, Murder, premeditated, carries the same structure :'A' 20+.
  Premeditated apostasy is still legal, as well as scripture twisting, super-imposition of ones own 'liberal' bent over the interpretation of scriptures, and confining ones 'ministering' to prating on at those one disagrees with on a fu-fu-fu- forum.

Anishinabe

 

[rsc2a]

In the State of Indiana, Home invasion is a class 'A' felony, carrying 20+ years sentence guideline.  In the State of Indiana, Murder, premeditated, carries the same structure :'A' 20+.
  Premeditated apostasy is still legal, as well as scripture twisting, super-imposition of ones own 'liberal' bent over the interpretation of scriptures, and confining ones 'ministering' to prating on at those one disagrees with on a fu-fu-fu- forum.

Anishinabe

No.

http://www.ai.org/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar43/ch2.html

 

[ALAYMAN]

No...I have made that allowance. I made that allowance in how I said I would personally respond.

Where did you tell others that they were morally justified in some cases to act in such a way that could rightfully cause the death of a home invader?

No...you're advocating for a de facto death penalty for someone taking a TV,...

No, I'm not.  Argue with what I've said and not what you wished I had said.

 

[rsc2a]

No...I have made that allowance. I made that allowance in how I said I would personally respond.

Where did you tell others that they were morally justified in some cases to act in such a way that could rightfully cause the death of a home invader?

- If someone broke in to take my stereo, I would let them have it before I would attempt to cause them any permanent physical harm.
- If someone came in to kill me, I might allow it before I would attempt to cause them lethal harm. (I haven't been in that situation, but ethically, that is where I think I land.)
- If someone came in to harm my family, I would defend them with what I thought the force necessary to remove the threat was without causing further harm.

I take that whole "love your enemies" and "pray for those who curse you" thing seriously.


[quote author=ALAYMAN]

No...you're advocating for a de facto death penalty for someone taking a TV,...

No, I'm not.  Argue with what I've said and not what you wished I had said.
[/quote]

If they were merely there to take stuff, your point would <potentially> be morally valid - Alayman

 

[ALAYMAN]

Where did you tell others that they were morally justified in some cases to act in such a way that could rightfully cause the death of a home invader?

- If someone broke in to take my stereo, I would let them have it before I would attempt to cause them any permanent physical harm.
- If someone came in to kill me, I might allow it before I would attempt to cause them lethal harm. (I haven't been in that situation, but ethically, that is where I think I land.)
- If someone came in to harm my family, I would defend them with what I thought the force necessary to remove the threat was without causing further harm.

Where in that answer did you make it clear that you believed that it was warranted by Scripture for others to take action that might lead to the intruder's death?

If they were merely there to take stuff, your point would <potentially> be morally valid - Alayman

And?

 

[ALAYMAN]

Here's the elephant in the room for rsc2a.  How will you determine whether the person who breaks in on you is there merely to steal, or they are there to do whatever is necessary to attain their goal?

 

[Castor Muscular]

You

 

[rsc2a]

Where did you tell others that they were morally justified in some cases to act in such a way that could rightfully cause the death of a home invader?

- If someone broke in to take my stereo, I would let them have it before I would attempt to cause them any permanent physical harm.
- If someone came in to kill me, I might allow it before I would attempt to cause them lethal harm. (I haven't been in that situation, but ethically, that is where I think I land.)
- If someone came in to harm my family, I would defend them with what I thought the force necessary to remove the threat was without causing further harm.

Where in that answer did you make it clear that you believed that it was warranted by Scripture for others to take action that might lead to the intruder's death?

I have made allowance for it. I have provided an answer to how I would respond, a response that may include lethal force. I haven't stated anywhere whether I felt it was warranted (or not warranted) by Scripture.

Here's a hint: the answer isn't always black and white. Most times, in fact, it's not. It's shades of grey, some lighter than others.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

If they were merely there to take stuff, your point would <potentially> be morally valid - Alayman

And?[/quote]

You pretty clearly state that it may <potentionally> be "morally valid" to kill someone who is after your junk.

 

[rsc2a]

Here's the elephant in the room for rsc2a.  How will you determine whether the person who breaks in on you is there merely to steal, or they are there to do whatever is necessary to attain their goal?

It's not an elephant at all. I cited the statistics that showed that less than one half of one percent of robberies result in a fatality.

 

[prophet]

In the State of Indiana, Home invasion is a class 'A' felony, carrying 20+ years sentence guideline.  In the State of Indiana, Murder, premeditated, carries the same structure :'A' 20+.
  Premeditated apostasy is still legal, as well as scripture twisting, super-imposition of ones own 'liberal' bent over the interpretation of scriptures, and confining ones 'ministering' to prating on at those one disagrees with on a fu-fu-fu- forum.

Anishinabe

No.

http://www.ai.org/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar43/ch2.html

I said 'home invasion', not 'burglary'.  You have to be home, in order to kill the robber.  If you are home, it becomes a class a. 
  You Phony.

Anishinabe

 

[rsc2a]

In the State of Indiana, Home invasion is a class 'A' felony, carrying 20+ years sentence guideline.  In the State of Indiana, Murder, premeditated, carries the same structure :'A' 20+.
  Premeditated apostasy is still legal, as well as scripture twisting, super-imposition of ones own 'liberal' bent over the interpretation of scriptures, and confining ones 'ministering' to prating on at those one disagrees with on a fu-fu-fu- forum.

Anishinabe

No.

http://www.ai.org/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar43/ch2.html

I said 'home invasion', not 'burglary'.  You have to be home, in order to kill the robber.  If you are home, it becomes a class a. 
  You Phony.

Anishinabe

From the link:

IC 35-43-2-1.5
Residential entry
    Sec. 1.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally breaks and enters the dwelling of another person commits residential entry, a Class D felony.

Before you start insulting and name-calling, you might want to at least make sure you got your facts right.

 

[prophet]

Here's the elephant in the room for rsc2a.  How will you determine whether the person who breaks in on you is there merely to steal, or they are there to do whatever is necessary to attain their goal?

It's not an elephant at all. I cited the statistics that showed that less than one half of one percent of robberies result in a fatality.

Percentages don't matter to the person being robbed.  That's why legally, most states wouldn't prosecute a homeowner for getting rid of some trash.
  If you enter someone's property, without permission, you forfeit your liberty, and risk death.  Jesus assumed this, and built a parable on this platform, to show  God destroying Satan's kingdom, like a home invader.   
    But the home invader's in your hood are gentlemen, so you can't relate.  Stop the hate.  Guard yo gate.  Don't hesitate, to regulate.

Anishinabe

 

[rsc2a]

Here's the elephant in the room for rsc2a.  How will you determine whether the person who breaks in on you is there merely to steal, or they are there to do whatever is necessary to attain their goal?

It's not an elephant at all. I cited the statistics that showed that less than one half of one percent of robberies result in a fatality.

Percentages don't matter to the person being robbed.  That's why legally, most states wouldn't prosecute a homeowner for getting rid of some trash.

No member of humanity is trash.  :-\

[quote author=prophet]If you enter someone's property, without permission, you forfeit your liberty, and risk death.  Jesus assumed this, and built a parable on this platform, to show  God destroying Satan's kingdom, like a home invader.[/quote]

I think you missed the point of the parable.

[quote author=prophet]But the home invader's in your hood are gentlemen, so you can't relate.  Stop the hate.  Guard yo gate.  Don't hesitate, to regulate.

Anishinabe[/quote]

:

 

[ALAYMAN]

I have made allowance for it. I have provided an answer to how I would respond, a response that may include lethal force. I haven't stated anywhere whether I felt it was warranted (or not warranted) by Scripture.

Well, Scripture certainly does provide for evil-doers to be punished, even to the point of death.  It also, by way of principle in moral case law, provides for self-defense for home invasion, so it matters not whether you ignore those principles, God clearly provides for the ability to defend one's self from being robbed of the life he so highly prizes.

Here's a hint: the answer isn't always black and white. Most times, in fact, it's not. It's shades of grey, some lighter than others.

Sure, some things aren't as clear as some one have others to believe, like pants on women, CCM, versions, etc, but if you are persuaded that God wants you to forfeit your life because somebody thinks your life ain't worth any more than a stereo, you are mistaken.  But hey, it's your life. As for me and mine, as somebody very near and dear to my heart once told me, "if somebody is going on trial for murder for events that occur while breaking into my family's home, I'll make sure that it's me".

You pretty clearly state that it may <potentionally> be "morally valid" to kill someone who is after your junk.

Nope, you've misunderstood what I've written.  I don't think it is right to kill somebody for stealing my property, but I certainly ain't willin' to allow much room for error in the negotiation process.

 

[rsc2a]

I have made allowance for it. I have provided an answer to how I would respond, a response that may include lethal force. I haven't stated anywhere whether I felt it was warranted (or not warranted) by Scripture.

Well, Scripture certainly does provide for evil-doers to be punished, even to the point of death.

Even adulterers. What's that about sin and rocks again?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]It also, by way of principle in moral case law, provides for self-defense for home invasion, so it matters not whether you ignore those principles, God clearly provides for the ability to defend one's self from being robbed of the life he so highly prizes.[/quote]

Even in the verse you cited (once you include the immediate following one), there is a clear delineation where lethal force is no longer appropriate. If someone is there just to take your junk, you have no moral right to unload a clip in them.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Here's a hint: the answer isn't always black and white. Most times, in fact, it's not. It's shades of grey, some lighter than others.

Sure, some things aren't as clear as some one have others to believe, like pants on women, CCM, versions, etc, but if you are persuaded that God wants you to forfeit your life because somebody thinks your life ain't worth any more than a stereo, you are mistaken. [/quote]

I think it's a possibility...greys, not black and white. There are obvious cases where God did call for people to forfeit their lives.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]But hey, it's your life. As for me and mine, as somebody very near and dear to my heart once told me, "if somebody is going on trial for murder for events that occur while breaking into my family's home, I'll make sure that it's me".[/quote]

And that may be appropriate.

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

You pretty clearly state that it may <potentionally> be "morally valid" to kill someone who is after your junk.

Nope, you've misunderstood what I've written.  I don't think it is right to kill somebody for stealing my property, but I certainly ain't willin' to allow much room for error in the negotiation process.[/quote]

If they were merely there to take stuff, your point would <potentially> be morally valid... - Alayman

 

[ALAYMAN]

Even adulterers. What's that about sin and rocks again?

Apples to oranges, asked and answered.

Even in the verse you cited (once you include the immediate following one), there is a clear delineation where lethal force is no longer appropriate. If someone is there just to take your junk, you have no moral right to unload a clip in them.

#1, nobody's arguing that lethal force is justified for merely taking things, and you know that but continue to, well, obfuscate.  The issue is that a person doesn't often have the ability to discern the intent of the invader.

#2 The verse that follows is not as clear as what you would have it to be.  It certainly is possible to understand the notion of vs 3 to be that the homeowner should not create a posse and attempt to exact vengance after the light of day has appeared.  Obviously if the perp has gotten away then the homeowner's life is no longer in mortal danger and there is no reason to kill the person.

I think it's a possibility...greys, not black and white. There are obvious cases where God did call for people to forfeit their lives.

He called for them to forfeit their lives to evil-doers who were threatening the innocent lives of themselves and family members?  Where?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]But hey, it's your life. As for me and mine, as somebody very near and dear to my heart once told me, "if somebody is going on trial for murder for events that occur while breaking into my family's home, I'll make sure that it's me".[/quote]

And that may be appropriate.

If they were merely there to take stuff, your point would <potentially> be morally valid... - Alayman

Keep citing that all you want.  What do you think I meant?

 

[rsc2a]

Even adulterers. What's that about sin and rocks again?

Apples to oranges, asked and answered.

The Law clearly called for the death penalty, no?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

Even in the verse you cited (once you include the immediate following one), there is a clear delineation where lethal force is no longer appropriate. If someone is there just to take your junk, you have no moral right to unload a clip in them.

#1, nobody's arguing that lethal force is justified for merely taking things, and you know that but continue to, well, obfuscate.  The issue is that a person doesn't often have the ability to discern the intent of the invader.[/quote]

No...you said "potentially".

[quote author=ALAYMAN]#2 The verse that follows is not as clear as what you would have it to be.  It certainly is possible to understand the notion of vs 3 to be that the homeowner should not create a posse and attempt to exact vengance after the light of day has appeared.  Obviously if the perp has gotten away then the homeowner's life is no longer in mortal danger and there is no reason to kill the person.[/quote]

Which one is the typical interpretation of the verse in question?

[quote author=ALAYMAN]

I think it's a possibility...greys, not black and white. There are obvious cases where God did call for people to forfeit their lives.

He called for them to forfeit their lives to evil-doers who were threatening the innocent lives of themselves and family members?  Where?[/quote]

Stephen, all of the Apostles but John (according to Tradition), Polycarp, Tyndale, Jesus...

[quote author=ALAYMAN]And that may be appropriate.

If they were merely there to take stuff, your point would <potentially> be morally valid... - Alayman

Keep citing that all you want.  What do you think I meant?[/quote]

I think you meant that it potentially would be morally valid to use lethal force if someone was there to merely take your stuff.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

If someone breaks into my house, I should interview them about their intent and plans for my electronics, appliances and family BEFORE I shoot?  :

 

[Castor Muscular]

If someone breaks into my house, I should interview them about their intent and plans for my electronics, appliances and family BEFORE I shoot?  :

Well, there you go.  This explains the law in some forgotten state where you have to notify the future victims of your intent to steal 24 hours in advance of robbing their home.  I knew there had to be a logical reason for that law.