brain sizes: Einstein's and women's
lojbab at lojban.org
Tue Aug 6 22:01:53 EST 2002
JDay123 at BellSouth.com (Jd) wrote:
>>>If it were, everyone who killed another in self defense would
>>>be thrown in jail. The argument asserts that the act of self defense
>>>does not violate the 6th commandment, "Thou shalt not kill", therefore
>>>law is one the side of the Bible.
>>And that argument is merely a matter of interpretation. It is a
>>subject for debate, not for definitive judgment.
>No it isn't. The difference between murder and killing in self defense
>is that murder is illegal, and that is not subject for debate. If you
>get caught murdering someone you will be punished.
Not necessarily. There are various insanity defenses and the like,
for example. In time of war, soldiers may kill other than for
self-defense. And of course as you note below, abortion is allowed
(and even if it were made illegal in this country there are other
countries where it is not and likely never would be made illegal).
Meanwhile, even within the self-defense category, the question as to
whether a given murder is in self-defense is subjective, which was my
>You have it
>backwards i.e. kill the innocent (abortion) , pardon criminals, and
>take the guns from law abiding citizens. Leftism.
You have a strange definition of leftism, but I'm beginning to think
you are like many extremists who somehow think that labeling something
as "leftist" or "liberal" is some kind of curse or talisman that will
protect you and damage them. Anyone who doesn't think exactly as you
do is a "leftist". Whoopie-doo for you.
Meanwhile, I've never said I was pro-abortion, in favor of pardoning
criminals, or desirous of taking guns from law abiding citizens.
>I further stated...
>>> Besides, it's found in Christian Doctrine also... both Roman Catholic
>>>and Protestant with references being that of Jesus himself, and Thomas
>>>Aquinas. Roman Catholic doctrine upholds the right and duty of self
>>>defense. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if
>>>he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow. See Catechism of the
>>>Catholic Church 1994, sections 2263-65 (citing and quoting Thomas
>>>Aquinas). In Protestantism also, the individual has the personal and
>>>unalienable right to self-defense, even against government... Samuel
>>>Rutherford, Lex, Rex  1982, pp. 159-166, 183-185 (Sprinkle
>What I did was disprove your notion where you claimed "extremists"
>interpret scriptures in favor of self defense with firearms to suit
>their political agenda. 2 billion Christians is no mere "extremist"
Sorry, but I see no mention of firearms in either doctrine. The
Catholic doctrine is not "in favor" of self-defense, but merely says
that it isn't murder if some dies from a lethal blow. The Protestant
doctrine states the right of self-defense, but does not say how far it
could go. Does Osama bin Ladin have the right to drop a nuclear bomb
on Washington DC in self-defense against our government, which would
be quite happy to capture him? Do YOU have that right? If you have
the right to bear arms, why does that right stop short of an H-bomb,
should you feel desirous of "self-defense against the government"
(given that nothing less than an H-bomb is likely to be an adequate
"self-defense" against our government, you pretty much have to claim
that you have the right to nuclear weapons).
Meanwhile you ignore the Bible and Jesus's commandments, in favor of
the Christian equivalent of Talmud, while condemning the Jews for the
More information about the Neur-sci