In alt.education Re: brain sizes: Einstein's and women's,
Bob LeChevalier wrote...
>>>But it is still dishonest argument, in that the selection of verses
>>>and their interpretation is based on the political position they (and
>>>you) are coming from.
>>>>Not true.
>>Indeed true.
>>>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. You have it
backwards i.e. kill the innocent (abortion) , pardon criminals, and
take the guns from law abiding citizens. Leftism.
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 [1644] 1982, pp. 159-166, 183-185 (Sprinkle
>>Publications edition.)
To which you repied...
>Cute. You feel no guilt about criticizing the Talmud, while citing the
>Christian Talmud. (You do realize that that is all the Jewish Talmud
>is, is the "catechism" or collection of doctrinal writings and
>interpretations like that of Aquinas, that arose in a period over a
>thousand years. The difference is that the Talmud preserves the
>actual arguments rather than rendering a definitive doctrine.)
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"
group.
Jd
