Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

All Things Second Amendment

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
    So then do you believe that there is a right to be forgiven?
    No such thing, not even in scripture.

    The law takes care (or tries to) of justice. Whether someone forgives the one who harmed them is another matter entirely.

    Judges are to show no mercy to the criminal.

    And that our laws should obligate victims of crime for example, to forgive the aggressors, and make it a crime to not "forgive those who trespass against us"?
    Again, the government enforcing justice and a victim forgiving the one who harmed them are two separate (yes, overlapping, but still separate) issues. The government cannot force a victim to forgive (nor should it try), but it can and should punish the criminal.

    I ask because to me, the biblical references you provide do not support a right to bear arms nearly as well as a lot of other scriptures that command forgiveness support a right to be forgiven; by your reasoning, all scriptures commanding forgiveness, must support a right to be forgiven.
    Your argument is a non sequitur, because we're talking about how a government should act towards criminals, not how someone who has been wronged should act, two different topics.

    Which do you want to talk about? Sin or crime?Pick one.

    I will say this, regardless. There is no such thing as a right to be forgiven. In order for someone to forgive someone else, the latter has to repent.

    Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. - Luke 17:3 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...3&version=NKJV

    If the latter DOES NOT repent, then he should not be forgiven. If the latter does repent, then the former should forgive, but again, such cannot be forced, and a third party does not have the authority to forgive the offender for harming the victim.

    There IS, however, a right to due process, which includes a fair trial.

    Comment


    • My view on the well regulate militia was changed recently.

      It used to be that the well regulated militia are all those who carry weapons of war on our streets for all lawful purposes in a civilian capacity, but it's been changed now to all those who are good with and who carry weapons of war on our streets for all lawful purposes in a civilian capacity.

      https://twitter.com/Nee_Nihilo/statu...92984899706880
      "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

      @Nee_Nihilo

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
        No such thing, not even in scripture.
        It's not like I thought there was. I'm just ascertaining the structure of your argument, and testing you to see if I'm understanding you properly, or if I need to study harder to 'catch your drift'.

        Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
        The law takes care (or tries to) of justice. Whether someone forgives the one who harmed them is another matter entirely.
        So then I'm gathering that you believe that God's theonomical law includes a right to not forgive, meaning that God's law does not prescribe penalty against someone, for not forgiving another party?

        And furthermore "justice" to me means that government fulfills its duty to its people, and never infringes or disregards their fundamental human rights. When the parties do not include the government directly, then the government being just, is administering penalty to citizens who are obligated to pay damages to another party who has a right to recover those damages.
        Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
        Judges are to show no mercy to the criminal.
        Which means that all the times today that either judges or prosecutors show mercy, are crimes, according to your interpretation of God's theonomical laws?
        Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
        Again, the government enforcing justice and a victim forgiving the one who harmed them are two separate (yes, overlapping, but still separate) issues. The government cannot force a victim to forgive (nor should it try), but it can and should punish the criminal.
        So it looks as if I am reading you right, since it looks very much like here that you believe God's theonomical law recognizes a right to not forgive.
        Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
        Your argument is a non sequitur, because we're talking about how a government should act towards criminals, not how someone who has been wronged should act, two different topics.
        We're talking about how a government should act towards all its people, including and not limited to its criminals.
        Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
        Which do you want to talk about? Sin or crime?Pick one.
        I thought that God's theonomical law equates sin and crime. I thought sins are crimes, and crimes are sins, and the overlap is 100%, but it's sounding now more like there are sins that are not crimes, although all crimes are sins, in God's theonomical law.
        Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
        I will say this, regardless. There is no such thing as a right to be forgiven. In order for someone to forgive someone else, the latter has to repent.

        Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. - Luke 17:3 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...3&version=NKJV

        If the latter DOES NOT repent, then he should not be forgiven. If the latter does repent, then the former should forgive, but again, such cannot be forced, and a third party does not have the authority to forgive the offender for harming the victim.
        OK, but it is true though that according to your interpretation or your legal theory, God's theonomical law does recognize a right to not forgive, correct?
        Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
        There IS, however, a right to due process, which includes a fair trial.
        Certainly American liberalism defends the right to due process. And we also take great pains to prevent against penalizing law-respecting people. Even consciously choosing to accept some proportion of guilty parties being released in order to minimize the possibility of penalizing law-abiding, innocent people. Liberalism generally more highly values not penalizing the innocent, over penalizing the guilty. Ideally we would penalize all the guilty, and not penalize all the innocent, and we consciously err on the side of not penalizing all the innocent.

        And having examined your examples of scriptures that you have provided to show that, according to your legal theory of theonomy, God's theonomical law recognizes the fundamental human right to bear arms, it looks as if your argument in interpreting this law involves seeing whether something is depicted in Scripture as permissible, especially if it is depicted in both Old and New Testaments as such, and especially beyond this if Jesus is recorded to have done that thing; then there is a right to do that thing. Is this correct?
        "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

        @Nee_Nihilo

        Comment


        • "Law's Empire"

          This supposed attorney from Minnesota describes the current problem in law today (in 2014), over the past 40 years.

          "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

          @Nee_Nihilo

          Comment


          • Comment


            • It is a moral matter when we're talking about a pre-political, natural, basic, fundamental, inborn, inviolable, inherent, absolute, intrinsic, and sacred, inalienable human right. The right to life. It means that your government is supposed to declare, recognize, affirm, acknowledge, honor, preserve, respect, protect and defend that right. The right to life. It means it is objectively immoral for a government to disregard, violate, infringe, abridge, offend, abuse, abrogate, that right. The right to life. And it is the same with all the other rights like that right. The right to bear arms is the right to life.
              Originally posted by ok doser View Post
              You're not wrong.

              And it's a moral matter. For a liberal like myself, my liberalism is my political philosophy because liberalism is my moral philosophy which is my metaphysical philosophy ("Catholicism in the real world" is my moral philosophy, which is my political theory or philosophy). I am not a libertarian /anarchist (=same thing), I believe in big government if big government is what's best, such as the occupation of the Confederacy (Federal Reconstruction), and defeating the "liquor-state" that started developing during the Prohibition Era (when the right to consume drugs was outlawed across the country, a drug-dealing, black market, heavily armed and brutally violent businesspeople-based economy developed, as they have in Mexico and in Latin America right now at this moment, they are as violent as the rumrunners and bootleggers and purveyors of rotgut whisky were during Prohibition, as brutal as the Mafia whenever they were their most brutal, and both as violent and as brutal as some of the Native tribes in North America in the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s).

              The government should be as great and mighty and big and powerful as needed, to do their moral job wrt my right to bear arms. Which is my right to life.

              Libertarians say that literally everything is better if you just let people figger out things for themselves, by making brain damaged choices that are them falling into a pit. I am not libertarian, I believe that preadolescents Must be taught to gravely prefer chastity in all matters, and to avoid any form of fornication with grave determination, because we believe in health, and it is statistically healthier to avoid fornication, all things considered, and so it is equally moral to teach preadolescents to invariably avoid any form of fornication at all costs, whether or not invoking the literal fear of God, for health. The fornication forms habits, it is plain as day to see, and it is simply immoral to permit, tolerate, condone, or encourage that youngsters fornicate in any form, for health.
              "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

              @Nee_Nihilo

              Comment

              Working...
              X