Posted on 12/03/2006 7:54:15 AM PST by HarmlessLovableFuzzball
There is something about this situation ...
My normally good-natured wife was out for blood, ... after she was egged coming home from church on a Halloween night.
It took my stepson twenty minutes or so to get her calmed down enough to come home.
Matthew 12:32
Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
It's rather obvious to me that uncle binney has rejected the Holy Spirit. He's made that rather well known. There was a Carmelite priest in Dachau named Fr Brandsma. He asked the prisoners to pray for their captors. They protested. He said God loves them too. They prayed. After a breath, or two was prayed, he said that's enough. That's the way it is with uncle binney. He's toast. Not so with the 14 y/o boy here. He was only 14 and never got to live his life. I'm confident he's been forgiven.
"I pointed out time after time, we are to "give place to wrath" and that place is "government authorities"."
Vengeance is God's. Roman's 13 is simply Paul's advice. It does not apply generally, otherwise God put Stalin, Mao and Richard Daley in power. He didn't. " I do not defend the killer of the 14y/o in any of my posts."
You said Jesus taught and supported the death penalty. That's the only reason I posted to you. He didn't.
Wow, you are nuts. So the boy went to hell for throwing an egg? Good luck on your path of righteousness, you've at least got the "judgemental" part down pat (or is it the "nuts" part.. LOL).
You don't seem to agree with spunketts. He defends the egging as just a prank.
There was no specific intent to cause "harm"
Whether or not the kid knew the possible level of damage that could be caused by his actions is debatable but egging a car is commonly known to do damage.
Had the egg struck the driver and it could be shown that the kid meant to strike the driver; meant to cause a catastrophic accident...there would be grounds for an arrest
Your bar is much too high, Vandalism is an arrestable crime where a juvenile is concerned. If the property damaged is valued high enough it could, but not likely bring felony charges.
Sure the shooter in this case could be charged with first degree murder. It would sound all nice and pat in the prosecutors office and in front of the judge. Then a little guy called a defense lawyer shows up and starts yammering, bringing up issues like "first harmful act, eventually mentioning something along the lines of "fight or flight". If the jurisdiction has no duty to retreat statute, first degree murder is a distant memory.
It was a prank. A misdemeanor for which you can be arrested. A risky practice that can have fatal effects which would elevate the potential penalties. But at the base level, nonetheless a property crime of a very low level that never merits a response in force. That's common law and generally applicable across jurisdictions.
egging a car is commonly known to do damage.
In this case, harm and specific intent is used to create a standard of measure in terms of physical violence against a person that would necessitate deadly force as a response. So if the kids actions could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have the specific intent to cause physical harm (death or great bodily injury) then perhaps a response of deadly force could be raised as an affirmative defense. I thought the kid was trying to KILL me so I shot him dead. NOT: The little creep dented my SUV and might have caused an accident (but didn't) so I shot him dead.
Your bar is much too high, Vandalism is an arrestable crime where a juvenile is concerned. If the property damaged is valued high enough it could, but not likely bring felony charges.
I was making the link to the use of deadly force by the driver not the egging by the kid. You are mixing the "bars" when they don't apply to each other.
"fight or flight". If the jurisdiction has no duty to retreat statute, first degree murder is a distant memory.
Not so. Fight or Flight does indeed apply in this case, even where the modified castle doctrine statutes have been applied. Those laws apply ONLY to a direct attack where there is specific intent to do great bodily harm or cause death. They would not apply in this case where the SUV "victim" of vandalism became the secondary aggressor in pursuing vigilante justice of a deadly nature.
Funny thing....the kid is with Christ IF he had a personal born again relationship with the the God of the Universe. If not, he is SOL. OTOH, if the killer was a believer, his sins (even murder) have been paid in full by Christ act on the cross. From a Biblical viewpoint it makes perfect sense to me. But never when viewed by worldly standards.
Folks who love to pound on Christians for their supposed "hypocrisy" in saying one thing and doing another fail to grasp the reality of the Christian life: We're not any differnt or any better than anybody else. I'm a sinner saved by grace and deserving of nothing. Christ says I'm justified by faith but sometimes I don't feel too faithful. Nonbelievers love to harp the Flesh is Weak and it is, but they say this gives Christians license to sin. Christians who use it that way, probably don't have the deepest walk but may still be "saved" although as if passing thru fire to get into the Heavenly realm. I guess my convoluted point is that Christian believers don't get to "judge" the conduct of others...that's God's job. We point out such conduct and nonbelievers think we are "judging" them and proclaim us hypocritical when we go and do the same durn thing. But that is the nature of grace.
Agree on this part, unless he was not at the age of accountability (different ages for different people). 14 is sorta the median age where a person begins to understand if they are a sinner or not in terms they can digest.
I never said he did, did I, learn to read and it will make your experience on FR far more enjoyable. As pointed out, if the kid had reached the age of accountability and didn't accept Christ as his Lord and Savior, then he is in hell. It is that simple. I didn't judge the kid in any capacity that accounts for his soul once, if I did, then please show me where I did.
BTW... my statement of "--I am not so sure... I can hope as only you can." is one of hope, but you are a hypocrite if you think you have cornered the market on telling us that this kid did go to heaven. You judged his soul, I didn't.
BTW... my statement of "--I am not so sure... I can hope as only you can." is one of hope, but you are a hypocrite if you think you have cornered the market on telling us that this kid did go to heaven. You judged his soul, I didn't.
LOL.. your post was as transparent as your professed "hope" for the boys' soul.
That means whatever you want it to mean. You simply can't cherry pick the Word of God. Your relationship with the Almighty is your business, not mine. It's not for me to decide if you're saved or not. But I pray that you are. It sounds like you are....but the Bible does say quite plainly that to enter the Kingdom of Heaven one must be born again. That statement means different things to different folks. I guess that's why we have denominations of the Christian Church here on Earth.
I know what you mean. My daughter received Jesus into her heart on Easter the year she turned eight years old. That little gal went out and promptly evangelized her whole class in her school....public school. LOL I remember her liberal teacher going a bit bananas. But she didn't take any negative actions except the standard liberal handwringing.
Matthew 18:20
"For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."
I'm just not of the persuation of the denominations that carry the phrase as an identity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.