Posted on 07/31/2010 6:26:07 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Perhaps the Roman "church" slaughtering innocents. But I doubt it was done by followers of the Jewish Messiah. That is a broad brush.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
“That is a broad brush.
Perhaps the Roman “church” slaughtering innocents.
But I doubt it was done by followers of the Jewish Messiah.”
I think you are right, for some, but there are many who at least belive they are “followers of the Jewish Messiah,” who, if given the opportunity would use it to persecute those who do not believe and practice as they believe. Case in point, abortion.
Personally, I believe abortion is wrong, but like many other wrongs, it is not my business or anyone else’s. There are many wrongs in this world that individuals inflict on themselves—they are all no one else’s business, No one’s children are anyone else’s business. If there is a God, does he not care for the children of abortion? Why would anyone that believes in God prefer children to be born to a life of torment and suffering at the hands of those who despise them and do not want them, rather than to be taken by God to paradise?
Hank
We are all given free will.shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiachIf one chooses to murder young children,
they will suffer the consequences.One can not claim to be a follower of YHvH or His salvation
and deliberately violate "You shall not murder".
“why couldn’t they have been eliminated just the way they various other places of immorality were zapped out of existence.”
“Phasers set to kill”? Well, 1st, God typically uses people to do what they can, and 2nd, them exacting justice would also affect them, and remind them that judgment does happen, and war is not a neat antiseptic thing, and with such in mind, Israel would be warned that it could happen to them if they continued in immoral rebellion.
It would also remind then that the world not a safe playground, but a battleground. And in which the fallen sinful nature of man is constantly manifest, and there are consequences of such and measures to be taken. While liberals imagine this not to be true, and that wars are never necessary, this delusion results in more deaths of innocent.
“...history teaches with unmistakable emphasis that appeasement but begets new and bloodier wars.” “There can be no compromise with atheistic Communism - no half-way in the preservation of freedom and religion.” - Gen Douglas MacArthur.
“It would harden any heart to beyond the point of repair.”
False (and i suspect you are female, no offense). As an unjust practice it can, or as in video games as gratuitous violence, but dropping the A bomb on Japan did not necessarily require or effect such.
“Once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. War’s very object is victory, not prolonged indecision.”
“The soldier above all others prays for peace, for it is the soldier who must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war. “ - Gen Douglas MacArthur.
“It is plainly vile and contradicts everything that the New Testament is about.”
Negative again, as once again the Lord and those who belong to Him will wage war against a recalcitrant multitude, in a manner that makes it unmistakeably clear that it is of Him. (Rev. 19:14-21) But the time will come when all they shall “not learn war any more.” (Is. 2:4; Mic. 4:3) Thanks be to God.
“Your justification is basically that the divine entity presented itself to the people in a very “real” sense...I would have wished for a deeper justification than that.”
Did you read thru #20? (see also 28 and 38) I presented much more than that. The author of life has a right to take it, which you concur with, and justly executed a wicked people, while delivering the innocent form further perpetuating such, and from requiring Israel to carry a burden they could not handle. Your remaining object seems to be the manner in which killing of innocent was done.
“I tried to peruse through the other link that was posted in response, but all I got...”
Read more. Driving the defiling Canaanites out seems to have been the main solution, but total annihilation to a degree did happen, rarely, but not wantonly, but justly.
“The only problem with that is you are resorting to the words of the source to justify the source.”
The Divine source of the Bible is another issue, but that is not a problem in this argument for me, but for you, as you are the one who is objecting to what is says, but reject its totality when interpreting it. If you object to what it says in one place, then you must consider its larger context. For your arguments to work you must reject parts of the Bible as well as reasonable possibilities, which presumes that you are more qualified moral authority, but which neither history nor your polemic here evidence.
And we can see where rejection of immutable Biblical moral laws (and understand thre are different categorizations of law) is taking us.
“I have not attacked either the Bible or anyone’s God.”
I was referring to the implications of the arguments of the poster which TQC responded to.
“Most people do not understand the difference between a well deserved insult and ad hominem.”
Thanks for the link, but TQC’s response said “Such questions are typically asked by those...”, and if this can be shown to be a valid observation, by one who has much engaged in debate, and not a substitute for logical argumentation, which was provided via a link and in response to a prior post, then i think such can be applicable.
Could not one might say that your assertion that TQC’s assertion was “Insults and ad hominem” in lieu of rational argument (which had been provided) was itself that?
“If one chooses to murder young children,
they will suffer the consequences.”
Of course! No one can do wrong, that is, violate the truth, and get away with it. But no one in this world is appointed “protector of the truth.” Reality cannot be defied. Anyone who thinks reality needs their protection is essentially psychotic. If God determines something is wrong, God is capable of executing justice in all cases of violations of His laws and does not require human interference in that execution, unless you believe your God is not so capable.
Hank
We have one poster objecting to God killing of infants, or at least the violent but quick means, and another justifying it, and your reasoning is tenable, but the issue of proven authority is key.
In addition, what is the difference between your attitude and that of Martin Niemöller’s as regards the Jews being gassed? Method? Volitional aspect?
I find your rational disturbing.
“Phasers set to kill”? Well, 1st, God typically uses people to do what they can, and 2nd, them exacting justice would also affect them, and remind them that judgment does happen, and war is not a neat antiseptic thing, and with such in mind, Israel would be warned that it could happen to them if they continued in immoral rebellion.
No, the smiting and smoting kind, instead of forcing people to commit genocide, and more specifically, infanticide. War is no excuse for deliberately targetting the innocent.
It would also remind then that the world not a safe playground, but a battleground. And in which the fallen sinful nature of man is constantly manifest, and there are consequences of such and measures to be taken. While liberals imagine this not to be true, and that wars are never necessary, this delusion results in more deaths of innocent.
“...history teaches with unmistakable emphasis that appeasement but begets new and bloodier wars.” “There can be no compromise with atheistic Communism - no half-way in the preservation of freedom and religion.” - Gen Douglas MacArthur.
False comparison. World War II was not about targetting innocents and non-actors, specifically.
“It would harden any heart to beyond the point of repair.”
False (and i suspect you are female, no offense).
Another erroneous presumption, but let's leave this aside for now. It has no relevance beyond revealing an attempt at straying from the debate.
As an unjust practice it can, or as in video games as gratuitous violence, but dropping the A bomb on Japan did not necessarily require or effect such.
“Once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end. War’s very object is victory, not prolonged indecision.”
“The soldier above all others prays for peace, for it is the soldier who must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war. “ - Gen Douglas MacArthur.
Totally unwarranted comparison. Was the A-bomb dropped with the intention of killing innocent children? Was the bomb tweaked in a way so that children would be specifically wiped out? No.
1 Samuel 15:3 however, does just that. And that makes it immoral.
“It is plainly vile and contradicts everything that the New Testament is about.”
Negative again, as once again the Lord and those who belong to Him will wage war against a recalcitrant multitude, in a manner that makes it unmistakeably clear that it is of Him. (Rev. 19:14-21) But the time will come when all they shall “not learn war any more.” (Is. 2:4; Mic. 4:3) Thanks be to God.
The character of Jesus, as portayed, would be incapable of advocating deliberate child-slaughter.
“Your justification is basically that the divine entity presented itself to the people in a very “real” sense...I would have wished for a deeper justification than that.”
Did you read thru #20? (see also 28 and 38) I presented much more than that. The author of life has a right to take it, which you concur with, and justly executed a wicked people, while delivering the innocent form further perpetuating such, and from requiring Israel to carry a burden they could not handle. Your remaining object seems to be the manner in which killing of innocent was done.
A "burden they could not handle" is not an excuse for child-slaughter. The "author of life" can take what's given any time, but there is something twisted when the "taking away" is done by people claiming divine sanction. This problem wouldn't have existed if the "taking away" was done by the "author of life" itself. Sodom and Gomorrah underwent that. Zap?
I read through all that you'd typed here, and perused through the links, but no good case was made in any of them. What I argued earlier, still stands.
“I tried to peruse through the other link that was posted in response, but all I got...”
Read more. Driving the defiling Canaanites out seems to have been the main solution, but total annihilation to a degree did happen, rarely, but not wantonly, but justly.
There is no justice in butchering innocent children and infants, deliberately. There is ertainly no meaning to the above argument if donkeys and assed were needed to be done away with, as well.
Once again, as before, in spite of lengthy and verbose compositions on your part, the basic morality that is completely and totally absent in ritualised child-slaughter, remains to hold true. "Divine sanction" is no excuse for the same. It is a common tactic to avoid specific replies by posting lengthy tracts which don't address the arguments. If a case can be made for justifying child-slaughter, it wouldn't require verbal acrobatics.
If your arguments to this are going to be a re-hash of the earlier ones, I think the purpose of furthering this debate is futile. I will, as always, continue to insist that child-slaughter cannot be justified under any circumstance. Any person, entity or claimed divinity ordering the same to be carried out by human mediators, is of suspect moral character.
“God is capable of executing justice in all cases of violations of His laws and does not require human interference in that execution, unless you believe your God is not so capable..”
A false dilemma? God being able to do something is not the issue, but your premise that He has left all actual executions of justice up His own actions is, in the Bible. While God can easily make toast out of a country, “Am i my brother’s keeper” is answered in the affirmative.
(Prov 24:11-12) “If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain; {12} If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?”
“We have one poster objecting to God killing of infants, or at least the violent but quick means, and another justifying it, and your reasoning is tenable, but the issue of proven authority is key.
In addition, what is the difference between your attitude and that of Martin Niemöller’s as regards the Jews being gassed? Method? Volitional aspect?
I find your rational disturbing.”
Have you got the right poster? I regard all human oppression or use of force against other humans beings, especially those resulting in death, evil. As far as I know there is nothing in any post on this thread about “God killing infants,” only about men killing infants. That is plainly evil.
Perhaps you can understand my “rational” in these terms. Two wrongs do not make a right. Should a woman abort her unborn. Of course not. Is the remedy to do something oppressive, by force, to the woman? If you think it is, your view is just as evil as the view of the woman who sees nothing wrong with aborting her unborn.
Hank
They did not simply target the innocent, but everyone of that area. And again, which innocent would have been spared becoming guilty immoral people, which including engaging in infanticide. And you previously seemed to have concurred that the author of life had the power to take it.
When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. (Deuteronomy 20:10-15)
But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God. (Deuteronomy 20:16-18)
When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. (Deuteronomy 7:1-4)
And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.
(Joshua 6:21; cf. Jos_9:24-25; 10:28,39; 11:14; Dt. 2:34,; 7:2-3; 7:16; 20:16-17; 1Sa_15:3,8,18-19.
"For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father." (1 Ki 11:4)
False comparison. World War II was not about targetting innocents and non-actors, specifically.
My point here was in relation to the effects such means of warfare would have certainly resulted in, according to you, versus what exposure can do in contrast to imaging sin has no judgment, and or that appeasement of evil is a wise policy in the end.
Totally unwarranted comparison. Was the A-bomb dropped with the intention of killing innocent children? Was the bomb tweaked in a way so that children would be specifically wiped out? No. 1 Samuel 15:3 however, does just that. And that makes it immoral
While perhaps they would have saved such, atomic bombs do make such distinctions, and neither did the judgment of God, though it might have. But despite your efforts and assertions, it does not follow that this was immoral. You still must refuse to allow that the killing of the innocent, presuming that is all whom you object to, could not have been in their best interest, or that the manner in which is was done could not have worked towards Israel's fear of becoming like them, among other things.
The character of Jesus, as portayed, would be incapable of advocating deliberate child-slaughter.
He often warned of judgment, and that affirmed the previous revelation, and the wisdom of God, which certainly covers the extermination of the Canaanites, and the deliverance of the innocent from perpetuation of their iniquities, including child sacrifice, and the means of such, but which wisdom, you, in your seeming omniscience, cannot allow even as a possibility.
The "author of life" can take what's given any time, but there is something twisted when the "taking away" is done by people claiming divine sanction.
So here again the real problem can be agnosticism/atheism. Since God does not exist, or as the author of the Bible, He could not have been acting justly or wisely in killing all of the Canaanites, including all (once) “ox, and sheep, and ass” (which would have been a reminder of Amalek , and may even have been accustomed to the practice of bestiality). Your problem here is not that of claiming Divine sanction, but your exclusive sanction of what your own finite, unreasonable, closed human mind will “objectively” allow as just and wise possibilities.
A "burden they could not handle" is not an excuse for child-slaughter. The "author of life" can take what's given any time, but there is something twisted when the "taking away" is done by people claiming divine sanction. This problem wouldn't have existed if the "taking away" was done by the "author of life" itself. Sodom and Gomorrah underwent that. Zap?
So you reject the social agency argument, but still allow their destruction if done by God with fire and brimestone? He just cannot use men. I wonder which was quicker.
Once again, as before, in spite of lengthy and verbose compositions on your part, the basic morality that is completely and totally absent in ritualised child-slaughter, remains to hold true.
Now child-slaughter is ritualised? And you accuse others of reading things into the Bible! It was such that God strictly forbade, and the utter conquest of nations was not a universal practice or a ritual.
"Divine sanction" is no excuse for the same.
And this logic says that since some use this as an excuse, thus it can never be valid. But that is what God made such exceeding manifest, and then forbade taking His name in vain, which is your charge.
It is a common tactic to avoid specific replies by posting lengthy tracts which don't address the arguments.
Don't address the arguments!!!! That is what you hardly have done, with this being your best, but poor effort. Rather, with due respect, it is common for skeptics to post objections based upon superficial understanding of things related to deep theological issues, and complain when the limitations of their bias is revealed, and they are challenged to do some deeper thinking. Good night.
Quickly, before i nod off, i meant (as regards J.C.Bennet) the possibility of God sanctioning it. As regards all human oppression or use of force against other humans beings, especially those resulting in death, being evil, this is untenable. Tell the police to take a week off and you will see. The practical power of the State is the gun. If all were God controlled, none would need to be gun controlled. Bu that is not the case.
As for preventing abortion, if i understand you correctly, to be consistent, you must consider it to have been another wrong for America to have been involved in stopping the Holocaust by force.
Tomorrow.
Excellant debate....much food for thought. Thank you and those who posted. Great learning to be had here!
They deliberately targeted the innocent children, and the animals as well, to ensure. I have no problem with any divinity taking away life it was the source of. However, as I mentioned earlier, it is not divinity taking it, but rather people claiming divine authority to do so. That is immoral.
When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. (Deuteronomy 20:10-15)
But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee: That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God. (Deuteronomy 20:16-18)
When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. (Deuteronomy 7:1-4)
And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.
(Joshua 6:21; cf. Jos_9:24-25; 10:28,39; 11:14; Dt. 2:34,; 7:2-3; 7:16; 20:16-17; 1Sa_15:3,8,18-19.
All of these would seem to fit comfortably in the Quran; not the New Testament.
False comparison. World War II was not about targetting innocents and non-actors, specifically.
My point here was in relation to the effects such means of warfare would have certainly resulted in, according to you, versus what exposure can do in contrast to imaging sin has no judgment, and or that appeasement of evil is a wise policy in the end.
Collateral damage is not the same as deliberate targeting. There's a huge moral and ethical difference between the two.
Totally unwarranted comparison. Was the A-bomb dropped with the intention of killing innocent children? Was the bomb tweaked in a way so that children would be specifically wiped out? No.1 Samuel 15:3 however, does just that. And that makes it immoral
While perhaps they would have saved such, atomic bombs do make such distinctions, and neither did the judgment of God, though it might have. But despite your efforts and assertions, it does not follow that this was immoral. You still must refuse to allow that the killing of the innocent, presuming that is all whom you object to, could not have been in their best interest, or that the manner in which is was done could not have worked towards Israel's fear of becoming like them, among other things.
Yes. Killing the innocent can never be moral or ethical. Performing the act in the name of following a divine entity's orders corrupts whatever morality that particular entity was supposed to represent. You have a hard case if you attribute such vile qualities to a god, to later claim that such a god represents morality. These attributes completely violate the Golden Rule.
The character of Jesus, as portayed, would be incapable of advocating deliberate child-slaughter.
He often warned of judgment, and that affirmed the previous revelation, and the wisdom of God, which certainly covers the extermination of the Canaanites, and the deliverance of the innocent from perpetuation of their iniquities, including child sacrifice, and the means of such, but which wisdom, you, in your seeming omniscience, cannot allow even as a possibility.
If it violates the Golden Rule, then sorry, no sale on child-slaugter.
The "author of life" can take what's given any time, but there is something twisted when the "taking away" is done by people claiming divine sanction.
So here again the real problem can be agnosticism/atheism. Since God does not exist, or as the author of the Bible, He could not have been acting justly or wisely in killing all of the Canaanites, including all (once) “ox, and sheep, and ass” (which would have been a reminder of Amalek , and may even have been accustomed to the practice of bestiality). Your problem here is not that of claiming Divine sanction, but your exclusive sanction of what your own finite, unreasonable, closed human mind will “objectively” allow as just and wise possibilities.
I can make any moral decision purely based on the Golden Rule. It's neither unreasonable, nor unwise, to do so.
A "burden they could not handle" is not an excuse for child-slaughter. The "author of life" can take what's given any time, but there is something twisted when the "taking away" is done by people claiming divine sanction. This problem wouldn't have existed if the "taking away" was done by the "author of life" itself. Sodom and Gomorrah underwent that. Zap?
So you reject the social agency argument, but still allow their destruction if done by God with fire and brimestone? He just cannot use men. I wonder which was quicker.
Exactly. Because humans are faulty and are prone to justifying vile acts in the name of a deity.
Once again, as before, in spite of lengthy and verbose compositions on your part, the basic morality that is completely and totally absent in ritualised child-slaughter, remains to hold true.
Now child-slaughter is ritualised? And you accuse others of reading things into the Bible! It was such that God strictly forbade, and the utter conquest of nations was not a universal practice or a ritual.
I meant 'ritual' as in the killings were purely conducted for the sake of pleasing a deity, and not on the guilt of the butchered children and infants.
"Divine sanction" is no excuse for the same.
And this logic says that since some use this as an excuse, thus it can never be valid. But that is what God made such exceeding manifest, and then forbade taking His name in vain, which is your charge.
My charge is just this: Humans killing the innocent in the name of divinity, is vile, and evil. It still holds as strong as it did, when it was first raised.
It is a common tactic to avoid specific replies by posting lengthy tracts which don't address the arguments.
Don't address the arguments!!!! That is what you hardly have done, with this being your best, but poor effort. Rather, with due respect, it is common for skeptics to post objections based upon superficial understanding of things related to deep theological issues, and complain when the limitations of their bias is revealed, and they are challenged to do some deeper thinking. Good night.
Lengthy, convoluted, circular-logic "reasoning" is no explanation. Like I reasoned earlier, you will go to any extent to defend a vile act that is morally indefensible. To that end, let's agree to disagree, and call it a day.
“An eye for an eye, and the whole world will be blind.”
“As regards all human oppression or use of force against other humans beings, especially those resulting in death, being evil, this is untenable. Tell the police to take a week off and you will see.”
First, I think you fail to distinguish between the oppressive use of force, the is the initiation of force by an aggressor against the innocent and the defensive use of force. The initiation of the use of force is always wrong, the defensive use of force against those who initiate it is always justified.
If you truly believe the police prevent crime, I think you are naive. The police do not even pretend they prevent crime. The best they can do is to come in after a crime is committed, and if lucky, apprehend the criminals. And in this day and age, if the police would take a week off, it would prevent a lot of innocent people from having thouses broken into, they or their animals killed or brutalized, or the property stolen—by tht police.
I do not understand people who think people are only civilized because they fear the power of the state. Is that the only reason you are civilized? If the police take a week off, are you going to run around breaking into your neighbor’s homes and raping women? Are you the only civilized person in the country?
I’m sorry, but I do not have anything in common with people who need a government to keep them honest and decent. I don’t, and I don’t know anyone who does.
“As for preventing abortion, if i understand you correctly ...”
You don’t, but don’t worry about it.
Hank
It all adds up.
Ex. 21.24. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot:
Eye = ע the letter ayin = 70
Tooth = ש the letter shin = 300
Hand = י the letter yud = 10
יָשַׁע = 380
Foot = רגל "regel" = 233
Total = 613
It never ends... e.g. 233 = tree of life (עץ החיים)
“First, I think you fail to distinguish between the oppressive use of force.”
Thanks you for your clarification, as it seemed that you were against the any use of force, defensive or otherwise. Of course, you always have the pro-active use of force against an imminent threat, as in the 67 war, aside from theories as to who initiated it. .
“If you truly believe the police prevent crime, I think you are naive. The police do not even pretend they prevent crime. The best they can do is to come in after a crime is committed, and if lucky, apprehend the criminals. And in this day and age, if the police would take a week off, it would prevent a lot of innocent people from having thouses broken into, they or their animals killed or brutalized, or the property stolen—by tht police.”
This i hold as sheer and extreme imagination, and it sounds like the rants of anarchists and libertarians who have a basic animus against authority in general.
While it is certain that many, and in some places most, people might obey laws without law enforcement around, multitudes will not, or will increase that which they are already seeking to do, from not paying taxes to speed limits to stealing and killing. If such happens now despite police, it will only increase in their absence, and in time, anarchy will reign. And not simply in places or circumstances like Baghdad, or New Orleans, but from stores to corporate offices.
I live in a city with one of the highest population densities in the US, and police presence certainly does cut down on crime, “for he beareth not the sword in vain,”and the Bible affirms the just use of such in deterrence of evil. (Rm. 13:1-17; 1Pt. 2:13,14)
Of course, as said before, if people are controlled from within, by God and conscience, then they need not be controlled from without, and it is part of the charter of a true N.T. church to effect the former, which has and will enable smaller government. But when the government is not likewise controlled, then the people mourn.
In addition, only allowing an absence of police as sometime that would prevent crime is absurd and revealing. While the relatively rare occurrences of unjust physical force by police would cease if they took a week off, so would parental child abuse if there were none.
“I do not have anything in common with people who need a government to keep them honest and decent. I don’t, and I don’t know anyone who does.”
I don’t need the gov for that reason either, but the vast multitudes do, and to suppose otherwise is fantasy, or an idea that “honest and decent” is determined by what seems reasonable to you, which may be beneficial, but men like Mao, Pol Pot and the like had their idea of what that was as well, based upon their objectively baseless moral reasoning .
The Code of Hammurabi was a BIG step towards civilization.
Prior to that loss of an eye could cause a mutigenerational feud with scores of dead.
Far be it from me to defend islam, muslims went back to the code of physical violence and mutilation from a society that had moved on to civil penalties.
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.