Posted on 08/15/2014 12:21:00 PM PDT by Kaslin
There was something thoroughly distasteful about that Robin Williams press conference the other day. It sounded wrong. It looked bad. It smelled.
Was it newsworthy, so much so that news networks would break into their regular afternoon programming to broadcast live the first official law enforcement press conference surrounding Williams' death? We think so. Williams was not just an iconic American comedian since he burst onto the scene with "Mork and Mindy" in the 1970s, he was perhaps the single funniest man in America. That he would die so suddenly understandably generated interest. When the word "suicide" appeared we became a nation of rubberneckers. We had to know what happened.
Actually there isn't a "need" to know, but the appetite is obvious. From Princess Diana to Michael Jackson to Heath Ledger to Philip Seymour Hoffman, the sudden, unexpected death of celebrities is a source not only of mourning, but also of great fascination. All the news networks showed up for live coverage because they knew their audiences were riveted to this story.
But how much should we be told?
Normally it baffles and frustrates when the official government spokesman approaches the massive bank of microphones and says -- nothing. His official statement tells you what you already knew, and when reporters attempt to gather details, they get bupkis."The investigation is ongoing." "I don't have details at this time." "We are not prepared to release that information at this time." The tone is monotonous, officious. Ten minutes after it began, the networks mercifully pull away as reporters scurry to make news out of what wasn't.
So when the Marin County coroner's office held a press conference 24 hours after Williams' body was discovered, to lay out the initial findings on this suicide, we tuned in expecting nothing more than the confirmation of what everyone already knew -- suicide -- with a barrage of questions providing little, or nothing else. Instead this time we got too much. Controversy erupted.
It didn't help that the press contact in this case seemed to be enjoying the spectacle. Before reading the first sentence in his statement, he had an announcement. "My last name is spelled B-O-Y-D," proclaimed Lt. Keith Boyd, with far too much brio in his voice given the topic at hand. At the end of his prepared remarks, he reminded the press that "Media inquiries should continue to be directed to me, Lieutenant Keith Boyd, via my email," and then he spelled that address out before taking questions, pointing at reporters with gusto.
The first rule of coroner public relations ought to be "never seem to enjoy sharing the specifics on someone's death." That should be followed by "and don't give specifics if you don't have the full story."
An investigation on a death such as this takes time. The toxicology report itself takes weeks. Given Williams' documented struggle with substance abuse, that is a necessary component in the full report. As well, there is a certain distance required between the initial news and its analysis when the news is this tragic. Imagine the Dallas police chief divulging to the public everything he knew about Kennedy's head blown off 24 hours after the assassination.
So it was shocking to hear the gory details -- especially when the story is incomplete. Not just that he hanged himself but how he did it. How exactly he was seated-but-not-really-seated. How the body was in a state of rigor mortis, which, of course, it was, and did he need to repeat himself, too. How he had cut his wrists, but how badly, he wouldn't say. How there was a knife nearby with "red" stains, which -- and this was infuriating -- is being tested to see if it's Williams' blood, as if it could somehow be anything else.
Was the star's privacy compromised? The coroner's office was legally obligated to release a report under the California Public Records Act, and the media's massive interest probably made a press conference unavoidable. But what was divulged crossed a line, and the public saw it. "The amount of info being given out about Robin Williams' death is shocking," wrote one woman on Twitter. Another added: "Why does the world need to know this??"
That commandment is in the Bible idiot. Suicide is self-murder. Unlawful to God
Nope; that is not my assertion; my assertion is this: God would not honor Samson's suicide if suicide were unequivocally a sin.
I don't have a problem here; it is you that has a problem: you assert that suicide is a sin, yet except Jesus's intentionally taking his own life when the definition (which you have not rejected) is the intentional taking of one's own life
.
I have not made that assertion, nor the assertion that suicide is never a sin.
As an example, you are wrong if you try to claim eating is a sin, yet you would also be wrong to say that eating is never a sin [see gluttony].
To the best of my recollection, Robin Williams is probably the most recognized celebrity to commit suicide since Marilyn Monroe. And given her career was so short, he was probably even more recognized. This alone is going to generate a huge amount of public interest compared to other celebrity deaths. On top of that, Williams was known for making people laugh. It's one thing for a brooding, seething, angry Kurt Cobain to kill himself but not Robin Williams.
But, yes, they could have even gone as far as to say he hung himself and leave it at that. This would've at least squelched the conspiracy theorists before they go off that he was murdered and something was being covered up had fewer facts been revealed.
They could've stopped there. We don't need to know anything else. But we will. I'm sure the toxicology reports will be released.
Irrelevant; the question we are examining is suicide — and we have a confession:No one takes it [his life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again. I have received this command from my Father.
The question of murder is discretely separate; the two can coexist as well as independently exist.
This is perhaps a little easier than you might think:
Ask yourself: who administered the lashings?
Who drove the nails?
Who pierced his side with a spear?
All irrelevant to the question of suicide, unless you can prove that one cannot commit suicide by surrendering to the actions of others which the one in question knew beforehand would result in his death.
There is a categorical difference between what Samson did and suicide. It seems you are deliberately ignoring this, which possibly reveals dishonesty on your part.
There is also a categorical difference between what Jesus did and suicide. This is the basis for my disagreement with you.
You have answered well. Based on the specific focus of your view, it seems—within that narrow view—that we might initially find reason to suspect the case of Jesus could be defined as a suicide. Although the fact that Jesus didn’t drive the nails would be seen as relevant in court—the ruling would be more complicated and probably very different from one pertaining to the case of Robin Williams.
But something tells me it’s just plain ludicrous to call what Jesus did suicide. Often, the best way to understand a particular circumstance is to broaden the view. So let’s do that here.
The broader—and higher—view is contained in the scripture you quote. Jesus Christ is the author of life. He can lay it down as well as he can take it up again.
None of us can do this. Therefore it is an entirely different act when men take their own lives. And it has a different name—suicide.
If that be true then why/how does the definition the intentional taking of one's own life
that I have been up-front and consistently using fail for each of these cases?
What is dishonest is your actions: you do not dispute the definition, assert that I am wrong, and deny it when I show you exactly how the actions in question fulfill the definition being used.
You assert there are categorical differences on these actions; I've shown how they fit the definition being uses then intentional ending of one's own life
— is is therefore incumbent upon you, who are making the contrary claim, to prove it.
Thank you.
Based on the specific focus of your view, it seems—within that narrow view—that we might initially find reason to suspect the case of Jesus could be defined as a suicide.
The reason I use a very narrow definition is (a) because it's the dictionary definition, and (b) because it cuts out a lot of crap to be clear about what you're talking about.
Although the fact that Jesus didn’t drive the nails would be seen as relevant in court—the ruling would be more complicated and probably very different from one pertaining to the case of Robin Williams.
*shrug* — I never once made the claim that the deaths were at all equivalent; and about the only commonality is it being possible to classify them both as suicide
.
But something tells me it’s just plain ludicrous to call what Jesus did suicide. Often, the best way to understand a particular circumstance is to broaden the view. So let’s do that here.
The broader—and higher—view is contained in the scripture you quote. Jesus Christ is the author of life. He can lay it down as well as he can take it up again.
I'm not disputing this fact: that Jesus can take his life back up again.
I am asserting and affirming that he laid it down, intentionally.
None of us can do this. Therefore it is an entirely different act when men take their own lives. And it has a different name—suicide.
Ok, I agree that this is in His power to do, by the fact that He did it — I disagree that this fact invalidates my definition: the intentional taking of one's own life.
However, I do see a possibility of another definition, if there is another definition, one that suits your frame of view better: what is it? How does it exclude Jesus's own actions while including Mr. Williams's? — Moreover, how would it exclude Samson who prayed to God specifically Lord God, remember me and strengthen me only this once, O God, so that with this one act of revenge I may pay back the Philistines for my two eyes. […] Let me die with the Philistines.
("God killed him" and "God allowed him to die" are unsatisfactory answers in both cases.)
In a court of law, the judge can rule a witness in contempt and have him jailed.
If a witness in court tries to do this—let’s say he somehow gains the physical power to overcome the bailiff and other officials, and is able to put another witness in jail after first accusing him of contempt—his actions nevertheless have no legitimacy because he lacks the legal authority to do this.
So here you can see the point. Jesus has authority and jurisdiction over life itself. This defines Jesus’ death as categorically different from suicide.
Samson humbled himself and prayed to God to give him supernatural strength for the ultimate purpose of bringing justice upon the Phillistines. His purpose was not to end his own life. A man like Robin Williams committing suicide is not humbling himself to God and asking God to work through him. A man committing suicide is acting only according to what he perceives as his own selfish needs and only according to his own perceived autonomy.
He is stealing from God authority and jurisdiction over life. It’s equivalent to blasphemy. This is where the difference lies.
Ok, so you have some differentiating principles; in order to win you need to (a) formulate them into a definition, and (b) show how the definition I've been using is inadequate or wrong.
[Just (a) would be a stalemate.]
Although my temperament is highly inclined to debate for my own sake, I know this is wrong.
If a person chooses to believe other than truth, their choice defines itself.
I have enjoyed speaking with you, and you have helped me to think more clearly about these things.
The Good Lord is victorious first, and we through him.
Jesus Christ is the truth.
Unequivocally agreed.
The Good Lord is victorious first, and we through him.
And again, agreed.
I have enjoyed speaking with you, and you have helped me to think more clearly about these things.
I enjoyed it as well; and am glad that it brought more clarity.
(When I make such radical claims
as Jesus's death was a suicide it is to try to get people to think on what He did; I am glad that it did so.)
Have an excellent weekend.
The channel “Cloo” is now running a “Mork And Mindy” marathon all day and until the early AM Sunday.
Thank you, and I hope you do the same.
And let’s hope anyone contemplating suicide will not think they would be following Christ if they were to take their own life, but instead understand that all authority belongs to Christ. And that as the author of life Christ has the jurisdiction to tell us that our own suicide would be a violation of the image of God.
“Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” Genesis 9:6
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.