Posted on 09/03/2003 2:37:33 AM PDT by kattracks
Is this your final answer with respect to Osama Bin Laden, et.al. ?
I think the most appropriate comparison with with John Brown.
Exactly. The women who wanted to kill their babies just went to the next (grotesquely named) "Planned Parenthood" clinic down the road. Hill's action was great for their business.
Exactly. She made her CHOICE when she CHOSE to have sex!
I worked with a nurse at our local Health Dept. who told me how foolish I was to encourage my girls to remain virgins until they are married. "It's impossible because of hormones." huh? She now works for planned parenthood and is very proud of all the abortions she has been a part of... she speaks joyously about her work, when she's not moaning about how the legal system has come down on her drug addicted son who tends to like to drive while under the influence.
Life is a series of choices...from the situations we put ourselves in, to deciding when to have sex, to taking a gun and killing an abortionist and his helper. When one makes a bad decision, murder is not an option for 'getting out of it'.
****Adoption...the beautiful alternative!****
Can't we all just . . . get along? LOL.
A soldier in time of war, is in direct harms way. Their decision to shoot the enemy is a matter of SELF preservation. The only way Hills actions could have been justified on those lines is if his own life was in danger. It wasn't. Period. End of story.
Rendering a judgement is different from "rendering judgement" in the biblical sense.
Twist it to your own preconcieved notions as you will, you would still be wrong.
Rendering A judgement in this case brought down an individuals wrath in delivering said judgement. Not Gods. Nothing you can say will change that, nor make it right with your own scripture.
Feel free to sympathize with this murderer. Even God won't call you down for that one. But to try to justify his actions cannot be done. Unless you like arguing what the definition of things like the word "is" would be.
Twist it to your own preconcieved notions as you will, you would still be wrong.
Rendering A judgement in this case brought down an individuals wrath in delivering said judgement. Not Gods. Nothing you can say will change that, nor make it right with your own scripture.
Feel free to sympathize with this murderer. Even God won't call you down for that one. But to try to justify his actions cannot be done. Unless you like arguing what the definition of things like the word "is" would be.
sorry about the html snafu
Big whoopee doo. I "render a judgement" every time I decide whether to have coffee or tea in the morning. That's not what we're talking about here. If Hill were acting to punish the abortionist, then he was "rendering judgement" in the sense that everyone here has been discussing the issue. If Hill were acting to protect innocent lives, then he was not necessarily passing judgement on the abortionist's fitness to live.
A soldier in time of war, is in direct harms way. Their decision to shoot the enemy is a matter of SELF preservation.
If a soldier were acting in self-preservation, then he wouldn't be involved in a war in the first place. In fact, he is in harm's way because he is not acting to preserve himself -- he is seeking to protect some greater good even if it means putting himself at risk.
The only way Hills actions could have been justified on those lines is if his own life was in danger.
There is no basis for this statement at all. If Hill had come across a man spraying gunfire into a crowded school playground, he would have had an obligation (not a "right," mind you -- an obligation) to do whatever it took to incapacitate the assailant.
This is precisely the moral dilemma that the pro-life movement faces -- it is based entirely on the notion that an unborn child is just as human as an elementary school student, but it does not want to face the logical extension of that argument. I don't know about you, but if there were a man with an AK-47 firing rounds into a school playground, I would have far more respect for the bystander who ran away from the scene than for the bystander who decided to hold a sign and pray the Rosary while the children were dropping to the ground.
I made no statements to any such effect, nor so I believe any such thing.
Rendering A judgement in this case brought down an individuals wrath in delivering said judgement. Not Gods. Nothing you can say will change that, nor make it right with your own scripture.
I didn't say that it was right with my scripture, nor do I beleive that it is right with my scripture.
Feel free to sympathize with this murderer.
I don't and didn't say anything which could be construed as sympathy with this murderer
Even God won't call you down for that one. But to try to justify his actions cannot be done.
I didn't try to justify his actions.
Unless you like arguing what the definition of things like the word "is" would be.
I am arguing no such thing. Nor did I argue anything else that you accuse me of arguing.
All that happened here is that Alberta's Child made a logical (and I beleive false) argument that one can kill without rendering judgement in the biblical sense. He pointed out that the soldiers in Iraq are in fact killing without rendering judgement. What happened then is a bunch of people got all emotional and accusesd him of equating Hill with the soldiers in Iraq, when in fact he did no such thing. I simply pointed out that Alberta's Child argument that one can kill without rendering judgement in the biblical sense is in fact correct. You then got all emotional and accused me of a whole litany of things without any basis whatsoever.
Sorry, I beleive that Alberta's logical argument there is correct. I beleive his overall position is incorrect for various reasons.
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.