Posted on 08/29/2011 1:56:16 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll
Lord of the Rings aficionados know that the evil lord Sauron paid little attention to the danger posed by two hobbits slowly struggling across the mountains and deserts of Mordor until he suddenly realized that the ring on which all his power depended was about to be hurled into the pits of Mount Doom. All at once the enemy plan became clear; what looked like stupidity was revealed as genius, and Sauron understood everything just when it was too late to act.
Jeffrey Toobin’s gripping, must-read profile of Clarence and Virginia Thomas in the New Yorker gives readers new insight into what Sauron must have felt: Toobin argues that the only Black man in public life that liberals could safely mock and despise may be on the point of bringing the Blue Empire down.
In fact, Toobin suggests, Clarence Thomas may be the Frodo Baggins of the right; his lonely and obscure struggle has led him to the point from which he may be able to overthrow the entire edifice of the modern progressive state.
Writes Toobin:
In several of the most important areas of constitutional law, Thomas has emerged as an intellectual leader of the Supreme Court. Since the arrival of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., in 2005, and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., in 2006, the Court has moved to the right when it comes to the free-speech rights of corporations, the rights of gun owners, and, potentially, the powers of the federal government; in each of these areas, the majority has followed where Thomas has been leading for a decade or more. Rarely has a Supreme Court Justice enjoyed such broad or significant vindication.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.the-american-interest.com ...
>What else can I say to someone who can’t discern the difference between lovingly sacrificing one’s own life on behalf of others, should God require it, and selfishly playing God and murdering oneself?
I did not say I couldn’t discern between the two; what I DID say is that the definition {either the functional one I was using or the dictionary’s} of ‘suicide’ does not differentiate between the two.
Furthermore, who are you to judge the heart of a man? Is that not God’s prevue?
Besides which you propose nothing to differentiate between the two in your proposed law.
Starting with the first part of the organic [that which permeates every part of the whole] law of the United States:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."
un·al·ien·a·ble [un-eyl-yuh-nuh-buhl, -ey-lee-uh-]Adjective: Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor
And spelled out explicitly and imperatively in the Constitution of the United States:
"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.""No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
When you negate the word “unalienable” you have destroyed the premise of this free republic, in the same way a sapper would destroy the foundation of a wall.
When you destroy the foundations the entire edifice will fall, one way or another.
>Adjective: Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
So then you would prohibit by law the sort of self-sacrifice you claim is morally superior (giving away one’s life)?
Ironically though, suicide is not a life being given to another, nor taken away (because it is his own life; if it is not, then what you claimed was morally superior self-sacrifice is utterly detestable as it is destroying something that belongs wholly to another)... or do you intend to say that of the inherent God-given attributes that God gives imperfectly?
So, which is it? Is Jesus a liar when He says that there is no greater love than when a man gives his life for his friends?
Would you call an anathema Nathan Hale who said: “I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country.”?
>And spelled out explicitly and imperatively in the Constitution of the United States:
>>”No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.”
>>”No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
So then, you would equate the non-exercise of a right with the violation of that right? So when someone does not take the right to not incriminate one’s own self they are violating that right?
Or that when someone does not prosecute another [under civil law] because of near relation [or some other decision] that they are violating the equal protection of laws?
Jesus didn’t nail Himself to the cross.
Nathan Hale didn’t hang himself.
What’s wrong with you?
>Jesus didn’t nail Himself to the cross.
>Nathan Hale didn’t hang himself.
So? You were saying that the taking or surrendering of the right of life was not legitimate.
>What’s wrong with you?
Sometimes I enjoy an argument/debate... which is the reason I engaged you in this.
PS — Why do you keep trying to change definitions? Don’t you know that hitting a moving target is difficult [;)] ... but in all seriousness, such variations in your argument tend to mark your stance as not well thought-out. {Or intellectually dishonest; however, I’ve not seen that character-trait from you so I am rejecting it and instead assuming it is the thought put into analyzing your stance.}
I’m not changing definitions. The obvious vast moral difference between suicide and being willing to sacrifice your life for others if necessary has been clearly understood by civilized men for many centuries.
Your continuous attempts to conflate them are baffling.
“The obvious vast moral difference between suicide and being willing to sacrifice your life for others if necessary has been clearly understood by civilized men for many centuries.”
Then define it. Something as magic/subjective as “I know it when I see it” has no place in the law.
I’ve given you two definitions, the one I’ve been using the entire time, and the dictionary definition, neither of those discriminates upon the motive of the man but his action only.
It’s whether you kill yourself or not.
This is not rocket science. It’s basic morality.
I know the latter has become strange and foreign to far too many in this generation, but this conversation really takes the cake.
>It’s whether you kill yourself or not.
Then, by your own definition, Jesus committed suicide no ifs, ands, or buts... that He had the ultimate authority to do so and others might not is irrelevant.
Further, someone who jumps out at a cop screaming “I’ve got a gun” only to be killed by the officer is not committing suicide.
>I know the latter has become strange and foreign to far too many in this generation, but this conversation really takes the cake.
Why is that? I have now caused you to refute your own earlier claims [those regarding Jesus as not committing suicide].
Look, if you can’t tell the moral difference between a fireman going up the stairs on 9-11 and a guy blowing his own brains out, I seriously doubt that anything else I can say to you will have any effect whatsoever.
Simply untrue.
As a man, Jesus was put to death by the Romans. Nailed to a cross. He didn’t nail Himself there.
As God, He has total authority, complete sovereignty, over life and death for every human being. Always has, always will.
You’re not God.
And if He decides your life on this earth is over today, it’s over.
And that doesn’t make Him a murderer, either.
It makes Him exactly what He is: the Sovereign.
A clear connection you would find in the etymology of the word “unalienable,” if you would dig it out, by the way.
And as God He had ALL authority, in Heaven and Earth; He even said to Pilate that he (Pilate) held no authority except that which came down (and God is the ultimate source of that authority, no?).
Furthermore, John says of Jesus [John ch 1] "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [...] And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us [...]"
So, Jesus, being God became man and died on the cross... furthermore, God being omnipotent knew this, and thus Jesus knew this as well (or else why did he prophesy about the temple of His own body being raised again?).
Therefore, by the definition you gave [post #189], that suicide is "whether you kill yourself or not" God did indeed commit suicide in the person of Jesus.
This is the foundation of Christian faith: That God being a Just God cannot stand the presence of sin, but also that He loves Man (whom He made in his own image). So, presented with this dilemma He took an amazing choice, He died instead of destroying sinful man utterly. (And because He is an infinite God His death covers all sin of finite man... the only thing we have to do to "get in on the deal" is to recognize/accept the offer.) But we are condemned by sin already until and unless we believe in the offer that is, quite literally, Himself.
John 3:10-20 lays this all out: Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
As God, He has total authority, complete sovereignty, over life and death for every human being. Always has, always will.
Have I claimed otherwise? No.
You’re not God.
And if He decides your life on this earth is over today, it’s over.
I never claimed to be God; I never claimed that He had no authority over life.
But ironically, you are asserting that the state has that authority over life.
And that doesn’t make Him a murderer, either.
I never claimed that either.
It makes Him exactly what He is: the Sovereign.
Do you notice that these points are ones I am agreeing with? Or is that so lost on you because I tell you the truth: God commuted suicide [in the person of Jesus].
Really, you and I have nothing else to discuss.
I’m with Justice Thomas on Raich. Though I could care less about the potheads, my opinion is that Justice Thomas is closer to the originalist point of view here.
>>God commuted suicide [in the person of Jesus].
>
>Really, you and I have nothing else to discuss.
As you are rejecting the Gospel of John as authoritative, nor do you argue your point* (instead you make assertions), and because you fail to hold to the very definition you gave, then I think that is correct.
* Honestly, if you were to argue the point you could at least point to some scripture to back yourself up. I have provided some references, and you none.
>I’m with Justice Thomas on Raich. Though I could care less about the potheads, my opinion is that Justice Thomas is closer to the originalist point of view here.
Indeed so; I’m rather terrified with what the government has become.
No, I’m not rejecting the authority of the gospel of John. I’m rejecting your fanciful, nonsensical, utter misunderstanding of it.
First off you said of suicide “It’s whether you kill yourself or not.”
By that definition to sacrifice yourself for another IS suicide simply because there is no qualifier for motive. Period.
(This means if you jump in front of a truck pushing a little kid out of the way to be run over and killed, you have committed suicide.)
Let me lay out step-by-step the case for considering Jesus’s death a suicide, please point out WHERE the flaw in reasoning occurs.
#1 — Jesus is God. (Supported via John ch 1)
#2 — John 10:17-18 (NAU) reads: “For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.”
#2a — Jesus is using his own initiative to lay His life down; that is it is an act of His will.
#2b — Jesus says “This commandment I received from My Father.” it is therefore “the will of God” apart from #2a.
#3 — God is omnipotent, that is His will is always going to (in the end) be done. (I draw the line at saying everything that happens is God’s will, because James ch 1 says God does not tempt man but to say that everything that happens is God’s will is perilously close to saying “I was tempted, it happened. Therefore it was God’s will” or “I sinned, it happened. Therefore it is God;s will.”) But this is clear, it is God’s will that Jesus die for the church.
#4 — John 19:30 says: “When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.”
#4a — Given the above, Jesus clearly died.
#4b — There was an act of “giving up” involved therein.
#5 — John 1:4 says: “In him was life; and the life was the light of men.”
#5a — If life is inside Jesus, how could He die, lest he give it up Himself?
#5b — Given #5a, this sheds an interesting illumination (and confirmation of) #2: “I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again.”
#6 — Given #4, Jesus clearly died... and #5a, #4b, and #2a the death of Jesus was clearly His own will.
#6a — Given #3 and #2b this death was the will of God and could not have been prevented.
#6b — Given #6a, #6, and #1 the death of Jesus was the death of God.
Therefore, God willed and accomplished His own death which conforms to your definition of “It’s whether you kill yourself or not.”
Show me where my understanding is an “fanciful, nonsensical, utter misunderstanding.”
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.