Would you support this political party?

[canadyjd]

Wouldn’t the Principle of Double Effect handle that?

As I said, I don’t think it applies in this issue.

It is not an abstract intellectual exercise in deciding between two bad options.

We are talking about a government forcing a woman to risk her life for a pregnancy with no chance of viability.

The government cannot force one person to give their life for another.

peace to you

 

[church mouse guy]

Its later in the Law. I believe the principle applies and did in Genesis (I believe it was a given).

We have to remember also that under the laws of some states Paul would have been eligible for tge death penalty regardless of his conversion.

At one time I was pro-capital punishment but I am moving from that position.

That said, my philosophy here is to each his own. We are not accountable for the positions of others. I guess I'm becoming a softie as I get older.

I don't see how you can say that the law applied pre-law. I was hoping that you would cite the Mosaic Law about 2 witnesses so my bone lazy self would not have to find it.

Should we apologize to the families of German war criminals whom we executed? I mean we have apologized for everything else, just sayin'

I guess that I would execute abortionist doctors among others.

 

[church mouse guy]

I have changed my position as well. I use to support the DP, but now believe Christians should not support it.

Governments do have the authority from God to implement the DP, but Christians should not support it.

The passage in Gen.9 does not give an absolute statement on the death penalty as some say. It is a reference to an ancient near East custom of the “blood avenger”. There were no laws in place, there were no governments.

As proof Gen. 9 was not an absolute “law” concerning the death penalty, I point to Moses (he murdered an Egyptian and fled) prior to God giving the OT law. God did not require his blood/death.

I point to David (who murdered Uriah to take his wife) after the OT law was given. God did not require his blood/death.

I point to Paul (who persecuted Christians to the death) and God did not require his blood/death and who claimed under inspiration of Holy Spirit that the reason God showed him mercy was to serve as an example of God’s mercy toward the worst of sinners (even murders like Paul) for future generations of Christians to emulate.

Finally, I point to the woman caught in adultery. When Jesus said, “let the one without sin cast the first stone” He wasn’t shaming them. He was changing the OT law concerning the death penalty.

The OT law required two or three witnesses to cast the first stone. Those witnesses were implementing the death penalty and took responsibility for their actions before God.

Jesus changed that law. No longer do the two or three witnesses implement the death penalty. It is the “One without sin” that implements the death penalty.

Of course, God is the only one without sin.

As I said before, God does grant governments the power to implement the DP, but Christians should not support it. We should follow the example of God’s mercy toward Paul.

peace to you

I think that you are off on the deep end somewhere with false analogies. The commandment given to Noah dealt with murder because only 8 were saved from the world of Adam and Eve after the expulsion from Eden. And we today are living in the same violence and murder as in the days before the flood.

As for the Near East thing, earth was one continent before the flood and the current land arrangement is the result of the flood. There is nothing left of Adam's world except the bedrock underneath a mile deep pile worldwide of dead animals and people destroyed by the flood and some fossilized.

 

[KenH]

The government cannot force one person to give their life for another.

Which is why the Principle of Double Effect would apply in the case you present. I have no doubt about that.

 

[canadyjd]

Which is why the Principle of Double Effect would apply in the case you present. I have no doubt about that.

Let me make an analogy.

Suppose the government passed a law that required all people to be organ donors. Everyone is tested and the info is placed in a database.

One day I am notified that I am a match for someone who needs a kidney. The government requires me to donate one of my kidneys so that another will live.

Does the principle of double effect apply in this case? Please explain why or why not.

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

I think that you are off on the deep end somewhere with false analogies. The commandment given to Noah dealt with murder because only 8 were saved from the world of Adam and Eve after the expulsion from Eden. And we today are living in the same violence and murder as in the days before the flood.

As for the Near East thing, earth was one continent before the flood and the current land arrangement is the result of the flood. There is nothing left of Adam's world except the bedrock underneath a mile deep pile worldwide of dead animals and people destroyed by the flood and some fossilized.

You didn’t address anything I said, beyond saying I’ve gone off the deep end.

peace to you

 

[KenH]

Does the principle of double effect apply in this case? Please explain why or why not.

Abortion involves a second party whose interest in living needs to be represented, regardless of the legality of abortion.

In the “kidney” case, you are dealing with the government mandating an action so it is thrown out before ever getting to the Principle of Double Effect.

The two situations would be quite disparate.

 

[church mouse guy]

You didn’t address anything I said, beyond saying I’ve gone off the deep end.

peace to you

Actually, I pointed out that there was no near east as you said at the time of Genesis 9:6.

Secondly, your case about adultery does not apply to murder. Saul/Paul had legal authority for what he did. Moses was a prince of Egypt so got away with murder but spent 40 years in the wilderness.

What you failed to do was show exactly where the law given to Noah was overturned.

 

[canadyjd]

Abortion involves a second party whose interest in living needs to be represented, regardless of the legality of abortion.

In the “kidney” case, you are dealing with the government mandating an action so it is thrown out before ever getting to the Principle of Double Effect.

The two situations would be quite disparate.

The second party in the “kidney” case is the person who needs the kidney and whose interest in living is represented by the government which demands I give up one kidney, risking my life, to save the life of another. It is illegal for me to refuse. Surely the principle applies.

This political party would make all abortions illegal, even in the case where the risk to the life of the mother is great and the survival of the baby is impossible from a medical standpoint.

The government cannot compel one person to give up their lives for another.

Peace to you

 

[KenH]

This political party would make all abortions illegal, even in the case where the risk to the life of the mother is great and the survival of the baby is impossible from a medical standpoint.

We can debate this ad infinitum. You know and I know that no state nor the federal government is going to enact a law that would outlaw an abortion procedure that would save the life of the mother. Voting for Brian Carroll for president is not going to change that reality. So if you did happen to decide to vote for him, I feel confident in saying that you could rest easy on this matter we have been discussing.

 

[canadyjd]

We can debate this ad infinitum. You know and I know that no state nor the federal government is going to enact a law that would outlaw an abortion procedure that would save the life of the mother. Voting for Brian Carroll for president is not going to change that reality. So if you did happen to decide to vote for him, I feel confident in saying that you could rest easy on this matter we have been discussing.

This was not only one reason I cannot support this party. Quite frankly, I think of them as a radical liberal Christian organization. With the exception of the abortion issue, they very much sound like a liberal socialist organization.

peace to you

 

[KenH]

they very much sound like a liberal socialist organization.

Unless one is opposed to Social Security and Medicare, it is probably best to not throw around the word “socialist” too liberally.

 

[church mouse guy]

Unless one is opposed to Social Security and Medicare, it is probably best to not throw around the word “socialist” too liberally.

So ill-advised welfare schemes are socialism? Is that so?

 

[KenH]

So ill-advised welfare schemes are socialism?

The word “social” is right there in Social Security.

 

[KenH]

So ill-advised welfare schemes are socialism?

On a serious note, apparently most hardcore conservatives nowadays refer to some government programs as “socialism” without meaning Big S “Socialism”.

 

[church mouse guy]

The word “social” is right there in Social Security.

And social is part of the word socialism.

 

[church mouse guy]

And social is part of the word socialism.

Our economic woes are bad but even a worse sign is the unabated rioting, which is billed as racial but really deals with abandoning the West for communism and Islam. This extends throughout Wall Street and all the way to Pope Francis. I would like to see a political party that addresses the domestic economic and terror problems as well as the international globalist wish to destroy the west in favor of the barbaric Muslims and Chinese communists.

 

[canadyjd]

Unless one is opposed to Social Security and Medicare, it is probably best to not throw around the word “socialist” too liberally.

I read most of their platform. There is a major focus of government intervention in all areas of a citizen’s life.

There is a deliberate move away from a free market economy toward government control of businesses and a push toward equality of outcomes.

I don’t make the accusation of Christian socialism frivolously or without basis.

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

On a serious note, apparently most hardcore conservatives nowadays refer to some government programs as “socialism” without meaning Big S “Socialism”.

That is a fair observation.

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

Actually, I pointed out that there was no near east as you said at the time of Genesis 9:6.

Secondly, your case about adultery does not apply to murder. Saul/Paul had legal authority for what he did. Moses was a prince of Egypt so got away with murder but spent 40 years in the wilderness.

What you failed to do was show exactly where the law given to Noah was overturned.

Moses wrote Gen. 9. The was an ancient near East during his time and the “blood avenger” question was a prominent feature of the Hebrew people.

The case concerning the woman caught n adultery is a death penalty case. It is the incident where Jesus changed the OT law concerning the implementation of the death penalty. No longer do the two or three witnesses implement the death penalty, it is the one without sin.

Saul/Paul conducted his persecution to the death of Christians under the authority of the Sanhedrin: the ruling body of the Jews. It was murder, nevertheless, unless you believe the killing of Christians is not murder if a government sanctions it.

Moses was a prince of Egypt, but if you hold the Gen. 9 passage presents an absolute establishment of the death penalty for murder, Moses is not exempt because he was a prince of Egypt.

peace to you