09 Dec 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageButs whats to say his intention was murder and not say to hurt?
I'd say that was murder deflected--the murderer's intention back-firing on himself. Without his intention to murder, no death would have occurred.
A woman is being raped (horrible yes) and she manages to get an object (fill in the blank) and then manages to kill her assialant. Fearing for her life i.e self defense. Now the assailant may not have intended to kill her just hurt her. With your analysis she should have just hurt him?
09 Dec 05
Originally posted by ChakanThat's the sort of thing judges ponder. It all depends on the circumstances. If someone points a knife at me & I blow his head off, that's murder, right? If the rapist was very violent, his actions could have led to death (intentional or not). As far as I know, too, there are forms of murder in which intention is not a requirement. South African law distinguishes between murder, manslaughter (your rape victim's self-defence) and culpable homicide but I don't think that's true in every country.
With your analysis she should have just hurt him?
09 Dec 05
1 edit
I believe that in English law, the definition is something like this:
Murder - Is the killing of a person whilst having either the intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm. ie: The actus rea and the mens rea together.
Manslaughter - Would be the unintentional and unlawful killing of another person. ie: The actus rea, but not a mens rea for murder.
For example, a person poisoning someone has obviously both thought of the process and carried out the act. Whereas a person who is provoked into a fight outside a nightclub, and pushes someone who cracks their head open and dies, would have the actus rea, but not the mens rea, since they had not premeditated the act of killing in anyway.
Or at least that's how I've been lead to believe it.
Since god is supposedly credited with omniscience, I suggest that he has the intention to kill by allowing deaths which he is aware of, to actually happen with no intervention.
09 Dec 05
Originally posted by HalitoseNot every dictionary definition of murder contains "human being". A master who killed his dog without any good reason would be liable for prosecution. The only difference between murdering a dog & a human being is the severity of the culprit's punishment.
A dog is killed by its master. Distasteful, but not murder.
The amusing thing is that animals have been tried and executed for murder in the past. For example, Murderous Mary, the elephant:
http://www.blueridgecountry.com/elephant/elephant.html
09 Dec 05
Originally posted by telerionI don't think challenging is the word that comes to mind.
It would appear joelyk found my questions to him at the beginning of this thread a bit too challenging. I'm surprised. Most xians are able to at least find a way to evade them with words, even though they are almost always lying about their true beliefs.
I can't see any questions from you that haven't been addressed in this thread, even if the response wasn't made directly to you. If you'd care to (re)post some question that hasn't been addressed, go for it.
09 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by joelekWho at that time was not worthy of God's judgement? Could God have picked anyone less deserving of punishment than a newborn Egyptian baby? Were those firstborn Egyptians that were infants guilty of the crimes of their forefathers? If you must punish a nation is it more just to murder the infants guilty of nothing more than being born in the wrong place or to murder adults who have chosen to behave wickedly?
I don't think challenging is the word that comes to mind.
I can't see any questions from you that haven't been addressed in this thread, even if the response wasn't made directly to you. If you'd care to (re)post some question that hasn't been addressed, go for it.
There you go. Please address these specifically.
Edit: "challenging" was inserted to elicit a response. Since you are a fundy xian, you are a sucker. See? It worked.
09 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionMany nations at that time were deserving of judgment. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Egypt deserved it. It simply shows the mercy of God toward the other nations.
Who at that time was not worthy of God's judgement? Could God have picked anyone less deserving of punishment than a newborn Egyptian baby? Were those firstborn Egyptians that were infants guilty of the crimes of their forefathers? If you must punish a nation is it more just to murder the infants guilty of nothing more than being born in the wrong place or ...[text shortened]... inserted to elicit a response. Since you are a fundy xian, you are a sucker. See? It worked.
God didn't pick a (particular) newborn Egyptian baby.
And as I've already pointed out, the adults were punished much more than the babies.
As for being a sucker, here are various verses from I Corinthians that make your opinion(s) quite expected:
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight.
Now let me ask you something. What did the babies do to deserve to live longer than the time God gave them?
[Edited for typo(s)].
09 Dec 05
Originally posted by joelekMany nations at that time were deserving of judgment. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Egypt deserved it. It simply shows the mercy of God toward the other nations.
Many nations at that time were deserving of judgment. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Egypt deserved it. It simply shows the mercy of God toward the other nations.
God didn't pick [b]a (particular) newborn Egyptian baby.
Now let me ask you something. What did the babies do to deserve to live longer than the time God gave them?
[Edited for typo(s)].[/b]
I see. Your false idol randomly executes subject to his whim. You must have been one of this kids that drew grotesque pictures in your kindergarten class.
I know you beliefs. Everyone deserves to be blotted out and tortured forever. It is only through the grace of your false idol that you are spared. Oddly this is coupled with the idea that we humans are the most precious of all God's creation. Such schizophrenia, such psychosis.
God didn't pick [b]a (particular) newborn Egyptian baby.[/b]
I guess God isn't too careful about where he points his Angel of Death.
God just decided that x number of babies would die, but didn't know and authorize specific ones.
And as I've already pointed out, the adults were punished much more than the babies.
Well, I guess if you're playing make-believe you can assert whatever you like. How is it that "short life + eternity in hell" is better that "longer life + eternity in hell"?
As for being a sucker, here are various verses from I Corinthians that make your opinion(s) quite expected:
Thank you for demonstrating my point. Thank "God," I'm out of your cult. That's thing about cults. Those inside never see what a trap they are in.
What did the babies do to deserve to live longer than the time God gave them?
Nothing. They shouldn't have to. You see I celebrate life. You hate it. I think babies are precious. You think they are vile creatures worthly only of obliteration and an eternity of misery. I pity you. Whoever sucked you into this cult abused you terribly. Just remember, you are a victim. Poor joelek. 🙁
You hate babies, but I bet you love fetuses. 😉