It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pray for your enemies i.e. Osama - Jesus said this for a reason

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Not mocking.... I am way more mature than that. I knew you would think that because I am of different opinion than you. I would ask questions however. I just have to keep in mind that when talking about the in-effect fictional certain aspects of rationale do not compute.


As for my question I am genuinely interested. Seems everyone has their own perspective and I like to learn about them... however insane they are. I assure you I am leaving most of my own viewpoints out of this matter and just raising normal questions or agreements.




posted on May, 5 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by ballsdeep
 



p.s. I put the important parts in bold for you.


Okay, if you really insist on using that definition...

Why do we even need governments? Police forces? Jails? Laws protecting our freedoms or governing everyday life?

Because the human nature to rebel is intrinsic to all of us. To violate the laws, to steal, to murder, the cheat people out of goods, property, or money. We have to have all these controlling entities in our lives BECAUSE our our natures to rebel and sin.

But, again, I see "governments" and "God" as two completely different things. When we rebel against governments or laws we get fines or a little jail time. Rebellion against God got us a share in the Hell that was created for the devil and the other fallen angels.




The mention of Government (an example; not defining) in the definition is arbitrary to both of us.
The mention of Government (an example; not defining) in the definition is arbitrary to both of us.
The mention of Government (an example; not defining) in the definition is arbitrary to both of us.
The mention of Government (an example; not defining) in the definition is arbitrary to both of us.
The mention of Government (an example; not defining) in the definition is arbitrary to both of us.
The mention of Government (an example; not defining) in the definition is arbitrary to both of us.
The mention of Government (an example; not defining) in the definition is arbitrary to both of us.
The mention of Government (an example; not defining) in the definition is arbitrary to both of us.
The mention of Government (an example; not defining) in the definition is arbitrary to both of us.

Well you talked about disobedient offspring and went on to say that rebellion is "our problem"; I fail to see the likeness between a pair of human parents and "the sovereign God Almighy".
No followers of Christ's word are likely to "rebel" against it, nor is it rebellion when somebody who is dismissive or ignorant of Christ's word acts in disaccord of it.
Well you talked about disobedient offspring and went on to say that rebellion is "our problem"; I fail to see the likeness between a pair of human parents and "the sovereign God Almighy".
No followers of Christ's word are likely to "rebel" against it, nor is it rebellion when somebody who is dismissive or ignorant of Christ's word acts in disaccord of it.
Well you talked about disobedient offspring and went on to say that rebellion is "our problem"; I fail to see the likeness between a pair of human parents and "the sovereign God Almighy".
No followers of Christ's word are likely to "rebel" against it, nor is it rebellion when somebody who is dismissive or ignorant of Christ's word acts in disaccord of it.
Well you talked about disobedient offspring and went on to say that rebellion is "our problem"; I fail to see the likeness between a pair of human parents and "the sovereign God Almighy".
No followers of Christ's word are likely to "rebel" against it, nor is it rebellion when somebody who is dismissive or ignorant of Christ's word acts in disaccord of it.
Well you talked about disobedient offspring and went on to say that rebellion is "our problem"; I fail to see the likeness between a pair of human parents and "the sovereign God Almighy".
No followers of Christ's word are likely to "rebel" against it, nor is it rebellion when somebody who is dismissive or ignorant of Christ's word acts in disaccord of it.
Well you talked about disobedient offspring and went on to say that rebellion is "our problem"; I fail to see the likeness between a pair of human parents and "the sovereign God Almighy".
No followers of Christ's word are likely to "rebel" against it, nor is it rebellion when somebody who is dismissive or ignorant of Christ's word acts in disaccord of it.


Do not reply to me any more.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ballsdeep
 


Then you are short sighted. If you had the chance to kill a person who is about to spill the blood of not millions, not billions, but just two people...what would you do? You'd let them die? You would actively allow their death? That would make you as guilty for their death as the murderer, as you were the one who allowed it to happen.

If you are in a position where you have the opportunity to prevent the death of an individual who you are certain will kill another, you are obligated to stop them by any means possible. Ideally this would mean restraining them...but it's not always such an easy option in this crazy world of ours.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I think the lives of a billion people are fairly meaningless in the scheme of things; in contrast, murder is not something an individual should partake in, regardless of its motive.

Be the change you want to see in the world.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by ballsdeep
 


Then you are short sighted. If you had the chance to kill a person who is about to spill the blood of not millions, not billions, but just two people...what would you do? You'd let them die? You would actively allow their death? That would make you as guilty for their death as the murderer, as you were the one who allowed it to happen.

If you are in a position where you have the opportunity to prevent the death of an individual who you are certain will kill another, you are obligated to stop them by any means possible. Ideally this would mean restraining them...but it's not always such an easy option in this crazy world of ours.


Ypu would not be better than that person if you kill him, why do you think the US has an average of 13.000 murderers a year? is not because guns are legal, its because people think like you, people think that an eye for an eye is the best solution, that people, instead of being rehabilitated should be punished



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by mbartelsm
 


Man, there are a lot of straw men on ATS today. I'm all for rehabilitation...I'm talking about preventing a murder. Killing someone to prevent the death of two others, in a situation where you cannot restrain and imprison the individual, is perfectly justified.

Now, if you fail to prevent the murder, killing the person isn't necessarily justified.

Thanks for distorting my position though. And thanks for saying I'm the sort of person responsible for murders.



posted on May, 6 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ballsdeep
 


How are billions lives inconsequential? That is frankly the most arrogant thing I've ever heard. Each of those lives is as valuable as your own. Their annihilation at the hands of another would be a far greater evil than the burden of having to carry a single life on your shoulders.

But I guess you'd rather go for the easier option and let yourself off the hook.



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by ballsdeep
 


How are billions lives inconsequential? That is frankly the most arrogant thing I've ever heard. Each of those lives is as valuable as your own. Their annihilation at the hands of another would be a far greater evil than the burden of having to carry a single life on your shoulders.

But I guess you'd rather go for the easier option and let yourself off the hook.


Lol? Who's talking about straw men? You've just done exactly the same thing to my position as he did to yours..

My egoic presence has no value beyond its own boundaries, it is finite - I never suggested that my life was more important than anyone elses, like I've already stated, my philosophy is not based on there being any personal gain through my inaction; it's about the attitude I'd like to see reflected in my fellow man.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

If I had the choice between shooting someone and having them shoot me I'd take option two every time.



new topics




 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join