The psychology is interesting. Why are establishment politicians more concerned about the life of a rich pro-abortion CEO than, say, slaughtered Palestinian Christians?
Why are you less concerned about this man being gunned down than the death of Palestinians by a foreign regime? Are you suggesting that maybe his death was less tragic than theirs?
Dr. Mohler, you are 100% right. However, this issue isn't about left vs. right. It's about class warfare. People abide by the terms of the contract via the payment of insurance premiums, only to have a souless entity arbitrarily fail to uphold their end of the bargain. Fortunately, so far, I have been blessed by the absence of major health issues. However, I have a dear friend whose wife was in a horrible accident. He and his family have been bankrupted....financially, emotionally, mentally, and I will go as far to say spiritually. They are still fighting the insurance companies. I honor and respect you and hopefully you can at least empathize with those who are suffering on a visceral level. Could two things be true at the same time? Murder by a shot in the back is not a greater travesty than the murder of thousands to maximize shareholder profits? "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable”. ~John F. Kennedy.
Another aspect of the argument is the consider of "What is Justice?" The secular world most often consider justice in term of the sense of injustice. See, for example, Edmond Cahn's "A Sense of Injustice".
The highest level of knowledge would be outstanding, so great that it blows the mind, foolishness to our elemental way of thinking. Even our knowledge is laced with limits, which is also a foolish thing. So our level of knowledge is the spitting image of the highest level. And unlimited knowledge has no edges and so can't be located and looked upon like an empty mind is void of place and hidden.
The founders were strongly against standing armies for very good reasons and fine with hiring private warships (the most technologically advanced weapon of war of the day) to achieve military objectives.
Agree with everything you said. Now. How about the morality of killing a mentally ill, homeless man because people are “afraid” of him? I think too many people, Christians and otherwise, celebrated something that most likely should never have happened.
Murder is a crime. Murder is wrong not just because it is morally wrong judged by man. It is wrong because it is a crime, a violence against God. Human beings are created in God's image. We bear the image of God, killing another human being is a defiance against God's image and against God's creation. On the other hand, God is love. God is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love. God has emotions. He understands pain and suffering. God the Son suffers with us and feels our pain. The pain is not just physical, it is mental and emotional. Moses was a murderer. God used him to lead Israel out of Egypt, our of slavery. The suspect in the murder case, how bad or evil his act was aside, he is still a human being, with a marred image of God. What has he experienced? What is he and his family experiencing? These questions go to the family and friends of the victim too. A lot has been impacted. A lot have been exposed, including from the broken insurance system, to broken moral environment, to the ideological state of our country, the impact of social media... depravity of man. To use this platform to debate this particular murder case and elevate the case to a purely theological and theoretical moral issue is rather... how should I say it politely to a well-respected theologian... it is narrow-minded and cold-hearted. There is a lot to think and debate than academic analysis.
Philosophy is Words A.M., to win his point, is obligated to define “understandable” prior to negating his target’s use of “understandable” because philosophy is words as their personal or shared definitions, but he doesn’t. HERE’s WHY: Because the church has mistakenly not popularized God’s three preeminent themes of creation, justice, and marriage, A.M. mistakenly “rhetorically” appeals to God’s ten commandments in condemning murder, while not “biblically” appealing to creation, justice and marriage, for these combine to argue successfully why murder is wrong (i.e. individually or socially unconscionable). SUMMARY: A.M.s target writes rhetorically of a supposed difficult puzzle of ethics and what’s understandable, then A.M. misses his Christian opportunity to write biblically on personal and social conscience which speak of why murder, his “wrongful killing,” is appropriately understood as unconscionable so objectionable, per God’s biblical preoccupation with creation, justice, and marriage. BONUS: A.M.’s target intends “understandable” as “individual or shared aptitude for empathy, granting nuanced or grave differences,” while A.M. portrays his definition of “understandable” as “individual or shared justified empathy granting the Ten Commandments.” So, in this presentation, the target comes-off as potentially empathetic while A.M. comes off as legalistic and this can easily be avoided by defining words at the outset, then appropriately advocating for biblical creation, justice, and marriage, which all appropriately inform why murder is wrong and so ecclesiastical understanding of the human conscience as created beings. www.mpigon.com Mike
The psychology is interesting. Why are establishment politicians more concerned about the life of a rich pro-abortion CEO than, say, slaughtered Palestinian Christians?
Why are you less concerned about this man being gunned down than the death of Palestinians by a foreign regime? Are you suggesting that maybe his death was less tragic than theirs?
The point is, both are tragic but it has never been looked at that way.
@@OkOk-rn7to: Maybe less tragic for unborn children.
Dr. Mohler, you are 100% right. However, this issue isn't about left vs. right. It's about class warfare. People abide by the terms of the contract via the payment of insurance premiums, only to have a souless entity arbitrarily fail to uphold their end of the bargain. Fortunately, so far, I have been blessed by the absence of major health issues. However, I have a dear friend whose wife was in a horrible accident. He and his family have been bankrupted....financially, emotionally, mentally, and I will go as far to say spiritually. They are still fighting the insurance companies. I honor and respect you and hopefully you can at least empathize with those who are suffering on a visceral level. Could two things be true at the same time? Murder by a shot in the back is not a greater travesty than the murder of thousands to maximize shareholder profits?
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable”. ~John F. Kennedy.
>class warfare
marxist detected
Another aspect of the argument is the consider of "What is Justice?" The secular world most often consider justice in term of the sense of injustice. See, for example, Edmond Cahn's "A Sense of Injustice".
The highest level of knowledge would be outstanding, so great that it blows the mind, foolishness to our elemental way of thinking. Even our knowledge is laced with limits, which is also a foolish thing. So our level of knowledge is the spitting image of the highest level. And unlimited knowledge has no edges and so can't be located and looked upon like an empty mind is void of place and hidden.
The founders were strongly against standing armies for very good reasons and fine with hiring private warships (the most technologically advanced weapon of war of the day) to achieve military objectives.
Agree with everything you said. Now. How about the morality of killing a mentally ill, homeless man because people are “afraid” of him? I think too many people, Christians and otherwise, celebrated something that most likely should
never have happened.
Why do you think these people were afraid of him?
He was violently threatening people on the bus, and had a knife.
Murder is a crime. Murder is wrong not just because it is morally wrong judged by man. It is wrong because it is a crime, a violence against God. Human beings are created in God's image. We bear the image of God, killing another human being is a defiance against God's image and against God's creation.
On the other hand, God is love. God is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love. God has emotions. He understands pain and suffering. God the Son suffers with us and feels our pain. The pain is not just physical, it is mental and emotional. Moses was a murderer. God used him to lead Israel out of Egypt, our of slavery.
The suspect in the murder case, how bad or evil his act was aside, he is still a human being, with a marred image of God. What has he experienced? What is he and his family experiencing? These questions go to the family and friends of the victim too. A lot has been impacted. A lot have been exposed, including from the broken insurance system, to broken moral environment, to the ideological state of our country, the impact of social media... depravity of man.
To use this platform to debate this particular murder case and elevate the case to a purely theological and theoretical moral issue is rather... how should I say it politely to a well-respected theologian... it is narrow-minded and cold-hearted. There is a lot to think and debate than academic analysis.
Philosophy is Words
A.M., to win his point, is obligated to define “understandable” prior to negating his target’s use of “understandable” because philosophy is words as their personal or shared definitions, but he doesn’t.
HERE’s WHY: Because the church has mistakenly not popularized God’s three preeminent themes of creation, justice, and marriage, A.M. mistakenly “rhetorically” appeals to God’s ten commandments in condemning murder, while not “biblically” appealing to creation, justice and marriage, for these combine to argue successfully why murder is wrong (i.e. individually or socially unconscionable).
SUMMARY: A.M.s target writes rhetorically of a supposed difficult puzzle of ethics and what’s understandable, then A.M. misses his Christian opportunity to write biblically on personal and social conscience which speak of why murder, his “wrongful killing,” is appropriately understood as unconscionable so objectionable, per God’s biblical preoccupation with creation, justice, and marriage.
BONUS: A.M.’s target intends “understandable” as “individual or shared aptitude for empathy, granting nuanced or grave differences,” while A.M. portrays his definition of “understandable” as “individual or shared justified empathy granting the Ten Commandments.”
So, in this presentation, the target comes-off as potentially empathetic while A.M. comes off as legalistic and this can easily be avoided by defining words at the outset, then appropriately advocating for biblical creation, justice, and marriage, which all appropriately inform why murder is wrong and so ecclesiastical understanding of the human conscience as created beings.
www.mpigon.com
Mike