Moderateman Moderateman

Do You Believe?

▼

Do You Believe?

I mean truly Believe!

from JoeUser Forums

I bet most of you that clicked on this thought this was going to be another G-d article or another in a long line of Jesus freak articles. WRONG on both counts.

My question is really a simple one.

Can a man kill another man in a fight and be considered a good man and citizen if this man has never broken any laws for 40 years since then? This man has raised a family, instilled in them a respect for G-ds law and mans law but is not sorry in the least for the killing.

life
16,819 views 74 replies
Reply #26 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting SanChonino, reply 24
So the fact that he has instilled respect for the law both G-ds and mans law in his children and has lived a life of no crime in any way for forty years in your eyes he is still a criminal?Of course he's still a criminal. Did he commit a crime? Then he is a criminal.But that doesn't mean that criminals are bad people. Was Rosa Parks a bad person for breaking segregation laws? No. She was simply a criminal.
End of SanChonino's quote

Thank you for your opinion.

Reply #27 from Stardock Forums Top

Sincce so many people are clamoring for more details I will add this.

In the fight they were both unarmed, no weapons of any kind were used.

Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
Can a man kill another man in a fight and be considered a good man and citizen if this man has never broken any laws for 40 years since then? This man has raised a family, instilled in them a respect for G-ds law and mans law but is not sorry in the least for the killing.
End of quote


Yes, he's still a criminal. But there are to many variables and unknowns to be able to answer this intelligently.

I'm bothered by the fact he has no remorse. What if this were your son that was killed MM? Would it make a diff in your answer especially given the fact he's not sorry he killed him?

Moses did exactly what you wrote here, including raising a family for 40 years. with one exception He had remorse.


Reply #29 from Stardock Forums Top

It would depend.

I would disagee with his action of killing a man, but it's not my place to judge him; it would be up to the law and God. I would still view him as a fellow being.

 

~SP

Reply #30 from Stardock Forums Top

Geeze I am simply asking for a simple opinion, YOUR OPINION, NOT SOCIETIES OPINION, NOT A LEGAL OPINION, NOT A RELIGIOUS OPINION1 YOUR PERSONAL LIFE OPINION. HOW YOU AS A MAN OR WOMAN FEEL ABOUT THE SUBJECT! Stop making this so damn complicated. your opinion is all I am asking for, how you feel about the subject with the facts presented. YOU! not your wife, or husband or mothers or father. YOURS!!!!

Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes, he could be a good man. I don't know his motivations or why he doesn't feel remorseful, but it could be that there is a genuinely valid reason for why he feels he was in the right.

I would also say that in the situation where there is a fight, sometimes the outcome is bizarre. I have read stories of teens where one punched the other and the way the child who was punched fell killed him. Now the kid who struck the blow is a murderer, but all he did was punch the other kid...which isn't something so out of the ordinary or disturbing. A seemingly harmless fight can have a horrific and unexpected outcome.

Good citizen? Depends on if there was legal punishment required and if he managed to wrongly escape that punishment or if he fulfilled his obligations regarding his crime.

A lot of people do awful things in a moment of passion. A good person takes responsibility and doesn't continue to (intentionally) do awful things.

Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
Okay...

1. If the man killed the other man in a fight in defense of his life or safety or in the defense of another's life or safety then yes, he would be considered a good man.

2. If the man killed the other man while trying to commit another felony crime (i.e. robbery, burglary, sexual assault, etc.) against the other in a fight and, especially if he is not "sorry in the least," then no he is not a good man.

3. If it was just a regular bar room variety type brawl and the man did intentionally cause the death of the other man, and especially if he is not "sorry in the least," then no he is not a good man.

4. If it was just a regular bar room variety brawl and the man did not intentionally cause the death of the other man but, since he is not "sorry in the least", then no he is not a good man.

That's what I believe if I had to make such a judgment.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

I think that though the man is still a criminal (unless it was self-defense), he is not evil simply for his actions, other than his innate sinful nature.

Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes, a hypothetical person can still be a good person under those circumstances, but referring to a specific person I'd need to know more about them. I was always taught not to judge other people, but hypothetically yes, sure he can be a good person.
Reply #35 from Stardock Forums Top

Lots of interesting opinions happening here, would sure like to see the other 200 Plus people that viewed this article to speak up.

Reply #36 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting Texas, reply 31
Yes, he could be a good man. I don't know his motivations or why he doesn't feel remorseful, but it could be that there is a genuinely valid reason for why he feels he was in the right. I would also say that in the situation where there is a fight, sometimes the outcome is bizarre. I have read stories of teens where one punched the other and the way the child who was punched fell killed him. Now the kid who struck the blow is a murderer, but all he did was punch the other kid...which isn't something so out of the ordinary or disturbing. A seemingly harmless fight can have a horrific and unexpected outcome.Good citizen? Depends on if there was legal punishment required and if he managed to wrongly escape that punishment or if he fulfilled his obligations regarding his crime.A lot of people do awful things in a moment of passion. A good person takes responsibility and doesn't continue to (intentionally) do awful things.
End of Texas's quote

He "paid" for the crime by doing time, loys of time. remember he never committed another crime again and instilled respect for the law both G-Ds and mans law into his children.

Reply #37 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting RoyLevosh, reply 32
Okay...1. If the man killed the other man in a fight in defense of his life or safety or in the defense of another's life or safety then yes, he would be considered a good man.2. If the man killed the other man while trying to commit another felony crime (i.e. robbery, burglary, sexual assault, etc.) against the other in a fight and, especially if he is not "sorry in the least," then no he is not a good man.3. If it was just a regular bar room variety type brawl and the man did intentionally cause the death of the other man, and especially if he is not "sorry in the least," then no he is not a good man.4. If it was just a regular bar room variety brawl and the man did not intentionally cause the death of the other man but, since he is not "sorry in the least", then no he is not a good man.That's what I believe if I had to make such a judgment.
End of RoyLevosh's quote

Geeze joe could you hedge your comments just a little more?:d

Reply #38 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting erathoniel, reply 33
I think that though the man is still a criminal (unless it was self-defense), he is not evil simply for his actions, other than his innate sinful nature.
End of erathoniel's quote

How could you say he has a "sinful nature" ? did you even read the entire article?

Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
He "paid" for the crime by doing time, loys of time.
End of quote


doing time, means to pay for his crime with his own time being given up. He did not do that. In that case we all do lots of time even if we didn't create a criminal act. He went on with life per usual just like the rest of us making sure he kept clean the rest of his time, but that doesn't mean he "paid" anything. It should be a life for a life (whether that means capitol punishment or time in prison) unless it's self defense or accidental.

How could you say he has a "sinful nature
End of quote


who doesn't have a sinful nature?


Reply #40 from Stardock Forums Top

KFC Kickin For Christ on Jul 26, 2008 He "paid" for the crime by doing time, lots of time. doing time, means to pay for his crime with his own time being given up. He did not do that. In that case we all do lots of time even if we didn't create a criminal act. He went on with life per usual just like the rest of us making sure he kept clean the rest of his time, but that doesn't mean he "paid" anything. It should be a life for a life (whether that means capitol punishment or time in prison) unless it's self defense or accidental.
End of quote

Not very, "CHRISTIAN" OF YOU. if a court of law decided his punishment was 10 years lets say for the sake of a point, and the man served ALL TEN YEARS a court of law would say his debt to society was paid, yes? no? Now then he picked up his life, got married, changed the way he thought about life, had children taught them to respect man and G-ds law, in essence to be good people themselves, {he taught them by example}, yet YOU A "CHRISTIAN" are unforgiving, now you know why I call Christians full of shit!

 

How could you say he has a "sinful nature who doesn't have a sinful nature?
End of quote

NO! you will not turn this into a religious forum for you to spout your religious hypocrisy!

 

Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
Not very, "CHRISTIAN" OF YOU. if a court of law decided his punishment was 10 years lets say for the sake of a point, and the man served ALL TEN YEARS a court of law would say his debt to society was paid, yes?
End of quote


Yes. Why isn't it Christian to believe this way?

yet YOU A "CHRISTIAN" are unforgiving, now you know why I call Christians full of shit!
End of quote


Who says I'm unforgiving? To forgive and to to hold one accountable are two diff acts. I can forgive at the same time as hold one accountable for his actions.

Let's go to the Jewish OT scriptures to prove the point. David committed horrible acts of adultery and murder. God forgave him yet also held him accountable. The firstborn son of his with Bathsheba died as a result of his sin.

Adam and Eve. They sinned against God. God forgave them, clothed them even but did not let them off the hook. They were banished from a perfect lovely garden forever.

Cain killed Abel yet God forgave him and made him also to pay his debt by making him a vagabond and separated him from his family.

I can see you have animosity towards me MM for my opinions so I won't bother you again.


Reply #42 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting KFC, reply 41
Not very, "CHRISTIAN" OF YOU. if a court of law decided his punishment was 10 years lets say for the sake of a point, and the man served ALL TEN YEARS a court of law would say his debt to society was paid, yes?Yes. Why isn't it Christian to believe this way? yet YOU A "CHRISTIAN" are unforgiving, now you know why I call Christians full of shit!Who says I'm unforgiving? To forgive and to to hold one accountable are two diff acts. I can forgive at the same time as hold one accountable for his actions. Let's go to the Jewish OT scriptures to prove the point. David committed horrible acts of adultery and murder. God forgave him yet also held him accountable. The firstborn son of his with Bathsheba died as a result of his sin. Adam and Eve. They sinned against God. God forgave them, clothed them even but did not let them off the hook. They were banished from a perfect lovely garden forever. Cain killed Abel yet God forgave him and made him also to pay his debt by making him a vagabond and separated him from his family. I can see you have animosity towards me MM for my opinions so I won't bother you again.
End of KFC's quote

No animosity, I just will not let you turn this blog about this subject into a religious platform.

something you do all the time BTW on many many other blogs.

 

Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
No animosity, I just will not let you turn this blog about this subject into a religious platform.
End of quote


I was responding to Erath's and your comments #33 & #38 with my answer in #39.... and I said less than the two of you did MM. I feel like you jumped on me with no provocation. I was doing no such thing of turning this blog into a religious blog with my responses.

Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
A single act doesn't determine whether one is a good man or not. It's the accumulation of his life's acts. Everyone, every single person, has made mistakes. Mistakes do not make one a bad person, merely human.

So, I would have to say yes, he can still be considered a good man. In my opinion 40 years of good far outweighs a single act of bad.
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top

So the fact that he has instilled respect for the law both G-ds and mans law in his children and has lived a life of no crime in any way for forty years in your eyes he is still a criminal?
End of quote

 

The fact he commited a crime, escaped justice and has shown no remorse nor asked his G-d for fogiveness makes him a criminal.

 

IG

 

Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
The fact he commited a crime, escaped justice
End of quote


Those are not facts, just your interpretation.
Reply #47 from Stardock Forums Top

He killed a man. That is a crime and in general a no-no in certain faiths.

Whether he was justified in the act is a matter for the courts. And until that is determined he is a criminal.

IG

 

 

Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
He killed a man. That is a crime
End of quote


Not always. He does not give the circumstances, and there are many where it would not be a crime.

Not all homicides are crimes. How many cops go to court for killing a suspect? How many GIs end up in court when engaged in a fire fight? And on and on.

As I said, he did not give the circumstances. You just assumed what you call facts, but since there is insufficient data to corroborate your assumptions, they are just your opinion, not facts.
Reply #49 from Stardock Forums Top

True, but even if cop shoots someone there is an investigation and the coip, while not arrested is under some suspicion until the investigation is taken place.

Without an investigation, juistified or not the assault onthe man alone is a crime.

 

 

Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
Without an investigation
End of quote


He did not say there was no investigation. That was part of the point. The lack of details. We are left to then take it on face value (and leave the questions unanswered) or to assume details not stated, or provide our own conditions. many did.

I chose to look at it as a universal question. And answered that way. Just as the question was not a blanket amnesty to all who had committed homicide, neither was my answer a blanket condoning of all who had. Only that yes, I can see where a man who has killed another, is 1 - not condemned by that one action as an absolute, and 2 - that what a man did 40 years ago is no indication of who he is today.