On the omniscience of God

[Derf]

Did you read if prophets existed before God's creation? Man! are you buddy of those idolaters' judges? sigh*

The point was that God's telling the prophets what He is going to do may not apply to every instance of what He's going to do.

 

[Idolater]

No they are not!

Yes they are the same. Short of miracles (disclaimer), He deals with us through institutions /organizations. Most basic and fundamental such institution is marriage, consisting of pair-bound male and female offices, husband, or man; and wife. You can only hold the office of husband if you're a man. Like priests. You can't "transition" from a woman to a man. You're a woman, you can't hold that office, just like the pope.

The institution of marriage is where children come outta. This is how God adds children to the World, through the institution and concerning offices of marriage.

Marriages make families, another institution. Families are how children are reared, this again is God providing, in this case for the rearing of children, with an institution tasked with satisfying that duty.

The administration of justice is no different. Though as Derf pointed out, even individual private citizens are deputized to administer the death penalty, when we are Americans, living under the Second Amendment, which explicitly acknowledges our God-given and inviolable human right to defend ourselves and our families. We are acting as and with the full force of the state, when we are forced to defend our families through the administration of justice with a privately owned and legal firearm which we can carry on our person (wear).

 

[Clete]

Not so. You better check it in the Bible.

Amos 3:7: God does nothing without revealing his plans to his servants the prophets.

The bible often speaks in generalities that must not be stretched to apply in a woodenly literal manner.

There are countless things that God has done that He never mentioned a whisper of to anyone.

1 Corinthians 2:9 However, as it is written: “What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived”— the things God has prepared for those who love him.​

​

Matthew 24:36 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.​

 

[Clete]

God and Mr. Satan know the past and the present, but about the future, well... the future of humanity and the world has been settled but... God's word will prevail, however... with respect to humanity, the future of eternal life will depend on each individual if making it or not, and for this event won't be by choosing the "winners" by pointing them with his finger, so... perhaps God himself might not know...

You give too much credit, not to mention respect, to "Mr. Satan".

 

[Clete]

Yes they are the same. Short of miracles (disclaimer), He deals with us through institutions /organizations. Most basic and fundamental such institution is marriage, consisting of pair-bound male and female offices, husband, or man; and wife. You can only hold the office of husband if you're a man. Like priests. You can't "transition" from a woman to a man. You're a woman, you can't hold that office, just like the pope.

The institution of marriage is where children come outta. This is how God adds children to the World, through the institution and concerning offices of marriage.

Marriages make families, another institution. Families are how children are reared, this again is God providing, in this case for the rearing of children, with an institution tasked with satisfying that duty.

The administration of justice is no different. Though as Derf pointed out, even individual private citizens are deputized to administer the death penalty, when we are Americans, living under the Second Amendment, which explicitly acknowledges our God-given and inviolable human right to defend ourselves and our families. We are acting as and with the full force of the state, when we are forced to defend our families through the administration of justice with a privately owned and legal firearm which we can carry on our person (wear).

We have the right to defend ourselves whether the government agrees with it or not. Self-defense is not a form of the death penalty. The whole concept of the death penalty implies adjudicated guilt. Even then, the government does not have the moral authority to decide for itself what is or is not a capital crime, nor when or whether a person should or should not be executed, except and only to the extent delegated to it by God, which is a distinction that does not apply to self-defense.

 

[Derf]

We have the right to defend ourselves whether the government agrees with it or not. Self-defense is not a form of the death penalty. The whole concept of the death penalty implies adjudicated guilt.

It might imply it, but it might not. The original call for the death penalty made no mention of it, and the sanctuary cities suggest that it wasn't always adjudicated. In other words, if the perpetrator has to "flee" to the sanctuary city, that suggests the punishment wasn't going to wait for adjudication.

Even then, the government does not have the moral authority to decide for itself what is or is not a capital crime, nor when or whether a person should or should not be executed, except and only to the extent delegated to it by God, which is a distinction that does not apply to self-defense.

And was this spelled out anywhere before the Mosaic law? If not, then would the nations that practiced vengeance by family members without adjudication be held accountable for skipping the adjudication?

 

[Idolater]

We have the right to defend ourselves whether the government agrees with it or not.

We ARE the government. The Constitution is the charter. Whenever we act freely in front of and in full view of policemen, and they leave me be, then the government is endorsing what I am doing, which doesn't mean there's necessarily a law explicitly saying it's authorized (although there are exceptions such as the Second Amendment, where it absolutely does explicitly say it's authorized), it just means there's no law authorizing policemen to punish, pester, penalize me for what I'm doing (or not doing).

It's implicit consent. Political consent. Not necessarily spiritual consent. I might consent politically for you to be an insubordinate Christian (I call you this as a non-Catholic, and without begging the question; but just as the opposite of not begging the question in your favor, I can say this; they're not fighting words), but I do not consent spiritually. I don't support policemen coming to your home to force you to be Catholic, even though there is a side of me, that kind of likes that idea, and thinks that it'd be good for you. But nonetheless I do NOT consent politically with policemen doing that to you.

That's our sense of justice.

Self-defense is not a form of the death penalty.

It's the ONLY justified reason for the death penalty under Catholicism rn. We are not allowed, the Church does not consent, to the administration of the death penalty, for ANY REASON EXCEPT for self-defense.

The whole concept of the death penalty implies adjudicated guilt. Even then, the government does not have the moral authority to decide for itself what is or is not a capital crime

Yes we absolutely do. If not us, who?

ofc you'll say God. ofc. Agreed. But who gets to say what God says? Who has that AUTHORITY?

Us. WE do.

, nor when or whether a person should or should not be executed, except and only to the extent delegated to it by God, which is a distinction that does not apply to self-defense.

Begging the question; supra.

 

[JudgeRightly]

But who gets to say what God says? Who has that AUTHORITY?

Us. WE do.

No, you don't. Because God gave us the Bible.

Those are His words. The Bible is what He said. You don't have authority over those words.

All you have the authority to do is to preach them. You don't have the authority to define them.

Iow: Words have meaning, and you don't get to change their meaning to suit your own purposes.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Not so. You better check it in the Bible.

Amos 3:7: God does nothing without revealing his plans to his servants the prophets.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

 

[Idolater]

No, you don't. Because God gave us the Bible.

Those are His words. The Bible is what He said. You don't have authority over those words.

All you have the authority to do is to preach them. You don't have the authority to define them.

Iow: Words have meaning, and you don't get to change their meaning to suit your own purposes.

No argument. Post stands. Who gets to say what the Bible means? The lesbian pastor of a "church" flying a trans and faggoty flag? A Catholic pope? Pastor Bob? A logic professor? A "theologian"? Who? In all cases: us.

 

[Clete]

We ARE the government.

Delusional

The Constitution is the charter.

Which sets up and defines the parameters of the three branches of that actual government.

Whenever we act freely in front of and in full view of policemen, and they leave me be, then the government is endorsing what I am doing, which doesn't mean there's necessarily a law explicitly saying it's authorized (although there are exceptions such as the Second Amendment, where it absolutely does explicitly say it's authorized), it just means there's no law authorizing policemen to punish, pester, penalize me for what I'm doing (or not doing).

No, that is not what it means. Do you REALLY believe what you've just said here? You're mind is hopelessly muddled. If we are the government, as you just got through claiming, then who needs the policeman to ignore something you (the government) are doing in order for the government (you) to endorse it?

The reality is that there are thousands of laws on our books that leave enforcement of particular infractions to the discretion of the police officer. When a police officer chooses to ignore your speeding, he is not endorsing it, nor is the government. The officer's picking and choosing when and where to enforce speeding laws in written into those (and several other) laws.

It's implicit consent. Political consent. Not necessarily spiritual consent.

It isn't any form of consent whatsoever, not in a legal sense anyway. The same law that allows a cop to ignore you today allows him to throw the book at you tomorrow.

I might consent politically for you to be an insubordinate Christian (I call you this as a non-Catholic, and without begging the question; but just as the opposite of not begging the question in your favor, I can say this; they're not fighting words), but I do not consent spiritually.

You should probably just stop attempting to sound like you know anything about logic or philosophy.

I don't support policemen coming to your home to force you to be Catholic, even though there is a side of me, that kind of likes that idea, and thinks that it'd be good for you. But nonetheless I do NOT consent politically with policemen doing that to you.

The side of you that "kind of likes that idea and thinks that it'd be good for you" is the grossly evil and hideously stupid side of you.

You should be ashamed of yourself!

It is not possible to force anyone to be a Catholic or any other religion, for that matter. You can try to force people to pretend to be a Catholic but that's not the same thing. (i.e. in actual fact, it is very nearly the same thing. What's the real difference between believing in Santa Claus and only pretending to believe in Santa Claus? Not much, really!)

That's our sense of justice.

Justice is not a matter of opinion.

We definitely do recognize justice on an intuitive level when we see it but that isn't what makes something just.

It's the ONLY justified reason for the death penalty under Catholicism rn.

One more way in which Catholicism contradicts and ignores the biblical teaching.

We are not allowed, the Church does not consent, to the administration of the death penalty, for ANY REASON EXCEPT for self-defense.

Because you're wiser than God?

Yes we absolutely do.

No, we ABSOLUTELY do not!

If not us, who?

GOD!

There is a God, Idolater! You aren't Him!

ofc you'll say God. ofc. Agreed. But who gets to say what God says? Who has that AUTHORITY?

The scripture! That's a major reason why the bible exists and why you are without excuse!

You don't even bother to find out what God says in His word! You DO NOT care what He says and would disagree with it if you found out!

Us. WE do.

Foolish, humanistic, evil stupidity!

The exact and practical opposite of a biblical worldview!

Begging the question; supra.

You're a buffoon!

Every time I've ever seen you use the phrase "question begging" you've made yourself look like an idiot. You literally do not know what you are talking about and aren't even making any attempt to understand what you're pretending to refute.

 

[Idolater]

I don't have to make a case that you're being hyperbolic when you've made it so plain for everyone yourself. You're not a serious user at TOL Clete. That makes you a troll. No other option.

 

[JudgeRightly]

No argument. Post stands.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Who gets to say what the Bible means? The lesbian pastor of a "church" flying a trans and faggoty flag? A Catholic pope? Pastor Bob? A logic professor? A "theologian"? Who? In all cases: us.

No.

Logic and reason.
The Bible says what it says.
The Bible is not of private interpretation.

Both of which come from God.

Unless you're claiming to be completely objective in all you say and do?

And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

Bible Gateway passage: 2 Peter 1:19-21 - New King James Version

And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of...

www.biblegateway.com

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Bible Gateway passage: 2 Timothy 3:16-17 - New King James Version

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

www.biblegateway.com

No one but God gets to say what it means.

 

[inthebeginning]

The point was that God's telling the prophets what He is going to do may not apply to every instance of what He's going to do.

Before the flood Noah was practically God's prophet. Moses became God's prophet at the time of Exodus. The reminder that God will use prophets before a great event is observed in several places of the scriptures. And you are correct, no messages will be sent just for every move from God, however, if a great calamity is on its way let's see how God announces it. If that happens and a prophet of God shows up with a warning, then better to be men of Ninive rather than men before the flood.

 

[inthebeginning]

It seems to me that you guys are more or less talking past one another because one's response is formulated from a different paradigm than what it being responded too.

Criminal justice is about just that, JUSTICE! God has given it to the governing official to enforce justice - not vengeance (not in the sense that the word is commonly used, anyway). The difference being that the later is performed emotionally, even arbitrarily, where the later is performed dispassionately and with clear intention after the facts have been clearly established before a disinterested third party (i.e. a judge with no conflicts of interest). The point being there, not that vengeance is evil per se but simply that if we are permitted to take vengeance, we'll screw it up and innocent people will be getting murdered, which would counter productive and lead to more death, not less.

As for the method of punishment, the government could very well decide to collect a bunch of CONVICTED pedophiles into a condemned building and blow it up with the convicted criminals inside. It could just as easily run them all off of a cliff. The bible does not condone torture but short of that, whatever works!

The problem with the idea of a mass execution of pedophiles is that in a society that actually executed those who had been convicted of such crimes, there wouldn't be enough pedophiles around to fill a building with them. The hypothetical could only ever exist within a society that would never execute a pedophile at all. A society that starts putting pedophiles on trial and quickly executing those convicted of the crime would very quickly find itself free of not only pedophiles but of homosexuals in general. They would either all leave to find a more tolerant (of evil) society to live in or they'd stop committing their sexual crimes.

In easy terms, to me justice applies to punish a crime with equal punishment, as declared in a passage of the Bible. On the other hand, vengeance is to punish a crime with a punishment at the will of the victim or offended, this can reach acts without limitation.

Example: I see in Moses an act of vengeance, because the Egyptian was smiting an Hebrew, Moses didn't see him killing an Hebrew. However, with premeditation and treachery Moses waited no one was around and slew the Egyptian and hid the cadaver in the sand.

Justice was Moses smiting the Egyptian and let him go, vengeance was to kill the Egyptian and hid him in the sand with intentions of hiding his crime. Intentional or not, Moses committed a crime not so an act of justice.

 

[Clete]

I don't have to make a case that you're being hyperbolic when you've made it so plain for everyone yourself. You're not a serious user at TOL Clete. That makes you a troll. No other option.

Good bye.

 

[Clete]

In easy terms, to me justice applies to punish a crime with equal punishment, as declared in a passage of the Bible.

I do not care what justice is "to you"!

It is not a matter of opinion.

On the other hand, vengeance is to punish a crime with a punishment at the will of the victim or offended, this can reach acts without limitation.

You just now, in the sentence IMMEDIATELY prior to this, said that your opinion had something to do with the bible.

Which parts of the bible do you read and which do you ignore?

Maybe read the following....

Deuteronomy 32:35 Vengeance is Mine, and recompense; Their foot shall slip in due time; For the day of their calamity is at hand, And the things to come hasten upon them.’​

​

Deuteronomy 32:41 If I whet My glittering sword, And My hand takes hold on judgment, I will render vengeance to My enemies, And repay those who hate Me.​

​

Romans 12:19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord.​

​

Hebrews 10:30 For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The Lord will judge His people.”​

​

Capital punishment is NOT about vengeance, at least not directly.

Example: I see in Moses an act of vengeance, because the Egyptian was smiting an Hebrew, Moses didn't see him killing an Hebrew. However, with premeditation and treachery Moses waited no one was around and slew the Egyptian and hid the cadaver in the sand.

Justice was Moses smiting the Egyptian and let him go, vengeance was to kill the Egyptian and hid him in the sand with intentions of hiding his crime. Intentional or not, Moses committed a crime not so an act of justice.

Whether any of that is valid has nothing to do with it being your opinion or because of what you do or do not see.

No one cares what your personal opinions are. Make an argument. Risk being right and take a stand on something more firm than something as thin and flimsy as personal opinions.